You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Anglican primates gather in Canterbury; ?schism would not be a disaster' [CWN]
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
Aslan10
Guest
“there’s nothing I can do if people decide that they want to leave the room. It won’t split the communion.”The primates of the 38 ecclesial communities of the Anglican Communion gathered in Canterbury at Archbishop Justin Welby’s invitation on January 11.The six-day meeting began with …
More…
This is very true. Many people have been looking at this Primates meeting like a council or something, which it is not. Justin Welby is not a pope and the anglican communion is not the RCC. If there is schism, it wouldn’t change much within the communion, which is a loose federation of churches that share roots within the anglican tradition, and all of them are governed differently.
G
GKC
Guest
It possibly could cause some provinces to formally and fully break communion with other provinces, going beyond the current impaired communion that exists in some cases. And/or, some provinces may leave the official Anglican Communion entirely. And/or, form a parallel and more orthodox Communion. Theoretically; I don’t predict anything“there’s nothing I can do if people decide that they want to leave the room. It won’t split the communion.”
This is very true. Many people have been looking at this Primates meeting like a council or something, which it is not. Justin Welby is not a pope and the anglican communion is not the RCC. If there is schism, it wouldn’t change much within the communion, which is a loose federation of churches that share roots within the anglican tradition, and all of them are governed differently.
U
Usige
Guest
I guess the question is at what point do churches differ so much that the term Anglican really means nothing since it expresses nothing in particular? I ask that because of a statement in a Reuters piece:
It would seem at some point that the sacramental theology would be different and therefore one province would consider the sacraments of another province as invalid (ex. marriage). If the understanding of the sacraments get to that point are both provinces still truly part of the same communion?
Welby is expected to propose that the communion should reorganise itself into a group of churches all formally linked to Canterbury but no longer to each other, so that congregations could hold different views without a common Anglican doctrine.
If there is no common Anglican doctrine, then at what point is an Anglican no longer Anglican? For instance, if the UK province embrace homosexuality as not sinful and someday were to raise a lesbian to be the Archbishop of Canterbury would the more traditionally conservative provinces simply disassociate themselves for the communion all together and therefore no longer be Anglican?(emphasis added)
It would seem at some point that the sacramental theology would be different and therefore one province would consider the sacraments of another province as invalid (ex. marriage). If the understanding of the sacraments get to that point are both provinces still truly part of the same communion?
L
liturgyluver
Guest
As I understand it the Anglican communion is a loose association of separate churches and there is no UK province. There is the Church of England, the Scottish Episcopal Church, Church in Wales and Church of Ireland each separate churches with their own Primate and governing structure. Interestingly the Church of Ireland is the lowest liturgically and the SEP the highest. The Church of England is certainly the most conservative in that it still allows for alternative arrangements for parishes that won’t accept a woman priest or Bishop. The realignment movement has really been a result of the North American churches - which are much more liberal - rather than any others.I guess the question is at what point do churches differ so much that the term Anglican really means nothing since it expresses nothing in particular? I ask that because of a statement in a Reuters piece:
If there is no common Anglican doctrine, then at what point is an Anglican no longer Anglican? For instance, if the UK province embrace homosexuality as not sinful and someday were to raise a lesbian to be the Archbishop of Canterbury would the more traditionally conservative provinces simply disassociate themselves for the communion all together and therefore no longer be Anglican?
It would seem at some point that the sacramental theology would be different and therefore one province would consider the sacraments of another province as invalid (ex. marriage). If the understanding of the sacraments get to that point are both provinces still truly part of the same communion?
C
codefro
Guest
There has been schism in the Anglican Communion since the the 70’s. Why is there a looming threat when it has already happened?
G
GKC
Guest
There are degrees of schism. What looms is (possibly) a change (undefined) in the formal Anglican Communion (those Anglican provinces formally in communion with each other and with the Archbishop of Canterbury).There has been schism in the Anglican Communion since the the 70’s. Why is there a looming threat when it has already happened?
Or. alternatively, what looms is, perhaps, nothing much. We shall see.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.