G
GKC
Guest
I’d really like that, in truth. Do you use Scarisbrick, by any chance? Indeed, what might your reading list be? Hughes, maybe? I’d love to get his 3 vol. work.
And then maybe a Hobbit party?
GKC
- Status
And then maybe a Hobbit party?
GKC
C
Contarini
Guest
Well, I’m not a traditional Anglican in GKC’s sense, but in my understanding of historic Catholic polity, the whole paraphernalia of archbishops and metropolitans and so on is peripheral and of dubious continuing value. It developed in the ancient world as a helpful way of structuring the Church. But the basic, divinely given polity of the Catholic Church has always been bishops in communion each other and in particular with the See of Rome. Anglicans obviously lack communion with Rome, though I’m not alone among Anglicans in regarding that as a defect to be overcome rather than as a freedom to be vaunted. Because the Episcopal Church came into existence in a society that lacked the traditional structures of European Christendom, it was able to reproduce the “basic” structure of bishops in communion with each other, and like many Episcopalians I regard that as a good thing. If I were in the C of E, I wouldn’t try to abolish the structures of archbishop, etc., because they’re part of how things developed there.
That being said, I actually have a problem with the “Presiding bishop” idea in the first place–it makes no sense to have a “bishop” without a see and with no responsibilities except for presiding over the other bishops. So in a sense my problem with the current PB is the opposite of the way GKC put it. It’s not that she is trying to turn herself into an archbishop, but that she’s taking an office that shouldn’t exist in the first place and give it real teeth. It would be much better if we had a system more like the “traditional” one, in which a particular bishop (New York, say, or D.C.) had a primacy of honor but no real authority over other bishops.
So I suppose I do want a “traditional Anglican” polity, in the sense that I want such primacy as exists to be based on particular sees rather than on an office whose sole function is to be the “boss bishop.” I don’t think that KJS is moving toward a traditional Anglican polity at all in strengthening the “boss bishop” office, but she is giving that office some of the problematic elements that metropolitan sees have had in the past, creating the worst of possible polities (well, the very worst might be that of the UMC
).The basic problem ,though, is the lack of communion with Rome. In the context of such communion, regional synods of bishops, metropolitan sees, etc., make sense, because they speak for the Church as a whole, reining in potential “rogue bishops” with Rome as the final arbiter. Without Rome (but assuming the validity of our Orders, which is of course a separate, difficult question
), all we have is a collection of bishops. And the less we pretend otherwise, the better.Edwin
G
GKC
Guest
Return the PB office to its original posture: a care taker who answered the mail between General Conventions. Rotated geographically or by seniority, as it began.Well, I’m not a traditional Anglican in GKC’s sense, but in my understanding of historic Catholic polity, the whole paraphernalia of archbishops and metropolitans and so on is peripheral and of dubious continuing value. It developed in the ancient world as a helpful way of structuring the Church. But the basic, divinely given polity of the Catholic Church has always been bishops in communion each other and in particular with the See of Rome. Anglicans obviously lack communion with Rome, though I’m not alone among Anglicans in regarding that as a defect to be overcome rather than as a freedom to be vaunted. Because the Episcopal Church came into existence in a society that lacked the traditional structures of European Christendom, it was able to reproduce the “basic” structure of bishops in communion with each other, and like many Episcopalians I regard that as a good thing. If I were in the C of E, I wouldn’t try to abolish the structures of archbishop, etc., because they’re part of how things developed there.
That being said, I actually have a problem with the “Presiding bishop” idea in the first place–it makes no sense to have a “bishop” without a see and with no responsibilities except for presiding over the other bishops. So in a sense my problem with the current PB is the opposite of the way GKC put it. It’s not that she is trying to turn herself into an archbishop, but that she’s taking an office that shouldn’t exist in the first place and give it real teeth. It would be much better if we had a system more like the “traditional” one, in which a particular bishop (New York, say, or D.C.) had a primacy of honor but no real authority over other bishops.
So I suppose I do want a “traditional Anglican” polity, in the sense that I want such primacy as exists to be based on particular sees rather than on an office whose sole function is to be the “boss bishop.” I don’t think that KJS is moving toward a traditional Anglican polity at all in strengthening the “boss bishop” office, but she is giving that office some of the problematic elements that metropolitan sees have had in the past, creating the worst of possible polities (well, the very worst might be that of the UMC
The basic problem ,though, is the lack of communion with Rome. In the context of such communion, regional synods of bishops, metropolitan sees, etc., make sense, because they speak for the Church as a whole, reining in potential “rogue bishops” with Rome as the final arbiter. Without Rome (but assuming the validity of our Orders, which is of course a separate, difficult question
Edwin
Yes, that collection of bishops and their dioceses is the true definition of the form of the Episcopal Church
GKC
N
Novocastrian
Guest
I find the idea of the PB not having a diocese just bizarre. It’s an abuse of the episcopal office. In those provinces where an Primate is elected from among the diocesans (rather than ex officio, as in the ancient provinces of Canterbury and York), such as Scotland, Wales, and Papua New Guinea, he keeps his See and can be seen as acting as primus inter pares. One diocesan bishop with a special responsibility to confirm his brethren. The current American system seems to embody almost all of the negative aspects of the Papal office, without any of the benefits to communion…Well, I’m not a traditional Anglican in GKC’s sense, but in my understanding of historic Catholic polity, the whole paraphernalia of archbishops and metropolitans and so on is peripheral and of dubious continuing value. It developed in the ancient world as a helpful way of structuring the Church. But the basic, divinely given polity of the Catholic Church has always been bishops in communion each other and in particular with the See of Rome. Anglicans obviously lack communion with Rome, though I’m not alone among Anglicans in regarding that as a defect to be overcome rather than as a freedom to be vaunted. Because the Episcopal Church came into existence in a society that lacked the traditional structures of European Christendom, it was able to reproduce the “basic” structure of bishops in communion with each other, and like many Episcopalians I regard that as a good thing. If I were in the C of E, I wouldn’t try to abolish the structures of archbishop, etc., because they’re part of how things developed there.
That being said, I actually have a problem with the “Presiding bishop” idea in the first place–it makes no sense to have a “bishop” without a see and with no responsibilities except for presiding over the other bishops. So in a sense my problem with the current PB is the opposite of the way GKC put it. It’s not that she is trying to turn herself into an archbishop, but that she’s taking an office that shouldn’t exist in the first place and give it real teeth. It would be much better if we had a system more like the “traditional” one, in which a particular bishop (New York, say, or D.C.) had a primacy of honor but no real authority over other bishops.
So I suppose I do want a “traditional Anglican” polity, in the sense that I want such primacy as exists to be based on particular sees rather than on an office whose sole function is to be the “boss bishop.” I don’t think that KJS is moving toward a traditional Anglican polity at all in strengthening the “boss bishop” office, but she is giving that office some of the problematic elements that metropolitan sees have had in the past, creating the worst of possible polities (well, the very worst might be that of the UMC
The basic problem ,though, is the lack of communion with Rome. In the context of such communion, regional synods of bishops, metropolitan sees, etc., make sense, because they speak for the Church as a whole, reining in potential “rogue bishops” with Rome as the final arbiter. Without Rome (but assuming the validity of our Orders, which is of course a separate, difficult question
Edwin
I suppose if the Episcopal Church wanted some kind of primacy on a regional scale, like the ancient provinces of the Western Church, could it not be the case that the bishops of each State either elected a metropolitan, or that the bishop based in the State capital was so ex officio? It seems surprising that, if there really is such need for a developed hierarchy, this wasn’t the first step…
G
GKC
Guest
No such need was envisioned, when the office of PB was created. It was a minimalist position and the holder held also his diocese. That latter truth changed around 70 years ago.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
P
Peter_J
Guest
Let’s hope.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.
Maybe, after the PBs have gained enough power, a PB will come along and say “From now on, no more female bishops, no more same-sex unions, no more female priests” and the whole TEC will respond “The PB has spoken, case closed.” :bowdown2:
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Let’s hope.
Maybe, after the PBs have gained enough power, a PB will come along and say “From now on, no more female bishops, no more same-sex unions, no more female priests” and the whole TEC will respond “The PB has spoken, case closed.” :bowdown2:
D
David_Zampino
Guest
Actually, the ACNA is fairly large and growing – and is recognized by a number of Provinces as being the Anglican representative in the United States and not TEC.
G
GKC
Guest
I love alternate history SF, myself.Let’s hope.
Maybe, after the PBs have gained enough power, a PB will come along and say “From now on, no more female bishops, no more same-sex unions, no more female priests” and the whole TEC will respond “The PB has spoken, case closed.” :bowdown2:
GKC
D
David_Zampino
Guest
Well, right now I should say the “English Reformation Lecture” in my “Introduction to Theology” class, though I’d love to teach an entire course on the subject. Did I ever tell you of my 2004 trip to the UK?
Believe it or not, I dedicate an entire 1.5 hour class session on the English Reformation in the “Theology of Marriage” class I teach for those studying for the Diaconate.
A Hobbit party ANY time . . .
G
GKC
Guest
No, as to the trip.
In doing them Diaconate aspirants, do you touch much on the Matrimonial Trials of Henry VIII, as Kelly put it?
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
My first faltering steps.
I miss it, in truth. Steveb from there has appeared here.
GKC
D
David_Zampino
Guest
Indeed, I do!
I point out that in England, the Reformation really was a process – and that Edward VI and company were really different sorts than Charles I, etc.; and that the Puritan vs. High Church controversies boiled over into the colonies with the Establishment of Congregationalism in most of New England; Anglicanism in the central and southern colonies; various understandings of sacred/secular with regard to marriage, etc.
It is my contention that, not withstanding the presence of many denominations in the US, it was, in fact, the English Reformation and the parties that arose therefrom, which most significantly impacted the forming of the United States (and to a certain extent, continue to this day . . . Just this morning, I received – unsolicited – an offer to purchase a “Geneva Bible” from a rather politically conservative special interest group. I declined.)
G
GKC
Guest
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Was your 2004 trip a success? Did we behave ourselves?
- Status