Anglican bishop lays mitre, crozier at our lady?s feet as he leaves for ordinariate [ewtn]

[JohnnyReb]

The thing is, to recognize more than one Bishop in a given area is a problem. The Orthodox are dealing with it in NA now, and it is messy, but they know that it i a serious problem. If Canterbury just recognized all these groups, it would only be creating the problem for themselves.

Indeed. I know at our parish, we pray for the church, including the Archbishop of Canterbury. But here’s the catch, its not Rowan…I guess some continuing groups have set up their own hierarchy?

And as it stands, all of them do not, in my view, have compatible doctrines, so it would do nothing to help the problem that the Anglican idea of being in communion is pretty meaningless at the moment.

What makes each of the groups incompatible? Do you mind talking about that some more? Does it go beyond some being Anglo Catholic, others being more Evangelical? My thinking is moving toward my old Pentecostal tradition, where there were multiple denominations that have differing views on soteriology that were mutually exclusive, but considered each other sister denominations.

I think you are right - a good start would be for the conservative Anglicans to get themselves into some kind of order. Right now they are like a bunch of little non-denoms that happen to have Bishops, ready to split off at any provocation. It’s this kind of thing that makes me think that the Eastern understanding of validity may be better, and true. It seems any crazy lot can get a bishop with valid orders these days. Does that mean that they are the Church?

Order is badly needed, not necessarily merging of denominations, but maybe some kind of board or council would be suffiicient so that the groups could cooperate in some form. I but it could be frustrating researching to see if a priests orders are “valid” or not.

 

[GKC]

Indeed. I know at our parish, we pray for the church, including the Archbishop of Canterbury. But here’s the catch, its not Rowan…I guess some continuing groups have set up their own hierarchy?

What makes each of the groups incompatible? Do you mind talking about that some more? Does it go beyond some being Anglo Catholic, others being more Evangelical? My thinking is moving toward my old Pentecostal tradition, where there were multiple denominations that have differing views on soteriology that were mutually exclusive, but considered each other sister denominations.

Order is badly needed, not necessarily merging of denominations, but maybe some kind of board or council would be suffiicient so that the groups could cooperate in some form. I but it could be frustrating researching to see if a priests orders are “valid” or not.

You think there’s a pretender to ++Cantuar, somewhere amongst the Continuum? Never heard that, myself.

GKC

 

[Alexander_Roman]

What would a Catholic word be then?

Fr Duddleswell followed up by saying, “Just say CREDO or I believe to everything the Pope says!”

Alex

 

[JohnnyReb]

You think there’s a pretender to ++Cantuar, somewhere amongst the Continuum? Never heard that, myself.

GKC

Could have been a misprint in the paper they handed out as well, I will look at it. It seemed strange to me too. Let me get back to you guys on this. Oh, and my computer got a virus that I am working on, so my online access is limited to when I can get to a computer.

 

[Bluegoat]

Indeed. I know at our parish, we pray for the church, including the Archbishop of Canterbury. But here’s the catch, its not Rowan…I guess some continuing groups have set up their own hierarchy?

Weird!

What makes each of the groups incompatible? Do you mind talking about that some more? Does it go beyond some being Anglo Catholic, others being more Evangelical? My thinking is moving toward my old Pentecostal tradition, where there were multiple denominations that have differing views on soteriology that were mutually exclusive, but considered each other sister denominations.

Calvinism. Women’s ordination. The nature of the priesthood/lay presidency. Essentially, if the vicar in the other church, whomever he is, can’t fill in for your vicar when he has the flu, you aren’t in communion, in my view.

Order is badly needed, not necessarily merging of denominations, but maybe some kind of board or council would be suffiicient so that the groups could cooperate in some form. I but it could be frustrating researching to see if a priests orders are “valid” or not.

If they stay a bunch of disparate groups, they are never going to be anything other than tiny little blips. I don’t think a board would do the job - they would still have to agree on the important points, and if they are all “the Church” then they shouldn’t normally have overlapping jurisdictions. I think either one group will be the winner and stand next to TEC as an alternate form of Anglicanism, possibly replacing it in the AC, or they will all die out. In which case classical Anglicanism, at least in the West, will exist only in the Roman Church or in the Western Orthodox Church.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Weird!

Yes, that is why I have to look at it more. I am assuming it was a mistake.

Calvinism. Women’s ordination. The nature of the priesthood/lay presidency. Essentially, if the vicar in the other church, whomever he is, can’t fill in for your vicar when he has the flu, you aren’t in communion, in my view.

I think each of these issues must be taken individually. WO is problematic, but each group has found away, some better than others, of dealing with the issue. ACNA ignored it at first and now its coming back to bite them. AIMA ordains women only to the deaconate. Of course, more evangelical braches embrace Calvinism, whereas the Anglo-Catholics do not. I like alot of the 39 articles but I would throw up in my mouth if became a 5 pointer.

f they stay a bunch of disparate groups, they are never going to be anything other than tiny little blips. I don’t think a board would do the job - they would still have to agree on the important points, and if they are all “the Church” then they shouldn’t normally have overlapping jurisdictions.

Yes, they do need some agreement. I wouldn’t deny that. What are those points though?

I think either one group will be the winner and stand next to TEC as an alternate form of Anglicanism, possibly replacing it in the AC, or they will all die out. In which case classical Anglicanism, at least in the West, will exist only in the Roman Church or in the Western Orthodox Church.

Well this is where faith comes in. If we believe that conservative anglicans are doing Gods will in order to remain faithful to his truth, God will honor that. TEC has abandoned much of the Gospel and is on its way to becoming an Apostate church. I hear many TEC parishes are losing members, where as continuing Anglicans continue to grow. Not a coincidence.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think each of these issues must be taken individually. WO is problematic, but each group has found away, some better than others, of dealing with the issue. ACNA ignored it at first and now its coming back to bite them. AIMA ordains women only to the deaconate. Of course, more evangelical braches embrace Calvinism, whereas the Anglo-Catholics do not. I like alot of the 39 articles but I would throw up in my mouth if became a 5 pointer.

Yes, I think the only thing I would emphasize is that it has to be real agreement about the paramaters allowed, not just ignoring it. The idea that some can have female priests and bishops, and others not, just doesn’t work. You can pretend it’s ok for a bit, but what do you do when a priest from the next diocese, who was ordained by a woman, wants to move into your diocese?

Yes, they do need some agreement. I wouldn’t deny that. What are those points though?

The ones I stated are biggies to my mind - women’s ordination, the role of the priest and the nature of the episcopacy, and Calvinism. Also I think how orthodoxy is maintained in the group, and I also think liturgy is an issue.

Well this is where faith comes in. If we believe that conservative anglicans are doing Gods will in order to remain faithful to his truth, God will honor that. TEC has abandoned much of the Gospel and is on its way to becoming an Apostate church. I hear many TEC parishes are losing members, where as continuing Anglicans continue to grow. Not a coincidence.

Maybe. It could be that an Anglican tradition within one of those groups is pleasing to God. Or alternately that he isn’t interested in the particular cultural traditions being maintained at all.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Yes, I think the only thing I would emphasize is that it has to be real agreement about the paramaters allowed, not just ignoring it. The idea that some can have female priests and bishops, and others not, just doesn’t work. You can pretend it’s ok for a bit, but what do you do when a priest from the next diocese, who was ordained by a woman, wants to move into your diocese?

I think Gurney pointed out that this is already causing problems in the ACNA, precisely because they chose to ignore their disagreements about WO, and now that those disagreements are coming to the surface, its come back to bite them. That is why I live AMIA’s position and handling on the matter-at least a solution is reached. The issue is would others go along? Would the pro-WO crowd say its too restricting of women, would the anti-WO crowd say it gives too much ground?

While neither of us is a fan of pure Calvinism, what I am observing is that the ordinariates are appealing to many Anglo-Catholics, but they aren’t appealing to those who are more influenced by reformed thought and the 39 articles. This seems like a logical conclusion to me that it would play out that way. Perhaps that will help handle the problem as more Catholic minded Anglicans head to Rome. However, what of those who are not ready to embrace Rome, but are less inclined to embrace reformed thought?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It was mentioned that AMIA Anglicanism does not allow women’s ordination save for the diaconate. That’s not entirely accurate, unfortunately. The AMIA is divided into parts. The Canadian and American coalitions (ACIC and ACIA) both ordain women priests now! These are factions within AMIA. So AMIA talks out of both sides of its mouth.

AMIA was very, very strongly against WO just a couple of years ago. They did an exhaustive study and report about women’s ordination and came to the resounding conclusion that WO’s is the bunk and it needed to be scrapped!

What’s weird about AMIA is that they effectively “dropped out” of the ACNA already. They decided to just be “ministry partners” with ACNA which is kind of bizarre and wishy-washy in the Anglican tradition!

I think AMIA pulling out of ACNA is a bad sign…clouds are coming. WO is going to be the epicenter of a lot of issues to come

 

[JohnnyReb]

It was mentioned that AMIA Anglicanism does not allow women’s ordination save for the diaconate. That’s not entirely accurate, unfortunately. The AMIA is divided into parts. The Canadian and American coalitions (ACIC and ACIA) both ordain women priests now! These are factions within AMIA. So AMIA talks out of both sides of its mouth.

AMIA was very, very strongly against WO just a couple of years ago. They did an exhaustive study and report about women’s ordination and came to the resounding conclusion that WO’s is the bunk and it needed to be scrapped!

What’s weird about AMIA is that they effectively “dropped out” of the ACNA already. They decided to just be “ministry partners” with ACNA which is kind of bizarre and wishy-washy in the Anglican tradition!

I think AMIA pulling out of ACNA is a bad sign…clouds are coming. WO is going to be the epicenter of a lot of issues to come

Yeah, the information is right there on their website.

theamia.org/mission/practical-questions-answers/

In 2007, the Anglican Mission expanded its structure at the request of Archbishop Kolini by creating the Anglican Mission in the Americas, an umbrella organization made up of three entities: The Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), the Anglican Coalition in Canada (ACiC) and the Anglican Coalition in America (ACiA). TheAM’s umbrella organization embraces two countries (the US and Canada) as well as two positions on the ordination of women. The ACiC and the ACIA ordain women to the priesthood, as does the Province of Rwanda, while the AMiA maintains its policy of ordaining women only to the diaconate.

But something does not seem kosher here. If they do this study, and were so against it just a short time ago, then all of a sudden it changes. I mean USA, Canada and Rwanda are all ordaining women! Only AMIA is not, but the other parts of the coalition are? Weird! There has got to a missing piece to the puzzle.

My parish is AMIA, just for the record. I haven’t had the chance to discuss the matter with Father Mark yet (our rector). You might call it talking out both sides of the mouth, I see it as a effort to accomdate. Not a perfect way to do it by any means, and it goes to show how divisive this issue is. Unfortunately, it will divide any denomination that does not take an all or nothing stance on the matter. In my former tradition-Pentecostalism- almost every denomiation was fighting this battle and many in leadership positions were acting very un-Christ like and hurting each other over it.

The SBC at least has said “no women pastors” and the RCC and OC say no women priests. The United Methodists ordain women now. As does the PCUSA. The Episcopals ordain anything with a pulse, they will be onto cats and dogs soon. Those battles are over for the most part, deal with it or leave, they will tell you.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think talking out of both sides of their mouth is the perfect description, not accomodation, in that they take a firm stance that WO is wrong yet condone it and participate in it. That is textbook talking out of both sides of their bocas! They say one thing, do another. Accomodation is fine with things that are not issues of right and wrong or offenses to the priesthood. Accomodating a contemporary service or charismatic worship, for example, isn’t necessarily immoral. But allowing women to the presbyterate is flat out absurd and wrong. And if they know it’s wrong, and their study and past statements officially have made it clear they do, then they’re guilty of committing an evil act.

Like I said, it’s issues like this that tempt me to return to Catholicism and just employ a “suck it up” approach with the things that drive me nuts. W.O. is lunacy and wrong, pure and simple. I’m not impressed with either CANA, AMIA, or how ACNA has handled this debacle.

Yeah, the information is right there on their website.

theamia.org/mission/practical-questions-answers/

In 2007, the Anglican Mission expanded its structure at the request of Archbishop Kolini by creating the Anglican Mission in the Americas, an umbrella organization made up of three entities: The Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), the Anglican Coalition in Canada (ACiC) and the Anglican Coalition in America (ACiA). TheAM’s umbrella organization embraces two countries (the US and Canada) as well as two positions on the ordination of women. The ACiC and the ACIA ordain women to the priesthood, as does the Province of Rwanda, while the AMiA maintains its policy of ordaining women only to the diaconate.

But something does not seem kosher here. If they do this study, and were so against it just a short time ago, then all of a sudden it changes. I mean USA, Canada and Rwanda are all ordaining women! Only AMIA is not, but the other parts of the coalition are? Weird! There has got to a missing piece to the puzzle.

My parish is AMIA, just for the record. I haven’t had the chance to discuss the matter with Father Mark yet (our rector). You might call it talking out both sides of the mouth, I see it as a effort to accomdate. Not a perfect way to do it by any means, and it goes to show how divisive this issue is. Unfortunately, it will divide any denomination that does not take an all or nothing stance on the matter. In my former tradition-Pentecostalism- almost every denomiation was fighting this battle and many in leadership positions were acting very un-Christ like and hurting each other over it.

The SBC at least has said “no women pastors” and the RCC and OC say no women priests. The United Methodists ordain women now. As does the PCUSA. The Episcopals ordain anything with a pulse, they will be onto cats and dogs soon. Those battles are over for the most part, deal with it or leave, they will tell you.

 

[JohnnyReb]

I think talking out of both sides of their mouth is the perfect description, not accomodation, in that they take a firm stance that WO is wrong yet condone it and participate in it. That is textbook talking out of both sides of their bocas! They say one thing, do another. Accomodation is fine with things that are not issues of right and wrong or offenses to the priesthood. Accomodating a contemporary service or charismatic worship, for example, isn’t necessarily immoral. But allowing women to the presbyterate is flat out absurd and wrong. And if they know it’s wrong, and their study and past statements officially have made it clear they do, then they’re guilty of committing an evil act.

Like I said, it’s issues like this that tempt me to return to Catholicism and just employ a “suck it up” approach with the things that drive me nuts. W.O. is lunacy and wrong, pure and simple. I’m not impressed with either CANA, AMIA, or how ACNA has handled this debacle.

I am aware you are opposed to WO. I am too on grounds that somehow in the history of the church, it has been decided that a person’s gender has an impact on their ability to stand in persona Christi. Otherwise, there isn’t much of argument against it, but the historical Christian evidence against it is just too strong.

But for the life of me I cannot see how WO is more important than issues like indulgences, the treasury of merit, purgatory, justification by works, things preached by Rome which violate the integrity of the Gospel message. WO if wrong, is bad, but for me, these other things are worse. I don’t know anyone well enough through a message board to make judgements about them But if WO is what’s going to take you back to Rome while you just suck it about about some of those other things, then we see things much much differently.

 

[Bluegoat]

I am aware you are opposed to WO. I am too on grounds that somehow in the history of the church, it has been decided that a person’s gender has an impact on their ability to stand in persona Christi. Otherwise, there isn’t much of argument against it, but the historical Christian evidence against it is just too strong.

But for the life of me I cannot see how WO is more important than issues like indulgences, the treasury of merit, purgatory, justification by works, things preached by Rome which violate the integrity of the Gospel message. WO if wrong, is bad, but for me, these other things are worse. I don’t know anyone well enough through a message board to make judgements about them But if WO is what’s going to take you back to Rome while you just suck it about about some of those other things, then we see things much much differently.

I don’t know about gurney’s answer, but I tend to feel the same way as you do.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What do you mean you don’t know about my answer?

I don’t know about gurney’s answer, but I tend to feel the same way as you do.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Johnny, I know that you are aware of my position. I wasn’t trying to convert you to an anti-WO position, friend. But I’m gratified that you are opposed to it as I am. But I think perhaps you haven’t known me long enough to assume I’m a one-issue kinda guy or a simpleton one trick pony. Women’s ordination is AN issue that bothers me about Anglicanism, but goodness not THE only issue. I think I’ve been quite clear and open, above board on this forum about my concerns about the Anglican Communion, women’s ordination being a hot button issue for many (including me) but not the only one by a longshot? I’m sad you’ve reduced me to just this?

I’m also confused as to why you’ve reduced me to ONLY obsessed with WO and willing to surrender or not care about all the other issues. When did I say it was MORE important than those other issues? I think you hit the nail on the head when you say you don’t know anyone well enough through a message board to judge or evaluate or critique someone’s heart on these matters. You’re right. I feel the same way. I’ve tried to make it clear that I don’t have all the answers and am searching for them. I’m not convinced that Rome has violated the integrity of the Gospel. I have great respect for Catholicism. And I’m honest when I say that at this point in my life I’m having not a crisis of faith but a crisis of theology. I’m not sure whether I buy into imputation or infusion of grace. I respect the evangelical position oriented toward Romans and Galatians but I also understand the historic infusion model and theosis of the Orthodox. I’m very cynical about indulgences and the treasury of merit, etc. but in the end we all have to decide where we belong in the grand scheme of things. You ignore the fact that I said I was considering possibly returning to Catholicism. I never told you that I’m reporting back tomorrow, film at eleven? I might never go back or I might go this year. I don’t know. I’m praying for the Holy Spirit to guide me.

Your tone about women’s ordination, your verbage chosen, indicates a cynicism yourself about the anti-WO position almost as if you yourself are fine with it but you’re YIELDING to the reason and logic of 2,000 years of tradition. In other words, you’re looking at the Church and saying it might be wiser than Johnny. Please respect me when I say the Catholic Church might be wiser than Gurney and I might return and decide to accept some doctrines on faith as well.

You know me by now that I try to be fair and charitable and open minded to Protestants and Catholics. I’m not a polemical hot-head who leans all the way in extreme directions. I’m not sure how much we see things differently, Johnny. I guess we’ll find out as we continue to post and hopefully learn from one another. I learn PLENTY in here listening to teh wisdom of so many great posters. May God bless you.

I am aware you are opposed to WO. I am too on grounds that somehow in the history of the church, it has been decided that a person’s gender has an impact on their ability to stand in persona Christi. Otherwise, there isn’t much of argument against it, but the historical Christian evidence against it is just too strong.

But for the life of me I cannot see how WO is more important than issues like indulgences, the treasury of merit, purgatory, justification by works, things preached by Rome which violate the integrity of the Gospel message. WO if wrong, is bad, but for me, these other things are worse. I don’t know anyone well enough through a message board to make judgements about them But if WO is what’s going to take you back to Rome while you just suck it about about some of those other things, then we see things much much differently.

 

[Bluegoat]

What do you mean you don’t know about my answer?

I don’t know why WO bothers you more than those other issues, or whether it actually DOES bother you more.

 

[GKC]

I don’t know why WO bothers you more than those other issues, or whether it actually DOES bother you more.

It bothers me because it is a black hole in the heart of the validity of the sacraments, for those who attempt the exercise. And for any in sacramental communion with such.

Makes Apostolicae Curae accurate, in such places, a prophecy being fulfilled

GKC.

 

[Bluegoat]

It bothers me because it is a black hole in the heart of the validity of the sacraments, for those who attempt the exercise. And for any in sacramental communion with such.

Makes Apostolicae Curae accurate, in such places, a prophecy being fulfilled

GKC.

So then you would oppose that to things like purgatory of indulgences which don’t, I guess? That I suppose is true, but they lead to incredibly unhealthy spiritual practices. On the face of it that may be a small thing, but I’m not sure if that is actually so.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

yeah…what George Lucas here said! [inside joke]

It bothers me because it is a black hole in the heart of the validity of the sacraments, for those who attempt the exercise. And for any in sacramental communion with such.

Makes Apostolicae Curae accurate, in such places, a prophecy being fulfilled

GKC.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t oppose WO because I’m a chauvenist. I’ve made it pretty clear that all my disagreements with WO are totally related to the nature of the priesthood, tradition, precedent, the fatherly in persona christi nature of the role, and I’m 100% in agreement with GKC that it absolutely smears the validity of the sacraments and the priesthood by tainting it with irregularities and invalid ordinations. It’s all about the sacraments.

As far as purgatory and indulgences, at least I can see there is room for them in pious opinion and there is a logic about them. At this point in my life, I cannot agree with them because I’m not convinced that Christ Jesus holds temporal punishments against us and only forgives the Original Sin and the eternal consequences but not the temporal portion. Perhaps that’s true for all I know? It seems out of sync with what I see in Scripture and Sacred Tradition but I’m open to the fact I might be wrong. Purgatory, a final phase wherein one’s sins are burned away to be made perfect for God’s presence, makes a great deal of sense at least. C.S. Lewis was somewhat on board with some of these things so heck, they can’t be all bad! These issues don’t corrupt and taint the sacraments at least whereas women’s ordination does.

So then you would oppose that to things like purgatory of indulgences which don’t, I guess? That I suppose is true, but they lead to incredibly unhealthy spiritual practices. On the face of it that may be a small thing, but I’m not sure if that is actually so.