Anglicans are being bashed because of ignorance of Anglicanism

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, it isn’t all their clergy, which I think is what SIA is trying to point out.

It must be maddening to be an Anglican who holds perfectly traditional (and correct, not only by Anglican but Catholic teaching) views on certain subjects being ‘lumped in’ to a vociferous crowd of other Anglicans advocating the contrary, and then to hear, “Anglicans are for gay marriage”, “Anglicans are for women priests/bishops”. . .when not all Anglicans are.

 

[Writer]

If “Episcopalians have gone off the road” as you say, why hasn’t the Anglican Communion formally cut ties with them? IIRC, isn’t Rowan Williams a big supporter of Gene Robinson?

He not only supports Vicki Gene Robinson,but the recent publication of the Archbishop’s letters (to an Evangelical pastor) make it abundantly clear where church leadership stand. C.S. Lewis, an Anglican, warned his church in writings such as The Fern-seed and Elephants about what was around the bend, but the church did not take action to save itself. Birth control and the ordination of women were just the tip of the iceberg. As former Episcopalians, it’s been sad to see the decline, but I don’t see what the Anglican Communion can do to take back their church now. There are good people in the fight, but when is it enough?

When we left the Episcopal Church years ago, I took myself off of the Anglican Communion’s distribution list (the one coordinated through David Virtue’s organization). I explained that we were coming home to place where we no longer had to fight for what was right. Some Catholics may point out that we still have to fight the good battle against those who would do harm to the Catholic Church (from within or without), but it’s a great deal different now than when we were Episcopalian. We don’t, for instance, have to face the hateful comments from the liberal establishment when we voice our concerns about what is wrong with the ordination to bishop of a practicing homosexual who abandoned his wife and children in favor of following his own misguided heart.

 

[anon52328184]

i left the episcopal church and the anglican communion this year and i just feel relieved.

i didn’t feel there was anyone in charge who was willing to protect the faith or scripture.

now that i am in the roman catholic church, i know the Pope is there along with the magisterium and together they are going to make sure we are not led astray.

granted, i am a new catholic, but i saw that nothing was decided at Lambeth which just shows they will keep plodding along like nothing is wrong.

for those who are episcopalian and part of the anglican church i wish you well, but i am saddened by what has happened to the anglican communion.

 

[redrosetea]

I can’t quite recall the statement but I remember reading something about the Arch Bishop of Canterbury making a shocking statement about the faith being a fairytale or words to that effect… I think it was at Christmas time. I read it in the BBC newspaper…I don’t think they would lie

I just recalled what it was he called the Nativity a legend

 

[anon52328184]

yes, i think he was being interviewed for a British radio show. it caused quite a controversy. in fact, it seems everytime he says something, it causes controversy. i am not sure if he doesn’t think before he speaks or if he just doesn’t realize what he is actually saying.

he is another reason i left the episcopal church/anglican communion. i did not see him as a strong leader.

 

[emeraldcoast]

From what I read about the Conference this year (2008) not only was Mr. Robinson asked **not **to attend (although he showed up in London anyway to ‘make sure he presented his fellow clergy and laity with the ‘face’ of their gay members’–like they’re in danger of forgetting?) but furthermore, if I recall correctly, the Archbishop asked the Communion to refrain from ordaining any more gay OR female bishops at this time. . .

PIease correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe that refraining from ordaining female bishops was mentioned.

God Bless!

 

[colliric]

yes, i think he was being interviewed for a British radio show. it caused quite a controversy. in fact, it seems everytime he says something, it causes controversy. i am not sure if he doesn’t think before he speaks or if he just doesn’t realize what he is actually saying.

he is another reason i left the episcopal church/anglican communion. i did not see him as a strong leader.

This is the real issue here, there is no major leadership and it has been spiraling out of Control.

I mean a Christian leader surely should not advocate or support the institution of Sharia Law in his own country. “Freedom of Religion” yes, but not the introduction of an “alternative” legal system. You may as well toss any oaths of Alligence to the british laws that any Muslim applicant for citizenship takes.

To become a Citizen you must accept and swear oaths to obey the laws of the country. If, as is the case in many Aboriginal communities, you are born in this country as an aboriginal, because the legal system protects the aboriginal culture’s own legal system, you are therefore entitled to embrace that system(Which I personally disagree with, but understand why we protect it) but only if you are a member of those communities by birth right and by residing there too.

There is clearly a huge diffrence in this to Sharia Law, because, unlike Sharia Law, these con-current legal systems are fully traditional to our culture and Land(and were in operation here for thousands of years before our modern european based legal system), whereas Sharia Law is most certainly not. If you choose to come to Australia or England or any other country, there is clearly obligation to embrace some elements of the country’s culture and all Laws of the country. What he advocated was the introduction of an untraditional, uncultural, unharmonious con-current Legal system for the sake of pandering to the Muslims at the clear expense of the majority of his own constituency. He advocated a clear disunity in british society and culture. If he was in a traditionally muslim country, it would have been appropriate, but he was in the U.K… a traditionally christian(but increasingly Secularist) country.

The “Archbishop” of Canterbury really put his foot in it here(and has done so several times since) and surely now his ability to lead must be questioned openly and publically.

 

[colliric]

yes, i think he was being interviewed for a British radio show. it caused quite a controversy. in fact, it seems everytime he says something, it causes controversy. i am not sure if he doesn’t think before he speaks or if he just doesn’t realize what he is actually saying.

he is another reason i left the episcopal church/anglican communion. i did not see him as a strong leader.

This is the real issue here, there is no major leadership and it has been spiraling out of Control.

I mean a Christian leader surely should not advocate or support the institution of Sharia Law in his own country. “Freedom of Religion” yes, but not the introduction of an “alternative” legal system. You may as well toss any oaths of Alligence to the british laws that any Muslim applicant for citizenship takes.

To become a Citizen you must accept and swear oaths to obey the laws of the country. If, as is the case in many Aboriginal communities, you are born in this country as an aboriginal, because the legal system protects the aboriginal culture’s own legal system, you are therefore entitled to embrace that system(Which I personally disagree with, but understand why we protect it) but only if you are a member of those communities by birth right and by residing there too.

There is clearly a huge diffrence in this to Sharia Law, because, unlike Sharia Law, these con-current legal systems are fully traditional to our culture and Land(and were in operation here for thousands of years before our modern european based legal system), whereas Sharia Law is most certainly not. If you choose to come to Australia or England or any other country, there is clearly obligation to embrace some elements of the country’s culture and all Laws of the country. What he advocated was the introduction of an untraditional, uncultural, unharmonious con-current Legal system for the sake of pandering to the Muslims at the clear expense of the majority of his own constituency. He advocated a clear disunity in british society and culture. If he was in a traditionally muslim country, it would have been appropriate, but he was in the U.K… a traditionally christian(but increasingly Secularist) country.

The “Archbishop” of Canterbury really put his foot in it here(and has done so several times since) and surely now his ability to lead must be questioned openly and publically.

 

[robert_Ian_Will]

With all this focus on homosexuality ( and the Episcopal church and Anglican Church of Canada are still full members of the Anglican Communion), thereaders must be aware that most Anglican churches allow fror the free marriage of divorced persons…contraception is not even an issue.

See how we have a “perfect” picture of a man-made “Church” , which does not have the Divine protection of Petrine rule.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I can’t quite recall the statement but I remember reading something about the Arch Bishop of Canterbury making a shocking statement about the faith being a fairytale or words to that effect… I think it was at Christmas time. I read it in the BBC newspaper…I don’t think they would lie

I just recalled what it was he called the Nativity a legend

That incident has been grossly misrepresented - he did not call “the faith…a fairytale or words to that effect”, & those who say he did are liars. ​

To say the Nativity-texts contain legend (or whatever it may be) is not the same thing as saying they are not true; but they are not true as history - that seems to be certain. For instance, the activity attributed to Matthew’s star is impossible: stars do not “stand over” houses to identify them, nor can they. Nor is there any reason to think Matthew meant to be read in such a fashion - he is not talking about the star or its motion, but about what it means in relation to Jesus; the story is told to emphasise is King & Messiah.

Even if they contained no truth at all, that would not alter the status of the rest of the Christian “story” - the issue of historicity (which people confuse with that of truth, & this again with the issue of inspiration) cannot be settled by sweeping generalisations: each part of the text, as well as the whole in general, needs to be studied.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

yes, i think he was being interviewed for a British radio show. it caused quite a controversy. in fact, it seems everytime he says something, it causes controversy. i am not sure if he doesn’t think before he speaks or if he just doesn’t realize what he is actually saying.

The Archbishop is clearly not a natural orator, the sort of person who can speak for a sustained period both naturally & *extempore *- a lot of people are not. Therefore, the interview exposed his weaknesses as a speaker. It does not follow that he is a fool, or incompetent: the father of the “Bushism” is not even in the clergy of a Church; he’s a head of state.​

he is another reason i left the episcopal church/anglican communion. i did not see him as a strong leader.

“Archbishop of Canterbury believes in historic Christian faith” is not news - any more than “The Pope is a Catholic” is news. “Archbishop of Canterbury in row over A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I/J” is news. The media are not terribly well educated in the arcana of Christian theology: so a thing like the legendary status of the Nativity texts in the Gospel, which is not news at all to those who work with the texts (unless they are Fundamentalists), is news to the “meeja” - perhaps because of the deplorable state of R.E. in this country, aided & abetted by the calamitious condition of education generally - Blair did sterling work in turning the people of this country into Yahoos; may he not be forgiven for it. This theological ignorance of the hacks leads to a lot of manufactured controversies.​

If controversy is a problem, the Johannine Christ is always embroiled in controversy; the Synoptic Christ argues a good deal too. Church History is full of controversy. If being controversial is a reason to leave the C of E, it’s an even more pressing reason to drop Christianity altogether. Athanasius of Alexandria was highly controversial - does it follow that he was “not a strong leader” ? Then why must the Archbishop of Canterbury be judged to be “not a strong leader” ? (And before some blockhead says so: no, I am not saying the two men are morally equal - the logic of the argument that criticises Abp. Williams is the issue; the Abp. of Alexandria is mentioned simply to illustrate the flawed logic of that argument.)

If it’s sound to leave the C of E because of the perceived or real failings of Rowan Cantuar - why can one not leave the CC because of the scandals in it ? The Church of England is a Paradise compared to the CC.

 

[Tonks40]

Then who or what should an Anglican look for to find definitive guidance and leadership in upholding traditional Christian doctrines? Surely a lack of “communication skills” from the head of the church cannot bode well for your average Anglican.

This is part of the reason (lack of real guidance) that my husband refuses to step foot in the Episcopal Church…and he’s an Anglican from Canada, no less!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Then who or what should an Anglican look for to find definitive guidance and leadership in upholding traditional Christian doctrines? Surely a lack of “communication skills” from the head of the church cannot bode well for your average Anglican.

This is part of the reason (lack of real guidance) that my husband refuses to step foot in the Episcopal Church…and he’s an Anglican from Canada, no less!

The Archbishop is not an Anglican Pope - he has no jurisdiction over the Anglican Church of Canada. Authority in Anglicanism is not organised in that way. It is simply untrue there is no guidance - I never found that a problem when I was Anglican. “Guidance” is rather vague - guidance regarding what ? Are we talking about the more arcane points of Trinitarian theology, or the morality of paying taxes, or the correct number of candlesticks for Holy Communion on a major feast, or what to make of the healings in the gospels, or the correct way to address an Archdeacon, or what ? If vague questions are asked, vague answers will be the result.​

A lot of questions are not answered by any of the credal texts we use - the CCC could not begin to answer all questions related to Christian belief & behaviour, & it does not try to. This is is not a fault, it is merely a reflection of the fact that the CCC has a specific purpose, & is not intended to be a handbook on canon law, or the Liturgy, or Church History, or the Bible; nor is it an introduction to Theology. This things being so, why expect Anglicanism to have an answer for everything ? It is an illusion to imagine Rome does.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

With all this focus on homosexuality ( and the Episcopal church and Anglican Church of Canada are still full members of the Anglican Communion), thereaders must be aware that most Anglican churches allow fror the free marriage of divorced persons…contraception is not even an issue.

See how we have a “perfect” picture of a man-made “Church” , which does not have the Divine protection of Petrine rule.

Protection can be from an evil’s happening at all - or it can be from destruction by the consequences of the evil. Rome has not been protected against clerical paedophiles or devious bishops - unless it has been protected in the second sense. But if that is so, the C of E has also been protected in that second sense. Both have had scandals.​

Everytime someone starts crowing over the C of E & saying how grotty it is compared to the wonderful, faultless, harmless, unfairly accused CC, I am going to dig up something repulsive from the CC’s past; if people want to throw filth, that is a game more than one can play. If people don’t want to hear of disreputable things from the CC’s past, they have only to stop throwing muck at the C of E. It really is that simple.

Better yet, they can leave off the muck-chucking, & show by what they say that the CC is what they say it is; goodness is far & away the best rebuke to what is not good.

 

[chris_molter]

SIA is 100% correct. And even within the Episcopal Church there are Bishops, Priests, and laity who are still trying to be faithful to Lambeth 1.10. At this time, those folks are being leaned on by the national church and are under a lot of pressure to knuckle under and just ‘accept the inevitable’.

The big test for the Anglican Communion is how they will respond to TEC and ACC (and a few others) who have decided to ‘walk apart’.

 

[peary1]

There seems to be a very enticing urge to unload on the Anglican Communion at large for all of the social-political agenda mongers in the very most liberal minority primates of the Anglican Communion. Let me for the record just clarify one thing; the Anglican Communion does NOT teach that same sex unions are acceptable and it also does not teach that clergy involved in actively gay relationships is acceptable either. There are many more Anglicans in the world that hold true in these teachings and doctrines unchanged and Biblical than you could ever find to the contrary. Episcopalians have gone off the road and are headed for the cliff at a high rate of speed, no doubt about it in my mind. But they do not account for the majority of Anglicans worldwide. It is a fact that there are more Anglicans in church in a Sunday morning in Uganda than there are in all of the U.K.

**There is only one solution: for those Anglicans who are traditional, return to the Catholic Church where you belong. **

 

[anon52328184]

the archbishop of canterbury is the head of the entire anglican communion i thought whether it is the episcopal church in america or the anglican church of canada or the anglicans in africa or the anglicans in australia or south america. even GAFCON that met this summer desire to remain within the anglican communion.

the Catholic church is not perfect, but at least the Pope tries to hold on to the traditions of scripture.

the anglican church is split between those wanting to follow the tradition of the scripture and those wanting to do whatever they see fit.

tony blair is also catholic now and i was told that it is the prime minister who selects the archbishop of canterbury? i am not sure how the archbishop of canterbury is selected, or elected.

50 years ago, i believe the anglican communion was a beautiful faith.
however, like so many other things in our culture, it was deeply led astray during the 60’s by many priests coming out of the seminary or by people like bishop spong (not sure of spelling of last name).

there are anglicans who want to hang on to what they know the anglican communion is capable of being. there are others who want to keep it so it is convenient to their own lifestyles.

 

[redrosetea]

I think the Anglicans are trying hard to capture their catholic roots…They have a church at the shrine of Walsingham…they are venerating Mary there…i feel very sorry for what has befallen them

We have all put up with scandals in our won church and think how that hurt us…The Anglicans can’t help what their clergy is doing any more than we could…if they want to swim the Tiber I’ll be waiting with a supply of dry towels and a hug

 

[Contarini]

I think Gene Robinson would disagree with you.

No, he wouldn’t. Why wasn’t he invited to the Lambeth Conference? He knows quite well that he is not fully accepted as a bishop in good standing within the Communion. And I don’t think so badly of him as to believe that he would flagrantly lie. I suspect that he would say that the Anglican Communion has no right to promulgate authoritative teaching in the first place.

Edwin

 

[anon52328184]

yes, there are some wanting to be close to their catholic roots, and some that just want to be traditional anglican and the third group that wants to be able to come to church, worship and not have anyone tell them what they have to believe to be christian. can all 3 groups exist together is the question.

i wish i would have know the anglican communion of 50 years ago.

but right now, i am glad that i have come to the roman catholic church.

i will continue to pray for the anglicans.