The impending collapse of the Anglican Communion : a good or a bad thing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lepanto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lepanto

Guest
I think it is a good thing to the extent that many of Anglicans will seek sanity within the Catholic Church. All man-made institutions are bound to eventually fail, after all, and the Anglican Communion was built on a foundation of sand in the first place.

However, it is a bad thing to the extent that Christianity will be further splintered and that many individuals will be hurt.

Church of England clergy plan mass exit over women bishops
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4245539.ece

If Church got rid of gay clergy it would collapse, says homosexual bishop
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2155865.ece

As controversy rages within the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church is not only surviving - it’s thriving
women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article4236073.ece
 
Lepanto said:
I think it is a good thing to the extent that many of Anglicans will seek sanity within the Catholic Church. All man-made institutions are bound to eventually fail, after all, and the Anglican Communion was built on a foundation of sand in the first place.

However, it is a bad thing to the extent that Christianity will be further splintered and that many individuals will be hurt.

Church of England clergy plan mass exit over women bishops
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4245539.ece

If Church got rid of gay clergy it would collapse, says homosexual bishop
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2155865.ece

As controversy rages within the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church is not only surviving - it’s thriving
women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article4236073.ece
Click to expand...

In 1960, the CC looked very stable & healthy: by 1970, less so (to put it no more strongly).​

“The bigger they come, the harder they fall” - has no one ever told you that 🙂 ? Outward strength is no proof of God’s favour - if it were, then the Apostles were mistaken, & the religions of the Roman Empire (and Judaism itself) enjoyed the favour of God.

Jesus came to a pretty sticky end - there weren’t many ends stickier than being crucified. It was not the kind of death discussed in “decent company”. By any outward appearance, He was a miserable failure: like thousands of others crucified before & after Him. Only faith sees Him in a different light.

So the outward fortunes of a Church are a very poor guide to how God looks upon it. We have no way of knowing what will happen in the CC or in the Anglican Churches even a week from now, let alone a year or ten years. The CC may be on the brink of another great collapse, & the troubles of Anglicans may well be healed; there is no way of knowing.

Of all arguments, the “argument from prosperity” is one of the silliest, because it applies something seen by a limited part of the OT as a sign of Divine approval (something thrown into doubt by books such as “Job”) to the NT; which has a very different scale of values.

The argument is based on an assumption that what is now, will not change. This is why some US books written in the 1950s sound very boastful today: the authors were aware of many things that suggested the US or the Churches in it were prospering (& perhaps insufficiently aware of others, less attractive); they did not take into account - how could they ? - the state of the Union as it was by 1974. By the 1970s it was possible to write in great detail of the woes of the CC, world-wide & in the US; that was not the tone of books written in the 1950s, & is often not the tone of books written in the last 15 years. IOW - how things are now (or seem to be) cannot be taken for granted, or treated as though it will last for ever: for better or for worse.

Why should the value put on a religion depend on anything so uncertain as externals or events ? If the CC is of God, no abuse can make it otherwise; & the same applies to the C of E: its “unprosperity” is no reason to despair of it, & a wonderfully excellent reason to look to God to help it. Trouble should make a Christian overflow with hope: he scarcely needs it, when all is “prosperous” 😃

The collapse of Anglicanism has been foretold several times; as has that of Catholicism. I hope that Anglicanism does not collapse.
 
The Anglican Church is a corrupt and diseased branch, leading the way for the culture meltdown in the UK.

It is a good thing it is going, hopefully in our lifetime.
 
It won’t go away so soon. Nope. It hasn’t reach the fulness of its lies, yet.:sleep:
 
As a former Anglo-Catholic, I’m grieved for the many devout members of all brands of churchmanship in the Anglican communion.

But why weren’t they upset about the Pikes and the Spongs who denied the deity of Jesus Christ? At least Pike had the grace to resign his ministry. Spong didn’t.
 
I think there is a good chance there might be a schism within the Anglican Communion. How much damage this will do to the Anglican Communion is I think an open question, but I don’t think it will ruin the church. I think a bigger problem is the church is dwindling quite rapidly in numbers, due to rapid and accelerating secularisation in its Western churches. It may well be the future of the church lies in Asia, Africa and Latin America, rather than the West, and the agenda will be set there rather than in the U.K.
 
bpbasilphx said:
As a former Anglo-Catholic, I’m grieved for the many devout members of all brands of churchmanship in the Anglican communion.

But why weren’t they upset about the Pikes and the Spongs who denied the deity of Jesus Christ? At least Pike had the grace to resign his ministry. Spong didn’t.
Click to expand...
Oh, I know lots of Anglo-Catholics who were disturbed over such.

Many are now Continuing Anglicans.

GKC
 
Greg27 said:
I think there is a good chance there might be a schism within the Anglican Communion.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but at this point it seems to me like a chain: there’s (1) the conservatives, who are willing to be in full communion with (2) the moderates, who are willing to be in full communion with (3) the liberals, who are willing to be in full communion with (4) the ultra-liberals. (By (4) ultra-liberals I mean the Canadian and US Anglicans/Episcopalians. The Church of England would be an example of (3) the liberals.)
 
Peter_J said:
Perhaps, but at this point it seems to me like a chain: there’s (1) the conservatives, who are willing to be in full communion with (2) the moderates, who are willing to be in full communion with (3) the liberals, who are willing to be in full communion with (4) the ultra-liberals. (By (4) ultra-liberals I mean the Canadian and US Anglicans/Episcopalians. The Church of England would be an example of (3) the liberals.)
Click to expand...
And then there are the orthodox traditionalists, who are not in communion with much of anybody.

GKC
 
**Oh, I know lots of Anglo-Catholics who were disturbed over such.

Many are now Continuing Anglicans.**

**And for the most part, they will be bringing the seeds of all the present problems with them.

Exception: the group called the Traditional Anglican Communion. The bishops thereof all signed a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as an expression of their faith and forwarded it to the Holy See. As a body, they wish to be reconciled, with no conditions. I don’t know why CDF is dragging its feet.**
 
So the good news is, despite the article admits the decline in catholic numbers sinces the 60’s, that the catholic church is relatively better off. Of course in relation to the Anglicans. If you want the real story look at the surge/growth in Islam in the UK. The Catholic church this article says, if you read between the lines, basically stagnant in the UK. Talk about grasping for straws.
 
bpbasilphx said:
**Oh, I know lots of Anglo-Catholics who were disturbed over such.

Many are now Continuing Anglicans.**

**And for the most part, they will be bringing the seeds of all the present problems with them.

Exception: the group called the Traditional Anglican Communion. The bishops thereof all signed a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as an expression of their faith and forwarded it to the Holy See. As a body, they wish to be reconciled, with no conditions. I don’t know why CDF is dragging its feet.**
Click to expand...
Can you explain your first statement a little? Continuing Anglicans have a number of problems, but banal liturgies, females in sacerdotal garments/miters and institutional sexual abnormalities are decidely not among them.

And it is not clear where the Continuing Anglicans are assumed to be bringing those seeds to, and under what circumstances.

GKC
 
GKC said:
And then there are the orthodox traditionalists, who are not in communion with much of anybody.

GKC
Click to expand...
True. I’d be interested to know what position Continuing Anglicans take on dual-communion.
 
GKC said:
Please expand on the question a little.

GKC
Click to expand...
Well, just suppose hypothetically that a “rogue” Continuing Anglican group (let’s call it RCAG ;)) decided that, while still being high-church, it wouldn’t mind being in full communion with some of the more conservative Anglican provinces (even if those provinces are more Evangelical / Low Church).

What I’m wondering is, would other Continuing Anglican groups still be willing to be in full communion with RCAG? Or would they say “We can’t possibly be in full communion with you as long as you’re in full communion with a province that we aren’t in full communion with.”?
 
Peter_J said:
Well, just suppose hypothetically that a “rogue” Continuing Anglican group (let’s call it RCAG ;)) decided that, while still being high-church, it wouldn’t mind being in full communion with some of the more conservative Anglican provinces (even if those provinces are more Evangelical / Low Church).

What I’m wondering is, would other Continuing Anglican groups still be willing to be in full communion with RCAG? Or would they say “We can’t possibly be in full communion with you as long as you’re in full communion with a province that we aren’t in full communion with.”?
Click to expand...
There might be such a named group, at that.

I think the reaction would vary. some might go either way. My SIL is an ordained deacon, for example, and I know he is of the purist variety. There are those who don’t want to interact with Forward in Faith, or who were totally disinterested in the still-born “Third Province” in the CoE, and who want little to do with the various AMIA and related movements.

As an aside, the purism approach is one reason why there are so many Continuing jurisdictons already, and partially why they are so unsuccessful in getting their act together. The idea of not reinventing the Elizabethan Compromise is strong.

GKC
 
GKC said:
There might be such a named group, at that.

I think the reaction would vary. some might go either way.
Click to expand...
Thanks. That makes sense.
GKC said:
As an aside, the purism approach is one reason why there are so many Continuing jurisdictons already, and partially why they are so unsuccessful in getting their act together. The idea of not reinventing the Elizabethan Compromise is strong.

GKC
Click to expand...
What compromise was that?
 
GKC said:
It’s a bit of history that made Anglicanism what it was for roughly 400+ years.

More later, I’m on the run.

GKC
Click to expand...
Back again.

When Henry first took the Church in England private, he essentially retained the basic Roman Catholic doctrines, without the Pope. It’s not that simple, but let that go. Following him was Edward VI, under the control of his uncle, Edward Seymour, as Protector. This was the first point at which the Church of England swung toward the reformed side, seriously. Following which, Mary slammed it back into the RC camp. All this back and forthing caused the forming and strengthening of sectarian parties in the Church and in the government, all trying to swing the country one way or the other. Made for an unsettled time.

When Elzabeth succeeded Mary, she wanted things to be calmer. She herself was more reformed than Henry, less so by far than Edward. But her primary concern was not what she herself believed, but what would allow a peaceful reign, in a (sort of) peaceful country, without sectarian strife and violence. And she meant to have it, even if she had to kill to get it.

Her policy was to declare a moderate path, no extremes (the original via media), requiring the major schools within the Church of England to, in effect, compromise. That’s where the 39 Articles came from. Not an Anglican Confession, they were Erastian limits on what was permissable for the clergy to advocate. A compromise, as it were. And, overall, that was the Elizabethan Compromise, which characterized the CoE for most of its life: reformed and less reformed, high church and low, evangelical and, eventually, Anglo-Catholics, all in communion, under a broad umbrella of mere Christianity. That compromise is broken now, by the secular extremists, who tore the umbrella to pieces, and those of the orthodox Anglo-Catholic persuasion who left are not interested in reinventing the Compromise, outside the formal Anglican Communion, by establishing the same relationship with essentially reformed Anglicans, who make up the bulk of what is left of orthodoxy in Anglicanism.

Anglicans are hard to folllow, without a scorecard.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Anglicans are hard to folllow, without a scorecard.

GKC
Click to expand...
I have been reading Virtue Online for several years now. It is very interesting and they (the conservative, mostly Evangelicals) have my sympathy.

I don’t see the communion collapsing by any means, but it cannot go on the way it has up until now.

Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top