Will Rowan Williams join an exodus to Rome?

[LemonAndLime]

My understand is that the whole reason people have converted is solely based on the idea that female Bishops/Vicars is wrong.

That, to me, seems like the wrong reason to convert. “Fine! If I can’t have it my way, I’m going to go to a Church I didn’t believe in until I realised they agreed with me on this issue.”

I know I’m simplifying it a little, but its just what it looks like.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well I’m not going to argue that the Anglican Communion has always had strife and “issues” or that schism is brand new in it. The Reformed Episcopal Church is a good example of that. But really major schisms haven’t taken place until the Twentieth Century. The Continuing Anglicans saw the writing on the wall with W.O. and bailed, understandably. But the ACNA and all the other acronyms that go with it, are the big cataclysms of our time. And all over the world people are brushing off Canterbury. I think in fifty years Canterbury will be virtually non-existent. Anglicans are wising up that “unity” in the ABC is pretty goofy.

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.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi L and L,

If you look at the situation, the main folks jumping off the Anglican Titanic are Anglo-Catholics. They are far more apt to loath women’s ordination than evangelicals. I’m not sure I agree, though, that this isn’t a good reason to convert. The priesthood is 100% totally incompatible with women in the role and this is the issue that opens the eyes of these anglo-catholics and helps them to realize where they belong. For some converts, it was a homosexual coming to their parish as a minister. For some it is a disagreement about sacraments. For some it is polity and the insanity of pastoral care and episcopacy. For some it is history. There is often ONE issue that opens up the convert’s mind to other possibilities.

My understand is that the whole reason people have converted is solely based on the idea that female Bishops/Vicars is wrong.

That, to me, seems like the wrong reason to convert. “Fine! If I can’t have it my way, I’m going to go to a Church I didn’t believe in until I realised they agreed with me on this issue.”

I know I’m simplifying it a little, but its just what it looks like.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

There’s no “apparently” about it. For 500 years Anglicanism has had strange, opposing bed-fellows. It has always had these conflicting forces.

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.

 

[Nine_Two]

Well I’m not going to argue that the Anglican Communion has always had strife and “issues” or that schism is brand new in it. The Reformed Episcopal Church is a good example of that. But really major schisms haven’t taken place until the Twentieth Century. The Continuing Anglicans saw the writing on the wall with W.O. and bailed, understandably. But the ACNA and all the other acronyms that go with it, are the big cataclysms of our time. And all over the world people are brushing off Canterbury. I think in fifty years Canterbury will be virtually non-existent. Anglicans are wising up that “unity” in the ABC is pretty goofy.

But that’s my point, the schisms of the 20th century haven’t been all that major, at least not yet. The schisms of the 17th/18th were major. It’s easy to say that the current happenings are major when you’re right in the middle of it, but when I was in the Anglican Church everyone else seemed perfectly content with how it was going. I left because of issues with what was happening, but I didn’t ever meet someone else who was leaving until just this summer. If you aren’t part of the group it is unnoticeable, if you are then it seems like everyone is doing it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I guess I don’t see the schisms of the 1700’s/1800s as major I see heavy influences and new ways of looking at things being injected into Anglicanism but nothing schismatically relevent. Maybe I’m a dullard in my analysis of those times

But that’s my point, the schisms of the 20th century haven’t been all that major, at least not yet. The schisms of the 17th/18th were major. It’s easy to say that the current happenings are major when you’re right in the middle of it, but when I was in the Anglican Church everyone else seemed perfectly content with how it was going. I left because of issues with what was happening, but I didn’t ever meet someone else who was leaving until just this summer. If you aren’t part of the group it is unnoticeable, if you are then it seems like everyone is doing it.

 

[Jehoshua]

The way i look at the earlier anglican schisms is that the fundamental core of anglicanism remained stable despite the separation of groups like the methodists, despite differing emphases in this whole.

However in contemporary times the fundamental core of anglican has been shattered, in the current crisis it isn’t a movement like the methodists breaking off or a geographical region falling away, its the greater whole of the church falling into chaos where there is no stable centralised position or consensus. Even worse is fundamental aspects of orthodoxy have been questioned such as the invalidity of women in regards to the priesthood.

This perhaps is why some people see the current crisis as the worst, because despite the scale of the crisis the greater whole of anglicanism remained in a stable state despite differing views within the core of anglicanism. Now its a case of the entirety of anglicanism tearing itself a part. Its not a movement within anglicanism in the process of breaking off, its anglicanism in the throes of self obliteration.

 

[JohnnyReb]

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!),

And this is why conservatives are leaving TEC. Its bad. Really bad. I didn’t last 6 months in TEC. But a number of liberal religious people I know are finding a spiritual home in TEC. Wierd. People who want to be religious but be part of groups like the religious coalition for reproductive choice, for instance.

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.

I wonder about this. I mean the conservative groups do lean evangelical (not problematic for me), but in some parishes, they are trying to accommodate Anglo-Catholics as well. I know in ours we do. On the other hand, I have seen Anglo-Catholics chastize the ACNA and AMIA for being too evangelical. Those who feel this way may go to Rome, but others will not.

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?

Oh and its very mixed up indeed. It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s hard to tell if TEC really believes the nonsense they spew or if they’re just trying to pack people into the pews with a “hey, man, no hang-ups here, come as you are, leave as you are, just love your neighbor, brother, peace, you don’t even have to believe in Christ!” approach. Liberals always believe that the key to better attendance numbers is to make things “easier” and more “open” and liberal. The fact is, THEY’RE DEAD WRONG. That’s NOT the case in the slightest. Recent history shows that the more liberal a church gets, by and large, the more people FLEE the scene to more conservative groups. People, for the most part, join a religion to be changed, transformed, to grow, to be CHALLENGED by God. When you enter a church and are told status quo is the key, it doesn’t wash with people who have common sense. That “let’s be inclusive” jibber-jabber isn’t taken seriously by anyone with an ounce of integrity or theological brains.

And this is why conservatives are leaving TEC. Its bad. Really bad. I didn’t last 6 months in TEC. But a number of liberal religious people I know are finding a spiritual home in TEC. Wierd. People who want to be religious but be part of groups like the religious coalition for reproductive choice, for instance.

I wonder about this. I mean the conservative groups do lean evangelical (not problematic for me), but in some parishes, they are trying to accommodate Anglo-Catholics as well. I know in ours we do. On the other hand, I have seen Anglo-Catholics chastize the ACNA and AMIA for being too evangelical. Those who feel this way may go to Rome, but others will not.

Oh and its very mixed up indeed. It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[JohnnyReb]

It’s hard to tell if TEC really believes the nonsense they spew or if they’re just trying to pack people into the pews with a “hey, man, no hang-ups here, come as you are, leave as you are, just love your neighbor, brother, peace, you don’t even have to believe in Christ!” approach. Liberals always believe that the key to better attendance numbers is to make things “easier” and more “open” and liberal. The fact is, THEY’RE DEAD WRONG. That’s NOT the case in the slightest. Recent history shows that the more liberal a church gets, by and large, the more people FLEE the scene to more conservative groups. People, for the most part, join a religion to be changed, transformed, to grow, to be CHALLENGED by God. When you enter a church and are told status quo is the key, it doesn’t wash with people who have common sense. That “let’s be inclusive” jibber-jabber isn’t taken seriously by anyone with an ounce of integrity or theological brains.

TEC a couple of years ago ran a radio advertising campaign in the area to attract new members. “Were you the kid in Sunday school that always got in trouble for asking too many questions? Come and join like minded folks in the Episcopal Church.” That was the basic message. I will admit I found it appealing and see why others would. It made TEC sound like a place where you could be challenged and you could challenge things. The problem is that more conservative types aren’t made to feel like their opinions are wanted in the discussion. So the challenge is lost. Its one thing to want an intellectually stimulating faith, but religion is more than that, as you point out, and people want more than intellectually stimulating conversation. I can get all that on CAF.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well sadly I never had any “intellectually stimulating” conversations in the ACNA Anglican parish OR the Catholic parish I currently attend. Father James, our Anglican rector, was telling me that, at his men’s bible study, nobody there had heard of Jesse, David’s father. I was blown away. Father James and I had some good, intellectual talks, and I miss that. Catholic priests around here, because they are spread so terribly thin, are mostly just dishing out sacraments and conversations are few and pretty bare bones. It’s not because they’re lousy guys but because we have four priests and a few deacons serving four parishes with enough Masses and confessions and funerals and weddings to make your head spin.

But like I said, the Anglicans and Catholics in most parishes don’t know much about theology. That’s why I laugh when I hear Catholics in here assume that Anglicans and Lutherans are so anti-Catholic and theologically reject Catholic dogma. Most of them haven’t ever even thought about it? Likewise most Catholics don’t know much about Protestantism. The people in CAF are a tad exceptional and uncommon. That’s why this place is enjoyable and a respite. The questions we have or insights are largely going to fall on deaf ears in most Christian circles

TEC a couple of years ago ran a radio advertising campaign in the area to attract new members. “Were you the kid in Sunday school that always got in trouble for asking too many questions? Come and join like minded folks in the Episcopal Church.” That was the basic message. I will admit I found it appealing and see why others would. It made TEC sound like a place where you could be challenged and you could challenge things. The problem is that more conservative types aren’t made to feel like their opinions are wanted in the discussion. So the challenge is lost. Its one thing to want an intellectually stimulating faith, but religion is more than that, as you point out, and people want more than intellectually stimulating conversation. I can get all that on CAF.

 

[kingal86]

I always thought Rowan Williams was liberal on things like homosexuality etc., even if he’s gone back on some of his true views to try and preserve the Anglican Communion.

From an English perspective, I can’t really imagine an Archbishop of Canterbury crossing the Tiber - imagine the scandal! Not that the papers here in our very secular country (with theoretically theocratic constitution) would care that much really, but it would make good copy.

I guess it’s more likely than the Queen doing so…

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I always assumed he was too liberal anyway to accept other church teachings as well.

I’m late on this but I agree. Too Leftist for Holy Mother Church. Too bad.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Well sadly I never had any “intellectually stimulating” conversations in the ACNA Anglican parish OR the Catholic parish I currently attend. Father James, our Anglican rector, was telling me that, at his men’s bible study, nobody there had heard of Jesse, David’s father. I was blown away. Father James and I had some good, intellectual talks, and I miss that. Catholic priests around here, because they are spread so terribly thin, are mostly just dishing out sacraments and conversations are few and pretty bare bones. It’s not because they’re lousy guys but because we have four priests and a few deacons serving four parishes with enough Masses and confessions and funerals and weddings to make your head spin.

But like I said, the Anglicans and Catholics in most parishes don’t know much about theology. That’s why I laugh when I hear Catholics in here assume that Anglicans and Lutherans are so anti-Catholic and theologically reject Catholic dogma. Most of them haven’t ever even thought about it? Likewise most Catholics don’t know much about Protestantism. The people in CAF are a tad exceptional and uncommon. That’s why this place is enjoyable and a respite. The questions we have or insights are largely going to fall on deaf ears in most Christian circles

I personally know of some Fundamentalist Protestants that genuinely believe we WCs and ECs practice some sort of Cannibalism, Gurney. :thumbsup:

So I tend to agree with what you are saying.

 

[Jehoshua]

I would rather drink blood with the pope than wine with zwingli.

even though Martin Luther is responsible for a grave evil and the whole existence of protestantism, you have to give him credit for this quote.

---

how sad that some people have fallen to the same lie as the pagan romans in the old empire. They used to say the same thing, that we were cannibals.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I would rather drink blood with the pope than wine with zwingli.

even though Martin Luther is responsible for a grave evil and the whole existence of protestantism, you have to give him credit for this quote.

---

how sad that some people have fallen to the same lie as the pagan romans in the old empire. They used to say the same thing, that we were cannibals.

It’s interesting that when Zwingli was killed along with some of His followers in the War Of Kappel in 1531, Luther observed----“How Well God knows his Business.”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Luckily I’ve never actually heard any Protestants say this in person. I’ve heard it online and in some books but never from a Protestant face to face. I think they don’t understand that while Christ is present in body, blood, divinity, and soul, it is a sacramental mystery and He is physically present in a mysterious totality, not in a fleshly carnal form like biting into flesh in real life. It’s tough to explain the real presence from the Catholic perspective. It’s still a mystery. It’s flesh but in a “sacramental” way not a physical meat type of way.

I think we were better off before Transubstantiation came to the fore. It’s too tough to explain a mystery that is beyond human contemplation.

I personally know of some Fundamentalist Protestants that genuinely believe we WCs and ECs practice some sort of Cannibalism, Gurney. :thumbsup:

So I tend to agree with what you are saying.

 

[1234]

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.

I don’t think that it will be 5%. The AC is not made up of white bishops and priests who are 50 year old and up. When there was a “mass exodus” of priests in the 70’s after the ordination of women, these were mainly older priests, many retired, suffragens, etc. Their places, of course, were immediately filled by the young women being ordained.