"Sex is for married heterosexual couples only, says Church of England; "sex outside of heterosexual marriage ‘falls short of God’s purpose’.”

[GKMotley]

Their entire rasison d’etre is to be orthodox, to “continue” in Anglicanism, as it was before the Fall, the last 50+ years. They don’t vary much in that, per se, but they do vary slightly in their position on the historic (notorious) Anglican theological spectrum, That is, some are more over on the reformed side, much are on the Anglo-Catholic/high church side.

My pleasure.

 

[ATraveller]

I know they can be rather ambiguous on many issues, but did the C of E not believe this already, that civil partnership couples are supposed to live in celibacy? Are they just reiterating it now, to be clear?

Because civil partnerships in England, which were only for homosexual couples, are now extended to heterosexual couples.
For the C of E, civil partnerships aren’t marriages.
In any event, everyone connected to the C of E knows the bishops will say one thing because it’s the official line but turn a blind eye to their priests who ignore it. Just like every issue except when priests actively support GAFCON, then the bishops or whoever is responsible for priests threaten discipline.

 

[TomH1]

Well sure, but in England, people have not seen it that way for a long time. They believe the church should ‘get with the times’ and bend to their demands. If it doesn’t, it’s backwards and has no place there.

Yes, I am aware of this. It is bad enough when it comes from secular society. However, this also seems to be the view of a significant number of Anglicans.

 

[GKMotley]

Been that way in my town for 30 years and more.

 

[GKMotley]

Some here might wonder if there is any movement toward reuniting the splintered Continuum. If so, yes. And there have been in the past. Currently, 4 of the major jurisdictions are moving along nicely toward formation of a large lump of the Continuum, being already in complete sacramental communion. And reaching out to groups in Europe and, most interestingly, to the PNCC. Where this all might eventually go, I dunno. But I certainly see an almost certainty that there will eventually be 1, where there are currently 4, Continuing Anglican jurisdictions. Whether this extends further, who can say.

It occurs to me that some might also wonder of the current ACNA is a member of the Anglican Communion, or merely accepted as such, informally, by various Communion member churches. If so, the latter.

 

[commenter]

Does the Continuum recognize the Holy Orders of male priests in TEC or ACNA, assuming the individual was ordained by a male bishop?

 

[GKMotley]

You rightly caveat the question. Yes. Assuming there are no other reasons to question the validity of their orders.

Of course, if you find some Continuum entity that does differently, remember that Anglicans are…you know.

 

[Polak]

Yep. Tis indeed.

 

[Peter_Jericho]

The national church is out of step with national opinion, so they are under a lot of pressure from society to change their views on marriage while also being under pressure to maintain orthodoxy.

Nothing really unusual about that, when you think about it. We’re called to be a “light to the nations”.

And hi.

 

[commenter]

ltwin:

The national church is out of step with national opinion, so they are under a lot of pressure from society to change their views on marriage while also being under pressure to maintain orthodoxy.

Nothing really unusual about that, when you think about it. We’re called to be a “light to the nations”.

The problem is that people my age recall growing up when the churches were recognized by the nations as a light for many; then the churches were recognized as a light, but only for a few. Now the establishment considers them a source of darkness
in parts of Europe, and we’re getting there in the USA.

 

[mdgspencer]

see Church of England: Sex outside of heterosexual marriage 'falls short of God’s purpose' | Church & Ministries News | The Christian Post

The Church of England has released a guidance stating that sexual relations belong between married, heterosexual couples, and that sex in gay or straight civil partnerships “falls short of God’s purpose for human beings."

One response to this stand is provided in a article, “Critics shocked to learn the Church of England is a church.” This article remarks that 'the media has latched onto this, in part, because abstinence is so completely countercultural. As one commentator [put it], this teaching is “out of touch with the lives of, well, basically everyone in England.” (This response is at https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ed-to-learn-the-church-of-england-is-a-church )

 

[catholic03]

Although I am a proud Catholic, my strong links to England make me admire the Church of England.

Glad it has said this.

 

[Rau]

There is such a diversity of position in the non-catholic churches on these matters that I am not surprised at the reaction of many people. In this instance, the affected Church is probably itself partly to blame.

 

[commenter]

This article remarks that 'the media has latched onto this, in part, because abstinence is so completely countercultural. As one commentator [put it], this teaching is “out of touch with the lives of, well, basically everyone in England

The media assumes everyone in England has the same views they have. They also assume the role of the Church is to have no effect at all on the lives of people.

 

[Jimbo]

Still confusing, but that does help. Thank you for the answer!

So the different ‘former colonial’ churches no longer acknowledge the pre-eminence of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

 

[GKMotley]

Not in any binding, episcopal sense. The ABC is the figurehead leader of the Anglican Communion, composed of autocephelous independent Anglican Churches that are in the Communion, thus in communion with each other and the ABC, as its head.

There exist Anglican Churches not in the Communion, in addition.

 

[catholic03]

In Canada, Australia and other places, they just named it the “Anglican Church of X”.

I recall that prior to the 1980s the Anglican Church in Australia was called “The Church of England in Australia”.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

This is an interesting development: Letter re Jan 2020 Pastoral Statement.

The signatories include some distinguished names.

 

[GKMotley]

Same was true of the Anglican Church of Canada, until 1955.

Things change.

 

[ltwin]

So the different ‘former colonial’ churches no longer acknowledge the pre-eminence of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

GKMotley summed it up well. The Archbishop of Canterbury is sort of like the Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch in that both are “first among equals” among the leaders of their respective communions. The Patriarch is important, but he can’t go give orders to the Russian Orthodox Church or any other Eastern Orthodox church because they are all autocephalous.

Each national or regional Anglican church is an autocephalous province within the Anglican Communion. So while the US Episcopal Church would acknowledge the Archbishop as being the spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion, they would not grant him any authority within their church. The Episcopal Church has its own Presiding Bishop; they don’t need to take orders from England.