Will Rowan Williams join an exodus to Rome?

[Nine_Two]

There’s nothing worse than separating from the Church.

That’s fine and well but I’m talking about hard times.

 

[1holycatholic]

In all fairness to him, so do many nominal Catholics. For all we know, in his heart he fully accepts all Church teachings but for political reasons, he may not find it expedient to break ranks. But then it’s gossip that I’m even participating in this discussion, just like the case with the former prime minister.

Only God and Rowan Williams know what’s in his heart. It would not be a scandal for him to join the Church.

You should pray that he will come to accept the faith in it’s fullness and come into the Church.
[bibledrb]Luke 15:7[/bibledrb]
There would be a lot of rejoicing on earth too.

 

[lampstand]

I wish I could say yes. I want him to! But I just don’t see it as yet.

 

[Roy5]

A couple of quick thoughts.

 1. I have never thought of Henry VIII as a Protestant. He attacked Luther sharply. He was a schismatic because the Pope would not agree to a wedding anullment. It appears that it was under Elizabeth II that Protestantism became the established church. See he 39 articles. 

 2. The Episcopal Church always has been a puzzle. It is so like the Catholic Church in its liturgy, including the ancient creeds, but when it comes to theological and social issues it appears to accommodate many points of view and seems to be dominated more by 'liberals' than traditionalists.

 3. The local Episcopal parish, I am told, is full of former Catholics. Among reasons: (1) birth control issue; (2) gay issue; (3) sex scandal among priests; (4) theological disagreement with one or more essential Catholic doctrines, sich as Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility in Faith and Morals; (5) divorced ex-Catholics; (6) compromise between Catholic and Protestant husband and wife. Former Catholic seem comfortable in large part because of similar liturgy.

 Happy New Year to Catholics, Anglicans and to several billion other children of our One Lord, God's children who sincerely profess a wide variety of faiths.

.

 

[Roy5]

Woops! I meant Elizabeth I, of course.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t think the Anglican Communion has been through anything as catclysmic and horrible before as what is going on now with the chaos and “realignment” stuff. It’s BAD, Nine. I mean, bad. We have some dioceses like Sydney allowing lay consecration of the Eucharist, people starting to re-think apostolic succession and episcopal polity, liberals in the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada pro-choice, “ordaining” women, declaring that Christ is not the “only” way to salvation, worshipping alongside Hindus and other non-Christian groups like native americans in my area (they had a raindance in the church and totem pole!), the Anglican “conservatives” in Africa are ordaining women, the Anglican “conservatives” in the West are broken into enclaves like CANA, AMIA, REC, and other groups that don’t agree on women’s ordination, the Church of England has an attendance record of ten people in the entire church on Sunday at best p), FIF is in chaos and looking to ordinariates in the Catholic Church, bishops are bailing to Catholicism, evangelicals are leaving for other churches, attendance is down in TEC drastically, Rowan Williams has NO CLUE how to reconcile opposing forces (so much for indaba, right?), and ACNA is really mainly an evangelical enterprise that marginalizes anglo-catholics. Bishop Iker is out of sorts with ACNA and has commented he might not stick with her, Archbishop Duncan continues to “lay hands on hairspray” as GKC puts it , some within ACNA are talking about dropping the filioque to appease Orthodox Christians WHILE ordaining plenty of women (which makes no sense?). I have talked to bishops and priests within ACNA at high levels and they tell me it’s a pile of manure at this point to sort through. Add to that Bishop John-David Schofield is retiring in October 2011, throw in the global arguments and mess and San Joaquin Diocese having “dual citizenship” in Southern Cone AND ACNA and I cannot think of a more bizarre, mixed-up, messy, awful crisis in Anglican history, can you?

I don’t think anyone thinks it is anywhere close to the bulk of the church, however 5% of the third largest Christian organization in the world is a “huge move”.

People should remember though that the Anglican Communion has been through worse before.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Excellent. You’re one of a rare group of posters who are intellectually honest about this. Henry, as you correctly point out, was not a true-blood protestant. He technically could be called one in that he left the Catholic Church and protested its authority BUT his sensibilities were thoroughly Catholic. Under his reign the seven sacraments were kept thoroughly, Mass remained in Latin with the priest facing the altar, confession continued, rosaries were prayed, status quo EXCEPT for the pope being in charge. I think the usual statement “Henry founded the Church of England” is a misnomer. Elizabeth I and Thomas Cranmer really created what you see today far more than Henry ever did. Henry was the political seperatist, not a founder of anything. Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooker, Andrewes, and Elizabeth I did far more to define a new faith than Hank!

Good analysis on your part, Roy.

A couple of quick thoughts.

 1. I have never thought of Henry VIII as a Protestant. He attacked Luther sharply. He was a schismatic because the Pope would not agree to a wedding anullment. It appears that it was under Elizabeth II that Protestantism became the established church. See he 39 articles.

.

 

[1holycatholic]

Excellent. You’re one of a rare group of posters who are intellectually honest about this. Henry, as you correctly point out, was not a true-blood protestant. He technically could be called one in that he left the Catholic Church and protested its authority BUT his sensibilities were thoroughly Catholic. Under his reign the seven sacraments were kept thoroughly, Mass remained in Latin with the priest facing the altar, confession continued, rosaries were prayed, status quo EXCEPT for the pope being in charge. I think the usual statement “Henry founded the Church of England” is a misnomer. Elizabeth I and Thomas Cranmer really created what you see today far more than Henry ever did. Henry was the political seperatist, not a founder of anything. Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooker, Andrewes, and Elizabeth I did far more to define a new faith than Hank!

Good analysis on your part, Roy.

That’s an enormous EXCEPT. It’s the same “I” decide, not the Church as any Protestant denomination. That the externals appeared Catholic is of no consequence since the trajectory of every group founded in the rejection of the authority of the Church is the same. Henry VIII’s separation from the Church differs from the Protestantism on the continent. He left because he could not obtain an annulment.

 

[CMatt25]

Ithink people on this website have either been misled or self deluded into thinking this is a huge move of people. Is not a lot of people moving, not some grand conversion. Its maybe 5%. Its a loud minority though.

I think so too. I at least know in respect to the Episcopal diocese in my area, a local rector assured me there has been very little dissension and no exodus whatsoever. And even across the board, 5% is not much at all. I dont have stats right in front of me but plenty of Catholics counted as Catholic by the Church have quit attending Mass, perhaps attend TEC or other denominations, and so on. And their “exodus” may be of even greater numbers than 5% when you read polls. So if it’s a mere 5%, this broader, huge “exodus” from Anglican to Roman I simply don’t see as occuring either. God bless each of us along our faith walks and peace.

 

[1holycatholic]

I think so too. I at least know in respect to the Episcopal diocese in my area, a local rector assured me there has been very little dissension and no exodus whatsoever. And even across the board, 5% is not much at all. I dont have stats right in front of me but plenty of Catholics counted as Catholic by the Church have quit attending Mass, perhaps attend TEC or other denominations, and so on. And their “exodus” may be of even greater numbers than 5% when you read polls. So if it’s a mere 5%, this broader, huge “exodus” from Anglican to Roman I simply don’t see as occuring either. God bless each of us along our faith walks and peace.

I doubt Catholics who quit attending mass over “pelvic” issues migrate to non Catholic groups who are leaning towards communion with the Church.

The percentage of most Christians who regularly worship in public is dismally low.

Britain has become a ‘Catholic country’
Roman Catholics have overtaken Anglicans as the country’s dominant religious group. More people attend Mass every Sunday than worship with the Church of England, figures seen by The Sunday Telegraph show.

This means that the established Church has lost its place as the nation’s most popular Christian denomination after more than four centuries of unrivalled influence following the Reformation.
…
That’s not due to the strength of Catholicism in Britain.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi, 1Holy, agreed that the “EXCEPT” is enormous, but it does not mean he authored a new religion. I am also well-aware of the reason he left the Church , come on now . But I will say that he kept the grace-giving Sacraments in tact, the devotions in tact, the episcopal validity in tact, and things ran pretty much same as usual. It was Elizabeth I, Edward VI’s rule, Thomas Cranmer, and even guys like Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr and Nicholas Ridley and Thomas Hooker who changed the course of these sacraments and polity and theology in a new direction. I’m speaking in terms of faith, theology, sacraments, and spiritual direction, you’re speaking more in terms of authority and pastoral leadership. Neither one of us is “wrong” per se, just focusing on things differently and I respect your view. Blessings brother.

That’s an enormous EXCEPT. It’s the same “I” decide, not the Church as any Protestant denomination. That the externals appeared Catholic is of no consequence since the trajectory of every group founded in the rejection of the authority of the Church is the same. Henry VIII’s separation from the Church differs from the Protestantism on the continent. He left because he could not obtain an annulment.

 

[Nine_Two]

I don’t think the Anglican Communion has been through anything as catclysmic and horrible before as what is going on now with the chaos and “realignment” stuff. It’s BAD, Nine. I mean, bad. We have some dioceses like Sydney allowing lay consecration of the Eucharist, people starting to re-think apostolic succession and episcopal polity, liberals in the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada pro-choice, “ordaining” women, declaring that Christ is not the “only” way to salvation, worshipping alongside Hindus and other non-Christian groups like native americans in my area (they had a raindance in the church and totem pole!), the Anglican “conservatives” in Africa are ordaining women, the Anglican “conservatives” in the West are broken into enclaves like CANA, AMIA, REC, and other groups that don’t agree on women’s ordination, the Church of England has an attendance record of ten people in the entire church on Sunday at best p), FIF is in chaos and looking to ordinariates in the Catholic Church, bishops are bailing to Catholicism, evangelicals are leaving for other churches, attendance is down in TEC drastically, Rowan Williams has NO CLUE how to reconcile opposing forces (so much for indaba, right?), and ACNA is really mainly an evangelical enterprise that marginalizes anglo-catholics. Bishop Iker is out of sorts with ACNA and has commented he might not stick with her, Archbishop Duncan continues to “lay hands on hairspray” as GKC puts it , some within ACNA are talking about dropping the filioque to appease Orthodox Christians WHILE ordaining plenty of women (which makes no sense?). I have talked to bishops and priests within ACNA at high levels and they tell me it’s a pile of manure at this point to sort through. Add to that Bishop John-David Schofield is retiring in October 2011, throw in the global arguments and mess and San Joaquin Diocese having “dual citizenship” in Southern Cone AND ACNA and I cannot think of a more bizarre, mixed-up, messy, awful crisis in Anglican history, can you?

Is your response based on the idea that you don’t think it could be worse, or on scholarship? I’d say that the clergy in the late 17th/early 18th century would have been pleased with turnout as high as what the Anglican Church gets now, but I really can’t find anything to indicate they cared. The period saw the rise of both the Oxford (aka Anglo-Catholic) movement and the Evangelical Movement (within the Church I mean), and each faction hated the other. On top of that you had the residual Puritans who still had hopes of refounding the CoE on their image, and of course you had the Royalists who dominated the Church and didn’t care about serving God so much as keeping the Puritans or anything vaguely resembling them from getting any sort of power in the Church again. Of course the Oxford Movement and the Evangelicals paid for this.

There were different issues, but the Communion was tearing itself apart then and it was now, the difference is that today so many in the hierarchy want to pretend nothing is happening, back then no one in the hierarchy particularly cared, as long as the other factions lost.

 

[1holycatholic]

Hi, 1Holy, agreed that the “EXCEPT” is enormous, but it does not mean he authored a new religion. I am also well-aware of the reason he left the Church , come on now . But I will say that he kept the grace-giving Sacraments in tact, the devotions in tact, the episcopal validity in tact, and things ran pretty much same as usual. It was Elizabeth I, Edward VI’s rule, Thomas Cranmer, and even guys like Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr and Nicholas Ridley and Thomas Hooker who changed the course of these sacraments and polity and theology in a new direction. I’m speaking in terms of faith, theology, sacraments, and spiritual direction, you’re speaking more in terms of authority and pastoral leadership. Neither one of us is “wrong” per se, just focusing on things differently and I respect your view. Blessings brother.

The episcopal validity remained intact because the sacraments are efficacious ex opere operato. He would have had to deliberately alter the matter, form or intent of the sacrament of ordination in order to invalidate it. That did happen eventually because their theology is mutable.

Everything boils down to authority.

I wouldn’t consider most forms of Protestantism as constituting a new religion.

 

[CMatt25]

I doubt Catholics who quit attending mass over “pelvic” issues migrate to non Catholic groups who are leaning towards communion with the Church.

The percentage of most Christians who regularly worship in public is dismally low.

Britain has become a ‘Catholic country’
Roman Catholics have overtaken Anglicans as the country’s dominant religious group. More people attend Mass every Sunday than worship with the Church of England, figures seen by The Sunday Telegraph show.

This means that the established Church has lost its place as the nation’s most popular Christian denomination after more than four centuries of unrivalled influence following the Reformation.
…
That’s not due to the strength of Catholicism in Britain.

Of course not. And neither did I say they would. Why would a Catholic who dissents from the Church on “pelvic issues” migrate to a church that itself is leaning to Catholicism? They would be back to square one. But from my understanding there are Catholics at least in the US over the course of time who have begun attending those Episcopal churches which are not contemplating migration to Rome or any number of other churches or faith ecclesial communities.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

There were always great men like Thomas Hooker, Lancelot Andrewes, and later Anglican divines who held things together and sought compromise and common sense. Later in the 17th and 18th Centuries you point out that the Communion was tearing itself apart. But the question is, DID IT? Was it torn apart? There was an evangelical void, a come-to-Jesus void and men like the Wesleys filled it. There was a need for a return to the dignity of the catholic piety and the Oxford boys filled it–men like Wilberforce, Pusey, Newman, Bouverie, Williams, and such. There was always, I mean ALWAYS contention in the Anglican Church, Nine, you know that. From day one there was contention, bickering, and in-house fighting. That’s what Elizabeth inherited and had to resolve with the compromise. And Puritans were always lurking stirring the pot…but in the 17th/18th centuries there was no battle over sexuality! There was no battle over holy orders and lay consecrations and women’s ordination and gay ministers and bishops “floating” over other bishops and realignment? I think you are trying to say that things were as bad then as they are now. I couldn’t disagree more. And I’m sure if you polled 1,000 Anglicans on the matter, you wouldn’t get one person to agree with you here. This is THE worst period in Anglican history and it’s quickly descending into an abyss of chaos. There has always been discontent, disagreement, and hooliganism, but it never actually tore the fabric apart completely and created multiple layer upon layer of civil wars and total armageddon theologically.

Is your response based on the idea that you don’t think it could be worse, or on scholarship? I’d say that the clergy in the late 17th/early 18th century would have been pleased with turnout as high as what the Anglican Church gets now, but I really can’t find anything to indicate they cared. The period saw the rise of both the Oxford (aka Anglo-Catholic) movement and the Evangelical Movement (within the Church I mean), and each faction hated the other. On top of that you had the residual Puritans who still had hopes of refounding the CoE on their image, and of course you had the Royalists who dominated the Church and didn’t care about serving God so much as keeping the Puritans or anything vaguely resembling them from getting any sort of power in the Church again. Of course the Oxford Movement and the Evangelicals paid for this.

There were different issues, but the Communion was tearing itself apart then and it was now, the difference is that today so many in the hierarchy want to pretend nothing is happening, back then no one in the hierarchy particularly cared, as long as the other factions lost.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It seems like we agree. That’s what I said basically. We’re in agreement it seems.

The episcopal validity remained intact because the sacraments are efficacious ex opere operato. He would have had to deliberately alter the matter, form or intent of the sacrament of ordination in order to invalidate it. That did happen eventually because their theology is mutable.

Everything boils down to authority.

I wouldn’t consider most forms of Protestantism as constituting a new religion.

 

[1holycatholic]

Of course not. And neither did I say they would. Why would a Catholic who dissents from the Church on “pelvic issues” migrate to a church that itself is leaning to Catholicism? They would be back to square one. But from my understanding there are Catholics at least in the US over the course of time who have begun attending those Episcopal churches which are not contemplating migration to Rome or any number of other churches or faith ecclesial communities.

Apparently the spectrum of the “Anglican Communion” encompasses an entire rainbow of conflicting theologies.

Given the meltdown in progress the term “Anglican Communion” seems like an oxymoron.

 

[1holycatholic]

It seems like we agree. That’s what I said basically. We’re in agreement it seems.

I think so.

 

[Nine_Two]

Later in the 17th and 18th Centuries you point out that the Communion was tearing itself apart. But the question is, DID IT? Was it torn apart?

Yes, absolutely it was.

The bulk of Protestant denominations based in England or the United States (and Canada) hold some legacy tieing them to the COE of that time period. The much celebrated First Great Awakening in US history was basically the Anglican Church imploding on itself in the US (The Presbyterians also saw Schism during this period, but to a much lesser extent). You mark Wesley as one of the people who helped guide the Church, but while he saw himself as being born in the High Church, and dieing in the High Church, his followers saw it otherwise, in the US they completed schism within his lifetime and in Britain shortly after he died.

As I said, the issues weren’t the same but by the time it was done it had developed into far more schismic churches that wanted nothing to do with the establishment than the current Anglican Church has seen. It has a way to go before it can match what happened back then.

You may think the issues are bigger than they were back then - and I’m not commenting on that - but the actual splits which developed and the depths to which the church fell have yet to be matched.

 

[1holycatholic]

Yes, absolutely it was.

That would be true of any Protestant group at any time. What fuels their creation also fuels their destruction.