Ask an Anglican/Episcopalian

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Novocastrian said:
A question for fellow Anglicans:

Assuming (a) that we hope and work for the visible unity of Christ’s Church on Earth, and (b) that we are not crypto-Papists (to use an old and not inoffensive term!):

What would the Bishop of Rome’s role be in a reunified Latin (or indeed universal) Christendom? What is his future in a reformed and catholic Church of the West? How would Anglican ecclesiology need to change/develop/reform/be restored to accommodate this?

N.
Click to expand...
Beats me. Let me know how it all plays out.

GKC
 
Ferde_Rombola said:
And I agree. What you have stated here is the inevitable result of Luther and Henry VIII nullifying the authority of the pope for themselves and the millions who followed them over the cliff. That’s the tragedy I referred to.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying your position.

GKC
 
GKC,

Thoughts on Bishop Curry from NC? I’m sure you do not agree with his stance on social issues but what of his teaching the Gospel and style of preaching?
 
aidanbradypop said:
GKC,

Thoughts on Bishop Curry from NC? I’m sure you do not agree with his stance on social issues but what of his teaching the Gospel and style of preaching?
Click to expand...
I know nothing of Bishop Curry. What you suggest likely means I would not care to learn more. I got enough social-issue wobbly prelates in the local area.

And, in truth, while I track the legal issues a little, I have zero interest in what might happen in TEC. Its fate is (IMO, flawed as it may be) what I said above.

GKC
 
jimkhong said:
Is TEC formally a province of the Anglican Communion as there is no metropolitan (though I heard your PB wanted to be Archbishop Katherine :))? In the Catholic church, a province, by definition, has a metropolitan.

Was there ever a metropolitan in TEC (or PECUSA)? Why none today? Does this mean ecclesiology in TEC differs from the rest of the Anglican Communion.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I could add that the Anglican Communion may have an irregular use of the word “province” since each of the independent churches is a province of the Communion, but each may contain a number of provinces in the sense of groups of dioceses. Thus (or perhaps not quite thus but at least similarly) the CofE may be considered a province of the Communion and it is also two provinces of the Western church.
 
Picky_Picky said:
Perhaps I could add that the Anglican Communion may have an irregular use of the word “province” since each of the independent churches is a province of the Communion, but each may contain a number of provinces in the sense of groups of dioceses. Thus (or perhaps not quite thus but at least similarly) the CofE may be considered a province of the Communion and it is also two provinces of the Western church.
Click to expand...
Useful clarification.

GKC
 
GKC said:
TEC is formally a member of the Anglican Communion. The gracious Katherine is, via a stealth mode of operation, expanding the scope of the office of the PB far beyond its original and customary realm. TEC has historically been an hierarchical Church, up to the dioceses level only; a free association of independent dioceses, ab initio, pre-dating the existence of TEC, whose association was what the form of TEC was.The PB was originally merely the eldest bishop, and the office was conceived as an administrative one. While that role expanded, over the years, the latest moves, which makes it, in effect, a form of archbishopric, relates to the current troubles. The claims that TEC is and has been a formal hierarchy, with the PB at the peak of a pyramid of authority, figured in many of the legal cases that TEC has expended around $26 million on, to retain the property of those parishes/dioceses that leave, without regard to who holds formal title to same. The latest court case, in Illinois, is not going well for TEC on this point, as it did not in the case of the diocese of SC. All too often, it did prevail.

There has never been a metropolitan in the TEC, To that extent, TEC’s ecclesiology and polity differ from others in the Communion. But the current regime seeks to change that. Not for nothing does the gracious Katherine sport that metropolitan crozier. Or point out that TEC has a visible presence in 16 countries. Hardly the fiefdom of a mere PB, in New York, that realm.

GKC
Click to expand...
I understand why there may be a limited amount of love for Bishop Katherine, and I suppose I see why there would have been shakes of the head over deciding the PB should be also the Primate, but if that continues as you predict and the PB’s role becomes that of metropolitan (the National Cathedral, presumably) and even Archbishop … I understand that would be a change from the way TEC came about, but what would be wrong with it? Why would a traditional Anglican not like a hierarchy that was constructed in a traditional Anglican way?
 
aidanbradypop said:
🙂

The RCC has had its fair share of shaddy Popes in the past and they have emerged from it. I pray we do the same. 😉

They are in sight…just hard to see right now.
Click to expand...
I suggest we differ on a number of definitions here. For one, I do not see the gracious Katherine as the problem. She is the face of the problem, currently. She will be succeeded

GKC
 
GKC said:
I suggest we differ on a number of definitions here. For one, I do not see the gracious Katherine as the problem. She is the face of the problem, currently. She will be succeeded

GKC
Click to expand...
I’m sure we do…we have to maintain the “motley crew” lol
 
Picky_Picky said:
I understand why there may be a limited amount of love for Bishop Katherine, and I suppose I see why there would have been shakes of the head over deciding the PB should be also the Primate, but if that continues as you predict and the PB’s role becomes that of metropolitan (the National Cathedral, presumably) and even Archbishop … I understand that would be a change from the way TEC came about, but what would be wrong with it? Why would a traditional Anglican not like a hierarchy that was constructed in a traditional Anglican way?
Click to expand...
I am a traditional Anglican, who favors a traditional American Anglican ecclesiastical polity. Harms no one, and protected the Church from dangers no one really expected.

But, for all of me, they may structure themselves as they (or their remnants) prefer.

GKC
 
GKC said:
I am a traditional Anglican, who favors a traditional American Anglican ecclesiastical polity. Harms no one, and protected the Church from dangers no one really expected.

But, for all of me, they may structure themselves as they (or their remnants) prefer.

GKC
Click to expand...
Yep, OK
 
GKC said:
Useful clarification.

GKC
Click to expand...
I wonder if this tempers the primatial office in the CofE. Canterbury is number one, but has to work with York on matters which affect the national church as a whole.
 
Novocastrian said:
I wonder if this tempers the primatial office in the CofE. Canterbury is number one, but has to work with York on matters which affect the national church as a whole.
Click to expand...
If one considers it, without regard for the additional miter worn by Cantuar as head of the Communion, it seems a reasonable assumption.

GKC
 
Ferde_Rombola said:
No kidding, Edwin. Thanks for clearing that up.

Shori is the presiding ‘bishop’ of TEC. She was elected to that position and it is she who is the globally recognized head of ‘TEC’ and its pilot into apostasy. She may not own it, but she has a firm grip on the tiller.
Click to expand...
Actually, the last three – and four out of the last five – Presiding Bishops have been problematic. It goes far beyond the current Presiding Oceanographer.
 
David_Zampino said:
Actually, the last three – and four out of the last five – Presiding Bishops have been problematic. It goes far beyond the current Presiding Oceanographer.
Click to expand...
It does, at that. But she certainly puts a…distinctive, perhaps, face on it.

GKC
 
Novocastrian said:
There have, of course, been times where Anglican and RC martyrs have died for the Gospel together, e.g. in Uganda.
Click to expand...
An extremely valid and valuable point, which all should acknowledge.

My criticisms of heterodoxy in 1st World Anglicanism (personally witnessed and experienced) are enormously mitigated in the faith and commitment in much of 3rd World Anglicanism (also personally witnessed and experienced.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top