Possible Elevation of Gay Bishop in Church of England Would Widen Anglican Split

[gurneyhalleck1]

Now there’s some thoughtful commentary, thanks widsom! LOL…

If you took the time to read my post, you’d see I DON’T buy into all the Anglican theology, especially the Calvinist trappings. But you’d have to read what I write and not jump to conclusions or accusations. That’s not always easy.

And if you study Anglicanism, the Church of England under Henry VIII was a far cry from the Church of England of Elizabeth I. It would be more accurate, if you want to smear me, to give her more credit for creating the Anglican Church in that she started the “via media” and the Elizabethan Compromise. Henry’s Church utilized Latin, Marian devotion, kept seven sacraments, and was very Catholic.

If you read my post in its entirety, I don’t buy into ALL of Catholic dogma so therefore I do not wish to be a hypocritical cafeteria Catholic and just go to Mass, put on an act, and be a poser, until I can agree with, internalize, and profess it with all my heart.

But thanks for your “concern” :banghead:

you dont buy into the CC, the 2000 yrs old Church foung by Christ, yet you buy into a religion found by a rebelious ex Catholic Henry the VIII who broke away from the Church to commit sin.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

This is the confused usage of “Anglican” against which I have protested elsewhere. Episcopalians are Anglicans too. The Anglicans you have in mind are not at this point in communion with the CoE, although they are eager to be accepted by the Anglican Communion (including the CoE).

Edwin

Edwin,

I’m glad you brought this to my attention; because I don’t quite understand this. The Anglican Church in my area broke away from TEC and now are part of the AMiA – Anglican Mission in the Americas, a North American missionary movement in North America under the Province of Rwanda. Link: theamia.org/identity/

They claim to be part of the Anglican Communion. Can you shed some light on AMiA?

The church is called St. _______Anglican Church.
Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You can never accuse me of being a dishonest guy. No, I didn’t notice that at all. Thanks for pointing it out.

Gurney,

I haven’t seen a transcript. The link provided was not to a transcript but to a report summarizing the sermon before it had been delivered. Didn’t you notice this?

I disagree completely with this. This is a standard Protestant claim, and it’s dead wrong. Athanasius, *On the Incarnation, *and Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism (sometimes called Address on Religious Instruction), both deal with atonement theology in some depth, and both are in my opinion considerably preferable to all the classic second-millennium Western atonement theologies.

I should note that Athanasius’s view is a lot closer to “penal substitution” than many people realize. He believes that death is not just the natural result of sin, not just an evil power under which humans passed because of sin (though it’s both of these things), but also a just judgment issued by God in response to human sin. So there is a penal element to Athanasius’s theology.

The Early Fathers are often quite vague with soteriology IMO. Take Augustine. He once said “by His death, the one most true sacrifice offered on our behalf, He purged abolished and extinguished … whatever guilt we had.” One can read several soteriological statements by Augustine like that but what does it really mean? Penal Substitution? Ransom? One can glean what he wants from that statement. And as I have read ECF’s on the Atonement, the soteriological language is often vague. Most of the ECF’s you mentioned are not explicitly adopting a view. They speak of Christ dying on our behalf, etc. etc. but I don’t see an explicit view of the how’s of the Atonement, the mode and purpose that fits in the framework of these theories. JND Kelly and a guy like J. S. Romanides can both read the same ECF quotations and glean totally different conclusions. I have to disagree with you when you say the ECF’s had any real hard soteriological views. I still feel that the main thrust was reaction to heresies, christology, sacraments, arianism, nestorianism, all the other “isms” of the day. Few of them had the soteriological ramifications that needed address. I don’t think the idea that there was little atonement talk in the early church was a protestant myth or a catholic one either, just a conclusion based on the history of reading them.
All of these controversies were soteriological in nature. The idea that the early Church didn’t address soteriology was invented by Protestants to disguise their rejection of orthodox Christian soteriology and pretend that they were just tackling something that hadn’t been fully articulated already.

**Many feel that before Anselm he was the main person to care about it. **
I don’t think he talked about it that much, actually.

What I’ve seen from Augustine seems more in the direction of the ransom theory. But Augustine is vast and I’d be happy to look at the passages you have in mind.

**From the little I’ve read lately on his views in this area, I agree. You most likely know ten times more of his views on this than myself. **
I would say that Athanasius is probably closer to penal substitution than many, but there are still key differences. The idea of God “pouring out his wrath” on Jesus, or imputing our sin to Jesus, is absent from Athanasius as from all the Fathers (and indeed from Anselm). But Jesus’ death itself is seen by Athanasius as a sharing in the just punishment of our sin.

I think Athanasius gets misinterpreted as the proponent of a “Christus Victor” theory which is one among many theories and needs to be either complemented by or contrasted to the penal substitution theory. In fact, I don’t think there is anything true or valid in penal substitution that’s not in Athanasius. If there’s something he doesn’t cover, it’s actually the “ransom” theory, which is implicitly there but not emphasized. Athanasius needs Gregory of Nyssa, not Anselm or Calvin, to supplement him.

Insofar as Calvin differs from or goes beyond Athanasius, Calvin is unorthodox. (I don’t mean that you can’t go beyond Athanasius, but that Calvin does so in bad ways.) Anselm is tricky, because he doesn’t actually teach penal substitution (in his account no one needs to be punished at all–Jesus’ obedience satisfies God’s honor), but he distorted Atonement theology in a way that created penal substitution when traditional views about Jesus suffering the punishment of our sin were read back into Anselm’s theory.

Thanks for your post and replies, Edwin. Much-appreciated. This is an area I’m studying right now and wanting to know more about. I’d love to know why you favor the Christus Victor theory over the others if you ever get time. God bless.
I think there are a range of views. But Athanasius is as close to penal substitution as it is orthodox to go, in my opinion.

Edwin

 

[Anna_Scott]

you dont buy into the CC, the 2000 yrs old Church foung by Christ, yet you buy into a religion found by a rebelious ex Catholic Henry the VIII who broke away from the Church to commit sin.

wisdomseeker,

This club-over-the-head uch: approach is not the best way to inspire converts to Catholicism. I don’t think you would appreciate someone summing up Catholicism by pointing out the less-than-finer moments. Every religion has flaws in its history.

Gurney commented on the issue of running toward something, rather than running from something. To run toward Catholicism, we must be able to embrace all of it, including a realistic view of history. I say this as one who does have respect for the Catholic faith.

Anna

 

[wisdomseeker]

wisdomseeker,

This club-over-the-head uch: approach is not the best way to inspire converts to Catholicism. I don’t think you would appreciate someone summing up Catholicism by pointing out the less-than-finer moments. Every religion has flaws in its history.

Gurney commented on the issue of running toward something, rather than running from something. To run toward Catholicism, we must be able to embrace all of it, including a realistic view of history. I say this as one who does have respect for the Catholic faith.

Anna

maybe, but we as Catholics dont equalize the CC with all the others. the CC is the True and only Church. we are not just another religion among many. if you saw this like we do, then you would understand why i said what i said.
the CC is the only Church sent by Christ to represent and speak for Him in the World. it must be believed by all. those hwo picked up the Bible later and read these verses and assumed that they are the ones Jesus is speaking to, it is wrong.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Now there’s some thoughtful commentary, thanks widsom! LOL…

If you took the time to read my post, you’d see I DON’T buy into all the Anglican theology, especially the Calvinist trappings. But you’d have to read what I write and not jump to conclusions or accusations. That’s not always easy.

And if you study Anglicanism, the Church of England under Henry VIII was a far cry from the Church of England of Elizabeth I. It would be more accurate, if you want to smear me, to give her more credit for creating the Anglican Church in that she started the “via media” and the Elizabethan Compromise. Henry’s Church utilized Latin, Marian devotion, kept seven sacraments, and was very Catholic.

If you read my post in its entirety, I don’t buy into ALL of Catholic dogma so therefore I do not wish to be a hypocritical cafeteria Catholic and just go to Mass, put on an act, and be a poser, until I can agree with, internalize, and profess it with all my heart.

But thanks for your “concern” :banghead:

that is plausible but i think you missed the meaning of my words.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No, I think I got the full flavor but if you’d like to elaborate, no problem. God bless.

that is plausible but i think you missed the meaning of my words.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

I’m glad you brought this to my attention; because I don’t quite understand this. The Anglican Church in my area broke away from TEC and now are part of the AMiA – Anglican Mission in the Americas, a North American missionary movement in North America under the Province of Rwanda. Link: theamia.org/identity/

They claim to be part of the Anglican Communion. Can you shed some light on AMiA?

The church is called St. _______Anglican Church.
Anna

The AMiA was founded in 1997 or 1998 by Anglican archbishops in the “Global South” (chiefly, as you say, Rwanda). Last year it became part of a larger umbrella denomination of conservative Anglicans called the “Anglican Church in North America.” But jurisdictionally the different groups making up the ACNA still seem quite autonomous, so I’m not surprised that they describe themselves as AMiA first and foremost.

They are not part of the Anglican Communion as such, but they do have ties to many of the “Global South” provinces of the Communion. Canterbury doesn’t recognize them as the legitimate Anglicans in the U.S., for what that’s worth.

But basically both they and we have an ambiguous status at this point. We are still basically in the Communion, and they aren’t really, but neither of us is unambiguously in or out!

From my perspective, the ACNA situation is complicated by the presence of four ex-TEC dioceses: San Joaquin (where gurney is), Pittsburgh (whose bishop is the primate of the whole ACNA), Quincy (Illinois), and Fort Worth. I regard those four dioceses as the legitimate Anglican dioceses in their respective locations, and I would like to see my diocese make a statement to that effect.

Edwin

 

[Anna_Scott]

The AMiA was founded in 1997 or 1998 by Anglican archbishops in the “Global South” (chiefly, as you say, Rwanda). Last year it became part of a larger umbrella denomination of conservative Anglicans called the “Anglican Church in North America.” But jurisdictionally the different groups making up the ACNA still seem quite autonomous, so I’m not surprised that they describe themselves as AMiA first and foremost.

They are not part of the Anglican Communion as such, but they do have ties to many of the “Global South” provinces of the Communion. Canterbury doesn’t recognize them as the legitimate Anglicans in the U.S., for what that’s worth.

But basically both they and we have an ambiguous status at this point. We are still basically in the Communion, and they aren’t really, but neither of us is unambiguously in or out!

From my perspective, the ACNA situation is complicated by the presence of four ex-TEC dioceses: San Joaquin (where gurney is), Pittsburgh (whose bishop is the primate of the whole ACNA), Quincy (Illinois), and Fort Worth. I regard those four dioceses as the legitimate Anglican dioceses in their respective locations, and I would like to see my diocese make a statement to that effect.

Edwin

Edwin,

I appreciate the information. I could not find a claim of “communion” with Canterbury on the AMiA website; however, “St._________Anglican Church” does claim to be in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. So, I don’t really understand how they are able to make this claim.

Anna

 

[Ryu]

however, “St._________Anglican Church” does claim to be in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. So, I don’t really understand how they are able to make this claim.

Anna

New here, but if I may jump in… The AMiA churches claim that communion through their relationship with Rwanda. As far as they are concerned, they are fully part of the Rwandan province (though connected non-geographically) and are therefore members of the AC (since Rwanda indisputably is). Some ACNA churches share similar relationships with other African or South American provinces, and thus will make the same claim. So, they claim something from their side that Canterbury doesn’t reciprocate. It seems like Canterbury isn’t crazy about multiple provinces in the same geography.

I’m currently at an Episcopal parish (a traditional one), but I have friends in the AMiA/ACNA world and we’ve discussed this a few times.

 

[Contarini]

New here, but if I may jump in… The AMiA churches claim that communion through their relationship with Rwanda. As far as they are concerned, they are fully part of the Rwandan province (though connected non-geographically) and are therefore members of the AC (since Rwanda indisputably is). Some ACNA churches share similar relationships with other African or South American provinces, and thus will make the same claim. So, they claim something from their side that Canterbury doesn’t reciprocate. It seems like Canterbury isn’t crazy about multiple provinces in the same geography.

I’m currently at an Episcopal parish (a traditional one), but I have friends in the AMiA/ACNA world and we’ve discussed this a few times.

Yes, that’s how I understand it as well.

Edwin

 

[Anna_Scott]

New here, but if I may jump in… The AMiA churches claim that communion through their relationship with Rwanda. As far as they are concerned, they are fully part of the Rwandan province (though connected non-geographically) and are therefore members of the AC (since Rwanda indisputably is). Some ACNA churches share similar relationships with other African or South American provinces, and thus will make the same claim. So, they claim something from their side that Canterbury doesn’t reciprocate. It seems like Canterbury isn’t crazy about multiple provinces in the same geography.

I’m currently at an Episcopal parish (a traditional one), but I have friends in the AMiA/ACNA world and we’ve discussed this a few times.

Ryu,

I appreciate the information. I am new to TEC. I’ve only been attending since the last week in January.

Anna