How has the Anglican Communion gone wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NickVA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JohnnyReb said:
Not to mention, there are many conservative evangelical groups that are schismatic in the eyes of Rome, but hardly are liberal. So we can conclude the schism from Rome is not the cause of liberalism. Its something else.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is sin, which enters where ever there is an open door.

Anna
 
The Anglican Communion airs its dirty laundry very publicly. They’re very open about their dysfunction. The Catholic Church’s issues are far more buried and the PR machine is more adept at keeping things on the downlow.

Clips like this tell a pretty sad story:

youtube.com/watch?v=I4ogntA0y-M&feature=related

and boy is this a humdinger!

youtube.com/watch?v=zeP_EdQc5so&feature=related

For a long time as a Catholic I was convinced there was no way this stuff could happen as a Catholic. Why? Because the pope and his leadership would keep people like this excommunicated or censured for such nonsense. I never realized that the breadth of dysfunction is really serious in the Catholic Church. The Anglicans are just louder and more transparent about the messed-up nature of things.

Anna Scott remembers my “crazy granny” analogy :p:eek:
 
Anna_Scott said:
vsedriver,

I never meant to imply that the Anglican Church was ever associated with the Orthodox.

I was merely pointing out that schism does not necessarily lead to what we are seeing in liberal Anglicanism. The Orthodox have preserved Christian orthodoxy very well after a schism.

However, the Orthodox are the exception to such an argument of certain decline after schism. That’s why I said, “There was a schism between Rome and the East, which did not end the same way” (meaning the same way as liberal Anglicanism.)

Peace, 🙂
Anna
Click to expand...
thanks for the clarification. I did not make that connection. As I see it the Orthodox have always had Apostolic Authority, even though they don’t accept Papal authority. But the Anglicans, who were Catholic lost their Apostolic Authority when they split off because their Apostolic connection was via Rome.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
The Anglican Communion airs its dirty laundry very publicly. They’re very open about their dysfunction. The Catholic Church’s issues are far more buried and the PR machine is more adept at keeping things on the downlow.

Clips like this tell a pretty sad story:

youtube.com/watch?v=I4ogntA0y-M&feature=related

and boy is this a humdinger!

youtube.com/watch?v=zeP_EdQc5so&feature=related
Click to expand...
Hey! Wasn’t that Pope John Paul II in a few of these photos?

And a topless native lector is quite consonant with Pope JPII’s Theology of the Body. There is nothing–nothing–at all wrong with this, in context.

I think this was produced by some Rad Trads. :mad:
 
vsedriver said:
thanks for the clarification. I did not make that connection. As I see it the Orthodox have always had Apostolic Authority, even though they don’t accept Papal authority. But the Anglicans, who were Catholic lost their Apostolic Authority when they split off because their Apostolic connection was via Rome.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Apostolic succession is not related to being in communion with Rome. Such is why the Orthodox are considered, by Rome, as possessing apostolic succession, and hence valid (but illicit) sacraments.

The apostolic succession thingy, with respect to Anglicans, in Rome’s opinion, is related in the long, sad, and complicated story surrounding Apostolicae Curae. Another one of my hobbies, that.

GKC
 
Topless lectors and Mass participants? Not appropriate at all IMO and it shows how far John Paul II got off course with ecumenism IMO.

It was produced by traditionalists, yes, and I don’t really consider myself a hardcore trad. but I think Vatican 2 ruined a lot of the Church and it definitely led to some scary stuff like in the videos! The liturgy has truly been corrupted with stuff like this. Sad.
PRmerger said:
Hey! Wasn’t that Pope John Paul II in a few of these photos?

And a topless native lector is quite consonant with Pope JPII’s Theology of the Body. There is nothing–nothing–at all wrong with this, in context.

I think this was produced by some Rad Trads. :mad:
Click to expand...
 
It’s one of your hobbies? Since when? 😃
I can sense a “history is complicated” or “motley crew” or “depends on which Anglicans you ask” comin’ round the bend! 😛
GKC said:
Incorrect. Apostolic succession is not related to being in communion with Rome. Such is why the Orthodox are considered, by Rome, as possessing apostolic succession, and hence valid (but illicit) sacraments.

The apostolic succession thingy, with respect to Anglicans, in Rome’s opinion, is related in the long, sad, and complicated story surrounding Apostolicae Curae. Another one of my hobbies, that.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
If an institution is created by man rather than by God, there are no “safeguards.”
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Topless lectors and Mass participants? Not appropriate at all IMO and it shows how far John Paul II got off course with ecumenism IMO.
Click to expand...
Why do you believe that the topless lector is related to ecumenism?

While this most certainly is not the hill I want to die on–and I agree that most liturgical liberties are indeed abuse–I will propose this:

Sometimes Mass is okay in a boat, in a gym, with a priest wearing casual clothes (provided he has the stole or whatever it’s called), without the splendor and majesty of a cathedral. No doubt that it’s more magnificent in a cathedral with a multitude of clergy and all the bells and whistles…but, it doesn’t have to be that way all the time.

An analogy: classical music is beautiful and probably more elegant and sophisticated than classic rock, but sometimes it’s ok to listen to the Beatles instead of Bach.

(Yes, I know that the analogy will fail. Just sayin’ 🤷)
 
PRmerger said:
Yes. It’s called sin.

Edit: I am not proclaiming that liberalism is a sin. But that divorcing oneself from the Truth that Christ proclaimed is a sin.
Click to expand...
I disagree completely. Being “schismatic” from Rome has not caused the issue, nor such a “schism” sin (which I put in quotes because I do not accept the claims Rome makes about itself. If I did, the only logical thing to do would be to become Catholic).
 
JohnnyReb said:
I disagree completely. Being “schismatic” from Rome has not caused the issue, nor such a “schism” sin (which I put in quotes because I do not accept the claims Rome makes about itself. If I did, the only logical thing to do would be to become Catholic).
Click to expand...
I agree JohnnyReb. Re “schism” in the case of Rome and the East, both accuse the other of “Schism.” At least that is what I have read. I’m certainly open to correction. My point is that “schism” is a matter of perspective, and is not necessarily related to sin. Though sin can lead to a departure from Christian orthodoxy.

I think the Anglican Communion is suffering from a case of “This is what I want to do, now let me create a way to make it Biblical.” But such tactics are not confined to liberal Anglican thought. These tactics can be found in many Churches. And–I think as individuals, regardless of Church affiliation, we often fight the temptation to justify what we want, rather than yielding to the teachings of our Lord.

I’ll use myself as an example. I have had several discussions with my Episcopal Rector about the liberal movement within TEC. I asked him, if those of same-sex affection are allowed to have sex outside the Sacrament of Marriage, then shouldn’t heterosexuals (meaning me) have the same right? Of course his response was “no” to blessing same-sex unions and “no” to any sex outside the Sacrament of Marriage, regardless of sexual orientation. Part of me would love to hear that sex outside marriage is acceptable under certain circumstances; and I would love to decide the “acceptable circumstances.” But, it is precisely this line of thought that has gotten the Anglican Communion in such a mess.

I must yield to the teachings and will of Christ, which basically means “no sex for Anna.” 😊 As a Christian, I don’t have the right to choose what I want to do, and then find a way to justify it.

Anna
 
Anna_Scott said:
I agree JohnnyReb. Re “schism” in the case of Rome and the East, both accuse the other of “Schism.” At least that is what I have read. I’m certainly open to correction. My point is that “schism” is a matter of perspective, and is not necessarily related to sin. Though sin can lead to a departure from Christian orthodoxy.

I think the Anglican Communion is suffering from a case of “This is what I want to do, now let me create a way to make it Biblical.” But such tactics are not confined to liberal Anglican thought. These tactics can be found in many Churches. And–I think as individuals, regardless of Church affiliation, we often fight the temptation to justify what we want, rather than yielding to the teachings of our Lord.
Click to expand...
That’s and interesting thought. How have you seen this occur in the more conservative sides. I am curious about your thoughts. The liberal side, on the other hand, seems very obvious.
I’ll use myself as an example. I have had several discussions with my Episcopal Rector about the liberal movement within TEC. I asked him, if those of same-sex affection are allowed to have sex outside the Sacrament of Marriage, then shouldn’t heterosexuals (meaning me) have the same right? Of course his response was “no” to blessing same-sex unions and “no” to any sex outside the Sacrament of Marriage, regardless of sexual orientation. Part of me would love to hear that sex outside marriage is acceptable under certain circumstances; and I would love to decide the “acceptable circumstances.” But, it is precisely this line of thought that has gotten the Anglican Communion in such a mess.
Click to expand...
I must yield to the teachings and will of Christ, which basically means “no sex for Anna.” 😊 As a Christian, I don’t have the right to choose what I want to do, and then find a way to justify it.
Click to expand...
Anna
Click to expand...
Well none then for me either 😦 . It can be very hard to yield to the teachings of Christ. We have an enemy who wants to stop us from doing that at all costs. Its part of the spiritual warfare we as Christians will have to engage in. Right now I feeling pretty defeated, but hopping to another church will not change that. My issues come from problems within me, and changing the eternals will not make them go away. Only turning and yielding to Christ can give me strength.
 
:eek: As Big Mama said, “uh oh, easuh now! easuh now!”
Anna_Scott said:
which basically means “no sex for Anna.” 😊 As a Christian, I don’t have the right to choose what I want to do, and then find a way to justify it.

Anna
Click to expand...
 
JohnnyReb said:
Being “schismatic” from Rome has not caused the issue, nor such a “schism” sin
Click to expand...
To the degree that one separates himself from the Body of Christ is the degree that he is committing a sin.

Schism, by definition, is a separation from the Body of Christ. Therefore, it is a sin.

But, actually, I wasn’t *really *defining schism as a sin (although it is, to be sure), but rather it is sin that causes one to divorce himself from the Truth.
 
PRmerger said:
To the degree that one separates himself from the Body of Christ is the degree that he is committing a sin.

Schism, by definition, is a separation from the Body of Christ. Therefore, it is a sin.

But, actually, I wasn’t *really *defining schism as a sin (although it is, to be sure), but rather it is sin that causes one to divorce himself from the Truth.
Click to expand...
Ok. I can accept that. We just disagree where Protestant Christians have done such an act by seperating themselves from Rome, thats all.
 
JohnnyReb said:
Ok. I can accept that. We just disagree where Protestant Christians have done such an act by seperating themselves from Rome, thats all.
Click to expand...
Actually, you are in agreement with the CC.

“However,** one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities** [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers … All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” CCC 818

The sin of separation is charged to those reformers who, by an act of the will, divorced themselves from and were recusant to the CC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top