How many people are going to bail out of the Anglican Communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jay29
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Claudius said:
Well this is a big, huge “Told you so” from the Catholic Church to everyone else.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I wonder how many Muslims are hanging their heads saying “Boy, those Catholics really showed us.”
 
Another thought:

How does reaching out to the AC play with reaching our to SSPX and the Lefebvrite (sic) group, the sedevacantists?

—How would ex-SSPX-types feel about rubbing shoulders with former AC’s?

My impression is that Benedict is trying hard to reunite with the sedevacantist crowd; is he that eager to bring in a bunch of disaffected AC’s–a one-issue bunch–gay episcopate, assuming that (most of) those concerned with gender left in the 1990’s, and have the former AC’s rub shoulders with the former sede’s? Does it matter? I think that it might, and that Benedict is most eager to conciliate with the sede’s right now. Maybe the AC’s can wait.
 
1234 said:
…to paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of the death of the AC have been greatly exaggerated. There have been women priests in the ECA since 1997, who have been very well received and there has been no substantive opposition to women bishops in the USA, except for personal attacks on Presiding Bishop Schori, who supported, or at least defended the consecration of the (first openly) gay bishop of New Hampshire, Bishop Robinson.

…the problem is that aside from the vocal posters on this forum, there isn’t a lot of opposition to gay *marriage *-- that’s not the same thing as a gay bishop, but still…–among RC’s, let alone AC’s–25% oppose according to the latest Pew Research–(highest are among white evangelical Republican males, at twice that). Similarly, there has been broad support for ordaining women in the RC for years.

Well, if there isn’t a lot of opposition to women/gays/ordination/marriage etc. among RC’s, how can there be among AC’s?

…there are the usual older white priests/bishops/retired bishops and noisy high-church types who form little splinter groups here and there. Let’s see how it all plays out. One bishop who was threatened with the loss of x number of priests after the gender flap responded that losing them was fine as he could now fill all those positions with women ordinands!
Click to expand...
As apparently the most liberal Episcopalian on the board, I think your thoughts about the viability of the AC and the ECUSA are spot on. More and more women (and married couples!) are being ordained as Episcopal Priests. From my vantage point, it looks like even those churches and dioceses that are leaving the ECUSA are in areas where they have to compete with more conservative denominations such as the Southern Baptists or RCs. I agree we will have to see how it turns out, but I predict the losses of these parishioners and churches will eventually be made good by new members drawn to the ECUSA by tolerance, compassion and understanding. My church is thriving, supporting four Sunday services, a mid-week healing service, and an active, aggressive outreach program to the homeless. The few members we have seen leave our Church in the past have gone to the Methodist Church to participate in their wonderful youth activities. Our parish has taken a leaf from their book and is beefing up our own youth groups.

I just don’t see vast numbers of Episcopalians jumping ship to the RC Church, except for the few who are influenced by their more conservative neighbors. I am sad to see them go, but I hope they find what they are seeking.

God Bless!
 
SIA said:
You are speaking of the Church of England, not the Anglican Communion as a whole and third largest Christian denomination in the world. I am now certain that you don’t get that.
Click to expand...
The ripple effect will be felt by ALL in the entire communion. :cool:
 
Personally, after having examined the Scriptural arguments, I do not having anything against ordaining women (let us not start an argument about that in this thread); however, there are other things that the European and North American provinces of the Anglican Communion are doing that deeply disturbs me. The problem is, there are very few options.

One can join one of the schismatic groups (and, in fact, the first Anglican service I ever attended was at a church that had schismed from the Episcopal Church and was affiliated with the Anglican Church of Kenya), but this is problematic also (for both theological and practical reasons). The groups that have left the Anglican Communion and communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury strike me as kind of strange: how can you have Anglicanism without the Archbishop of Canterbury who sits on the Chair of St. Augustine and traces Apostolic Succession back to St. Augustine of Canterbury elevated by Pope Gregory the Great?

Also, I’d rather not return to ‘mainstream’ Protestantism.
 
emeraldcoast said:
As apparently the most liberal Episcopalian on the board, I think your thoughts about the viability of the AC and the ECUSA are spot on. More and more women (and married couples!) are being ordained as Episcopal Priests. From my vantage point, it looks like even those churches and dioceses that are leaving the ECUSA are in areas where they have to compete with more conservative denominations such as the Southern Baptists or RCs. I agree we will have to see how it turns out, but I predict the losses of these parishioners and churches will eventually be made good by new members drawn to the ECUSA by tolerance, compassion and understanding. My church is thriving, supporting four Sunday services, a mid-week healing service, and an active, aggressive outreach program to the homeless. The few members we have seen leave our Church in the past have gone to the Methodist Church to participate in their wonderful youth activities. Our parish has taken a leaf from their book and is beefing up our own youth groups.

I just don’t see vast numbers of Episcopalians jumping ship to the RC Church, except for the few who are influenced by their more conservative neighbors. I am sad to see them go, but I hope they find what they are seeking.

God Bless!
Click to expand...
Although I and many others left our Episcopal church back in the fall of 07 to begin a new church in the Diocese of Uganda, I have to agree with you that I do not either see vast numbers of Episcopalians or Anglicans (non-Episcopal) heading to Rome. There are still those solid reasons in place as to why they are not Roman Catholic to begin with.
 
SIA said:
There are still those solid reasons in place as to why they are not Roman Catholic to begin with.
Click to expand...
Like what are those solid reasons? As if King Henry VIII had any kind of ecclesial authority to begin with. Whatever…:rolleyes:
 
nsper7 said:
Personally, after having examined the Scriptural arguments, I do not having anything against ordaining women (let us not start an argument about that in this thread); however, there are other things that the European and North American provinces of the Anglican Communion are doing that deeply disturbs me. The problem is, there are very few options.

One can join one of the schismatic groups (and, in fact, the first Anglican service I ever attended was at a church that had schismed from the Episcopal Church and was affiliated with the Anglican Church of Kenya), but this is problematic also (for both theological and practical reasons). The groups that have left the Anglican Communion and communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury strike me as kind of strange: how can you have Anglicanism without the Archbishop of Canterbury who sits on the Chair of St. Augustine and traces Apostolic Succession back to St. Augustine of Canterbury elevated by Pope Gregory the Great?

Also, I’d rather not return to ‘mainstream’ Protestantism.
Click to expand...
To answer your question, it’s simple. All you need is Apostolic succession, not +Cantuar.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus
 
GKC said:
To answer your question, it’s simple. All you need is Apostolic succession, not +Cantuar.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus
Click to expand...
Yeah, but if all you want is Apostolic Succession, you could become Roman Catholic, but they don’t have +Cantuar either.
 
GKC said:
At this point in time, a point in their favor.

GKC
Click to expand...
But without the Archbishop of Canterbury, where does Anglicanism derive its legitimacy from? After all, the Archbishop of Canterbury can trace Apostolic Succession back to St. Augustine of Canterbury (who was elevated by Pope Gregory the Great), but the Archbishop can also trace a measure of authority since they sit on the Chair of St. Augustine. Does Roman Catholicism have that? 🙂
 
nsper7 said:
But without the Archbishop of Canterbury, where does Anglicanism derive its legitimacy from? After all, the Archbishop of Canterbury can trace Apostolic Succession back to St. Augustine of Canterbury (who was elevated by Pope Gregory the Great), but the Archbishop can also trace a measure of authority since they sit on the Chair of St. Augustine. Does Roman Catholicism have that? 🙂
Click to expand...
All valid bishops possess apostolic succession. That is the definition, and all that is required.

The see of Cantur possesses no particular authority, in the manner of Rome, as Primate of the West.

GKC
 
nsper7 said:
But without the Archbishop of Canterbury, where does Anglicanism derive its legitimacy from? After all, the Archbishop of Canterbury can trace Apostolic Succession back to St. Augustine of Canterbury (who was elevated by Pope Gregory the Great), but the Archbishop can also trace a measure of authority since they sit on the Chair of St. Augustine. Does Roman Catholicism have that? 🙂
Click to expand...
Forget about the “chair” of St. Augustine of Canterbury and forget about the supposed legitimacy. That places church “the Institution” above the Body of Christ. Sort of like a cart before the horse.

Truth first.

God can raise children of Abraham from stones.
 
ckempston said:
1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
Click to expand...
‘There are numerous accounts in the Bible of women who were called and blessed by God in
ministries that entailed teaching and leading both women and men (see chapter eight in Good News for
Women and chapter six in Discovering Biblical Equality). If God had, in fact, decreed these ministries to
be inherently “masculine” and thus unsuitable for women, there would not be any such women in the
Bible. God would not call, anoint, and bless a woman in a ministry that God has denied to women in
principle. Thus one cannot interpret 1 Timothy 2:12 “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority
over a man” at face value without qualification or contextualization, because to do so would be to
contradict the many biblical texts where women are teaching and/or leading men with the evident
blessing of both God and man. Moreover, it is highly significant that both women and men were prophets.
Deborah and Huldah were especially notable female prophets in ancient Israel.’
 
ckempston said:
1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
Click to expand...
Galatians 3: 26-28

For through faith you are all children of God in Christ Jesus.
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
 
nsper7 said:
But without the Archbishop of Canterbury, where does Anglicanism derive its legitimacy from? After all, the Archbishop of Canterbury can trace Apostolic Succession back to St. Augustine of Canterbury (who was elevated by Pope Gregory the Great), but the Archbishop can also trace a measure of authority since they sit on the Chair of St. Augustine. Does Roman Catholicism have that? 🙂
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but this is just silly.

You think you can’t have legitimacy without the successor of St. Augustine of Canterbury, who was elevated by Pope Gregory the Great?

What about the successor of Pope Gregory the Great? Doesn’t he have some legitimacy?
 
Peter_J said:
I’m sorry but this is just silly.

You think you can’t have legitimacy without the successor of St. Augustine of Canterbury, who was elevated by Pope Gregory the Great?

What about the successor of Pope Gregory the Great? Doesn’t he have some legitimacy?
Click to expand...
I was trying an attempt at humor. My real point was not addressing Roman Catholics, but people who say they are Anglicans yet deny the importance of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top