G
GKC
Guest
I know. Those I would think bear more the bloodlines of the Ritualists than the Tractarians, both of which movements form what we know in modernity as Anglo-Catholics.
GKC
- Status
GKC
Y
Yeoman
Guest
While I’m not familiar with those terms, it was more those groups that my original question pertained to (which has been answered in this thread). As there are Anglo Catholics who brief in an all male priesthood, this seemingly adds an added level of difficulty for them within the Anglican Communion.
G
GKC
Guest
Anglo-Catholicism. as it was to be found up to, say, 40 years ago, in Anglicanism, grew from the double movement of the Tractarians/Oxford Group, the 1830s movement, and the Ritualist movement of about 15 years later, which was the second wave of Anglo-Catholicism. The first emphasized the continuity of the CoE with the undivided Church, doctrinally, the second emphasized the use of liturgy and ritual. The two formed classic Anglo-Catholicism. By suggesting that those A-Cs who find female ordination to be acceptable. let alone obligatory, derive more from the second wave, I’m suggesting they may follow the liturgy/ritual, but are not likely to be seen as following the doctrine that was formative in Anglo-Catholicism.
Those of any doctrinal position whatsoever within official Anglicanism, whether evangelical/reformed, or strident A-C, who oppose the idea of female ordination, face a range of difficulties in remaining. Yet, some do. And yes, some who consider themselves A-C favor the idea.
GKC
S
seanman611
Guest
This post is largely correct as far as the Episcopal Church goes, but not entirely. There are still some Anglo-Catholic parishes that refuse to have a female priest and they have remained with the Episcopal Church. There are also some parishes that are not Anglo-Catholic that do not allow female priests. I even know of one Anglo-Catholic parish that held a gay blessing, but refuses to have a female priest…motley indeed.
Also, unless something has changed and it might have, the Episcopal diocese of Dallas does not ordain women to the priesthood. That was the case at least in 2006, but I haven’t heard anymore about it since then. The former Episcopal dioceses of San Joaquin and Quincy were also holdouts, but once the issue started to be forced on them to comply, they left the Episcopal Church for the ACNA (which has women priests, but not bishops). Last I heard, the ACNA was studying the issue of women’s ordination. The continuing Anglican churches do not ordain women as that is the main reason they left the Episcopal Church back in the 70s to the early 80s.
As far as the RCC goes, they are not discriminating against women by not ordaining them. The RCC does not believe it is possible for a women to be ordained, even if they wanted to do it. I remember reading a comment from a RCC priest or bishop that said he would love for women to be able to serve in the priesthood, but it just isn’t possible to ordain a woman to the priesthood as only a male can be validly ordained. Thus, it is not about desire or discrimination, but it is about what is possible and what is not possible.
G
GKC
Guest
Do not know what the Episcopal diocese of Dallas does, but I strongly suspect it ordains females (as it supposes). I never heard that that diocese had any hesitation in doing so. The former diocese of Fort Worth, under +Iker, OTOH, left TEC for primarily that reason, +Iker ordaining only to the diaconate. Fort Worth joined the two dioceses you mentioned, and that of Pittsburgh, in leaving TEC and joining the ACNA. Not sure what the remnant TEC dioceses in those areas do (TEC/Quincy has alternate episcopal oversight, I think) , but if they don’t ordain females (as they suppose), I would be astounded. They have gotten with the program. As you mention, the ACNA is contemplating the issue, ++ Duncan having been for females in vestments, +Iker heading the opposition. What ++Beach will say, I don’t know.
The former TEC diocese of South Carolina has also left TEC, but not over the ordination issue.
GKC
S
seanman611
Guest
That’s correct, I was thinking of the diocese of Ft. Worth and they have since left. It is also correct that all dioceses currently ordain women to the priesthood, while there are still individual parishes that are holding out. The diocese of Dallas was strongly divided on the issue, but have gave in at some point.
The issue of women’s ordination should serve as a reminder that nothing remains optional in the Episcopal Church. The traditionalists that stayed when women’s ordination was presented were promised to have their views respected. However, it eventually became mandatory. The same will happen with same-sex blessings IMO. When that happens, I suspect that the remaining traditionalist dioceses will leave. It amazes me that a church with an average Sunday attendance of just over 600,000 and, if trends continue, will have an average Sunday attendance of almost 0 in a matter of decades, could continue on this crazy course. I imagine a full ELCA/TEC merger is on the horizon.
S
steido01
Guest
Yep.
If it weren’t so sad, it’d be amusing, in a macabre sort of way. What would the new group be called? It’s hardly evangelical in any sense of the word, certainly not Lutheran in doctrine, and although it possesses an episcopacy, it’s difficult to consider it ‘church’ in the orthodox sense. All that’s left is… that it dies in America.
S
seanman611
Guest
Agreed. Whatever it is called, I too hope they drop the denomination specific names. However, I suspect something like Episcopal-Lutheran Church of America or Evangelical Episcopal Church or something to that effect. Considering how little difference there is these days between mainline denominations, I wish they’d all just merge together and call themselves the United Church. Mainline churches merging is a forgone conclusion at this point.Yep.
If it weren’t so sad, it’d be amusing, in a macabre sort of way. What would the new group be called? It’s hardly evangelical in any sense of the word, certainly not Lutheran in doctrine, and although it possesses an episcopacy, it’s difficult to consider it ‘church’ in the orthodox sense. All that’s left is… that it dies in America.
I
Indifferently
Guest
I am an Anglican. The only things I am sure of is that God’s Word is clear, and that sin is messy, and that there are no easy answers to these difficult questions. I’m growing to believe that egalitarianism is our generation’s major heresy, and that a robust complementarian consensus must emerge, and must decisively break fellowship with those who confess this error. How this will work out in the practice of my own life, I don’t yet know.
G
GKC
Guest
C
commenter
Guest
You certainly have my prayers for this.
Y
Yeoman
Guest
Having gotten the ball rolling here, I have a follow up question that I’m curious about. If these questions are annoying or seem irreverent, I do not mean them to be, so my apologies there.
The question is this. For Anglo Catholics not in communion with Rome, how do you conceive of your church? Do you conceive of something analogous to the Great Schism as having taken place, and that your church is therefore somewhat similar in position to the Orthodox, in its relationship with the Catholic church?
For those in the Anglican Communion who are not Anglo Catholics, do you view yourselves in that fashion as well, or as something more Protestant?
Again, if offense was offered, I sure didn’t mean to.
The question is this. For Anglo Catholics not in communion with Rome, how do you conceive of your church? Do you conceive of something analogous to the Great Schism as having taken place, and that your church is therefore somewhat similar in position to the Orthodox, in its relationship with the Catholic church?
For those in the Anglican Communion who are not Anglo Catholics, do you view yourselves in that fashion as well, or as something more Protestant?
Again, if offense was offered, I sure didn’t mean to.
K
kathmandu
Guest
I am not sure what you mean by “Anglo Catholic.” Could you define Anglo Catholic? Thanks.
G
GKC
Guest
Yes. More or less.
No offense taken, but you are kind to be concerned. It is very, very difficult to get me to take offense. Though I suspect, over the years, some have tried. Waste of time.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
You know, all this head-shaking or chortling or chortling disguised as head-shaking just isn’t connected to the reality of the Episcopal parishes I’ve been part of. Actually the more liberal ones, in my experience, are doing relatively well (I have never been part of a really liberal parish–what I have in mind are parishes that are middle of the road to moderately conservative as now defined, who would have been middle of the road to moderately liberal before the ACNA split). The one parish I’ve been part of where there was real worry about numbers was my parish in Indiana, largely because it was a conservative parish in a very conservative town, so 2003 hit it hard. My wife’s parish (in which I’m also somewhat involved, even as I attend RCIA and wonder if I shouldn’t just go back toward my heritage and become Methodist. . . . ) seems pretty happy and prosperous. Young people in their 20s are drawn to it precisely because of the combination of traditional worship, fairly solid, basic creedal orthodoxy, and social liberalism. The Episcopal Church isn’t dying. When everything shakes out it will be smaller than it used to be, and maybe less elitist and arrogant (one can hope), but very much a live option that meets some people’s spiritual needs. You don’t need to criticize the subjectivism of that last phrase. I’m describing, not advocating.Yep.
If it weren’t so sad, it’d be amusing, in a macabre sort of way. What would the new group be called? It’s hardly evangelical in any sense of the word, certainly not Lutheran in doctrine, and although it possesses an episcopacy, it’s difficult to consider it ‘church’ in the orthodox sense. All that’s left is… that it dies in America.
Also, if anything the trend in the Episcopal Church right now is toward creedal orthodoxy. The Spong version of Episcopalianism really is dying, I think (but just as with the statements I criticized above, this may be wishful thinking on my part!).
Edwin
S
steido01
Guest
This is heartening, thank you for sharing!
I assure you, my black humor was not, in any way, intended as “chortling.” Packers fans try particularly hard not to chortle. It’s bad luck; just Ask Vic.
No, I assure you that my despair for the church catholic, whether in Anglicanism or Lutheranism, is quite genuine. My experience with Anglican and Lutheran bodies has been mostly with the Lutheran side, and almost exclusively with liberal parishes. I could write a new Book of Lamentations with what I’ve witnessed, but my observations are only anecdotal, like yours. I think generally agree with you, and what happens within Anglicanism is being, and will continue to be, mirrored in Lutheranism. For survival, the liberal wings will merge together into a doctrine-less body that is rejected by a great many Christians because it is neither hot nor cold, while the more confessional/conservative/traditional groups will go their own ways and continue to be successful at proclaiming the Word.
B
boar2roar
Guest
I still strongly believe that the amount of anglo catholics in the CoE is way overstated and even those who consider themselves that aren’t really compatible with catholicism. The previous Canterbury leader Rowan was considered a leader of the anglo catholic wing and he supported women bishops which is pretty telling that even among those who consider themselves anglo catholics only a tiny minority are actually truly catholic in belief. Honestly by the time they started ordaining female priest all serious Catholics that care about things like direct decent would have probably have left by then. By now there might be a small amount left but they are currently at the status of Episcopalians who are anti abortion or polygamous mormons, kind of living relics in a changed organization.
B
boar2roar
Guest
It is dying very quickly and the statistics back that up you can read more about that on pew or other sources you’re personal experience is unique and doesn’t reflect the stark reality.
The problem with the liberal church model is that young people tend not to stay as liberal Christians, thats generally what older people are. Young socially liberal people tend to go all the way and become non practicing agnostic or very often atheist. This approach has been tried in places like Sweden, Denmark, and Epispocalians here. In all those places church numbers are abysmal and young people are nowhere to be seen. If you are going to stress a liberal doctrine then getting people to attend a boring social gathering with no incentives doesn’t attract young people.
- Status