|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: New Hampshire gay bishop
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Aleuts are loathe to enter such discussions, given our native reluctance to do focus on anything other than regular sustenance, so difficult to obtain out of walrus-hunting season, but I think there are three points which might bear reflection.
I. Anglicans have an extraordinary history of directing funds to the flavours they favour. SPG vs. CMS is perhaps the best-known, but there are quite literally hundreds of societies and trusts which were established (mainly since the 1820s) to support particular schools of opinion. C of E shipmates are well aware of the existence of the trusts which bought rights of presentation to ensure that their kind of cleric got the parish. ECUSAns have long made certain that different kinds of seminary got their bucks (as in Canada: Trinity College vs Wycliffe, etc).
None of this is new and I keep on hearing the voice of the Prefect of Police in Casablanca crying how shocked, shocked, he was to find gambling on the premises.
If (for example), the Nigerian Church's acts result in a situation where ECUSA withdraws its funding, then they have both made choices with real impacts, and for which the players will someday face Judgement. Of course, we will all be facing Judgement for how we've used that which was given to us, but that's another thread.
II. Some of the different points of view here have to do with how we view the Anglican Church. Some shipmates evidently feel that we are a denomination, happily without any worldwide structure/ sadly without any worldwide structure. Others see Anglican churches as bits of the Catholic Church severed from the rest by history (cf. ++Lord Ramsey's observations on the radical provisionality of Anglicanism). How we see the Anglican Church might determine how we see this issue.
III. From its beginnings as an independent church and its Scots-based understanding of the collegial nature of the episcopate, ECUSA has a longstanding procedure of assessing local elections of bishops. Dioceses' decisions have always been up for judging and I am puzzled that anyone takes the Umbrage of Surprise (see I, above, for gambling on the premises). In Canada, the bishops of each province can raise objections on the election of a bishop, and other churches have similar provisions.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
The sooner this so-called Communion splits, the better.
The door's open, who's stopping you leaving?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
None of this is new
Great post, oh Aleutian One.
I too am shocked, SHOCKED to find such things going on.
And strangely warmed by Mike's rather charming depiction of "Anglican Mainstream" as an alternate denomination in waiting, when it is just abnother "campaign" organised around one or two blokes with some time on their hands, a website, and a mailing list, of a sort that someone or other starts every week, and no more an alternate Anglicanism than this message board is.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Why should I, or anyone else 'leave' , Ken ? I do not think that is the answer. If we cannot live together then we need to accept that and either create structures to enable co-existence without true communion, or mutually agreed separate structures.
If you have been listening to the conservative primates recently, you would not be as naive about the aims of Anglican Mainstream.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Why should I, or anyone else 'leave' , Ken ?
Well you said you wanted a split so you must want someone to leave.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
I have major problems with the Anglican Communion. If we see the Church of England as always the Catholic Church in England, only a bit arsey and always falling out with the rest of the Tradition (think Pelagius, Celtic Church, Henry VIII etc..) then why do we have outposts in other countries? Personally I think ties with the CSI and the Church of Sweden and the European Old Catholics are a better witness to the Catholicity of our Church.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
No, Ken ; I don't think a split necessarily means one group or another being forced out.
The only people suggesting that are conservative primates who wish to throw out ECUSA and are arguing that they have 'already expelled themselves'.
Which is nonsense.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Edward
The Anglican Communion started with the East India Trading Company and the need for a chaplaincy for expats. It then became a colonial thing. If Anglicans truly believed in the branch theory they would close down those parts of the Anglican Communion where there was already an Orthodox or Roman Catholic Church upon the arrival of the British on one of their foreign excursions.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Edward
The Anglican Communion started with the East India Trading Company and the need for a chaplaincy for expats. It then became a colonial thing. If Anglicans truly believed in the branch theory they would close down those parts of the Anglican Communion where there was already an Orthodox or Roman Catholic Church upon the arrival of the British on one of their foreign excursions.
I agree- but only if the Orthodox and the Romans close their branches in England.... ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Cardinal
Sorry, Henry VIII, (only slightly better than Saddam Hussein in my book) was the cuckoo, not the Pope of Rome .... and Hildebrand was the true cuckoo as far as the Orthodox are concerned.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
What's the "branch" theory? Is it that the Church is a subsidiary of HSBC?
And what name did Hildebrand take when he ascended the Papal throne, Fr Hallam?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Fr. G: quote:
Sorry, Henry VIII, (only slightly better than Saddam Hussein in my book) was the cuckoo, not the Pope of Rome ....
I, for one, had never thought that Henry VIII was the Pope of Rome...
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
The Anglican Communion started with the East India Trading Company and the need for a chaplaincy for expats. It then became a colonial thing. If Anglicans truly believed in the branch theory they would close down those parts of the Anglican Communion where there was already an Orthodox or Roman Catholic Church upon the arrival of the British on one of their foreign excursions.
Makes sense to me.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
by Fr. Gregory: If Anglicans truly believed in the branch theory they would close down those parts of the Anglican Communion where there was already an Orthodox or Roman Catholic Church upon the arrival of the British on one of their foreign excursions.
A bit of a slippery slope there. What about the religions that existed in Goa before the Portuguese, Mexico before the Spanish, Alaska before the Russians? etc., etc.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Dyfrig
The "branch theory" is the popular Anglican ecclesiology that there is one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and that the Anglican, Roman and Orthodox communions are branches of that. It received definitive form in the works of Hooker when a geographical / turf version was favoured. In the modern era with less emphasis on geography it has been spiritualised as a theory to a large extent. Needless to say that this is a theory not shared by the other "branches."
Dear Psyduck
quote:
I, for one, had never thought that Henry VIII was the Pope of Rome...
Quite so; neither have I. Henry did, however, abrogate to himself control over the Church IN England which later, perforce, had to become the Church OF England. As monarch, no doubt he justified to himself his actions as that of a temporal ruler exercising temporal jurisdiction. That presumably gave him the right to pillage the monasteries to finance his wars.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Wally
quote:
A bit of a slippery slope there. What about the religions that existed in Goa before the Portuguese, Mexico before the Spanish, Alaska before the Russians? etc., etc.
Sorry for the double post .... trigger finger!
Well, that would only hold true if one thought that all existing religions had priority of tenure by virtue of their (alleged) equal worth in truth terms. This, I do not accept. Show me a pagan tribe and I will seek to present Christ to it .... not by spiritual scalp hunting but by example and kindly words. I would not leave them untouched though. I'll leave the Prime Directive to Star Trek.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
quote:
Originally posted by Gregory:
If Anglicans truly believed in the branch theory they would close down those parts of the Anglican Communion where there was already an Orthodox or Roman Catholic Church upon the arrival of the British on one of their foreign excursions.
I agree- but only if the Orthodox and the Romans close their branches in England....
And, of course, only if those Orthodox and Roman Churches allow good Christian men and women (Anglican variety) to take Communion. Otherwise we'll just have to keep our own places open.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gregory:
Henry did, however, abrogate to himself control over the Church IN England which later, perforce, had to become the Church OF England. As monarch, no doubt he justified to himself his actions as that of a temporal ruler exercising temporal jurisdiction. That presumably gave him the right to pillage the monasteries to finance his wars.
Of course, in the East the Emperor never appointed Bishops, did he?
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
by Fr. Gregory: This, I do not accept.
Nor I, and the point I raised is actually beyond the context of the branch now that I think about it. Within the branch, doesn't the head of the Russian church (can't remember if he's a patriarch or metropolitan) complain pretty loudly about RC incursions on his turf? I realize we're getting on a tangent here.
Tangent aside, in light of some of the other recent posts, I don't really know what a "communion" means if it something holding together two sides in mutual distrust. Creating a church within a church to me just means you have two churches. I don't see the point.
IMO what happened to Jeffrey John was more telling to me about the state of relations between the two sides than what is going on regarding Bishop Robinson.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Come on Chapelhead! Investiture disputes in the Middle Ages between uppity Euro-monarchs and the papacy were commonplace. These didn't create new churches. It wasn't just that Henry wanted to control the appointments at Canterbury ... he wanted a National Church to do his bidding and if that meant breaking communion with the rest of Christendom ... so be it. The Reformation really happened with Edward of course but Henry had shoved his foot against the door and in the Pope's face. POLITICALLY that's just the breathing space the Reformers needed.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
quote:
Dear Psyduck
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I, for one, had never thought that Henry VIII was the Pope of Rome...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite so; neither have I.
I'm sorry - I was being facetious. I have a very literal streak in me, which feeds my pedantry. I just stumbled into this thread, and came upon this from you, without any context at all:
quote:
Sorry, Henry VIII, (only slightly better than Saddam Hussein in my book) was the cuckoo, not the Pope of Rome ....
It amused me. Rather like the sign for a security firm at a hamlet in my parish: 'Brookfield Alarms'. Whenever I read it, I think "Brookfield doesn't have that effect on me..."
But again, given the choice, I would rather see Henry VIII as cuckoo... Completely so...
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
The "branch theory" is the popular Anglican ecclesiology that there is one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and that the Anglican, Roman and Orthodox communions are branches of that.
This is not at all what I've always understood the term to mean, which is that that there is one body of Christ, made up of all Christians, and that all the different denominations and churches and whatnot are branches. That's what it meant in the Baptist church I grew up in, anyway.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gregory:
Investiture disputes in the Middle Ages between uppity Euro-monarchs and the papacy were commonplace. These didn't create new churches.
The line is carefully drawn so your temporal leaders appointing bishops is OK but ours is not.
As has been said, Henry VIII didn't create the reformation, even the reformation in England.
Nor did he create a new church - unless you think that the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England are both churches, I suppose. I didn't think that was your position.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
What chapelhead said.
And although it was Henry's moneygrabbing that made the church-political break with Rome, it was what happened later that made the CofE distinctive.
Henry's church was a nationalised part of the RC church in which administration had been taken over by the local monarch - exactly the same thing was done in France at about the same time, and had been done in Spain generations earlier - neither of those "catholic" monarchies were willing to allow the Pope to have jurisdiction over their local bishops when the other monarch had control of the Pope.
The Reformed character of the Church of England became stronger later. Although Henry found it useful to promote the Cambridge Lutherans & the remnants of the Wycliffites (Lollardy having never quite died out in England, and never quite lost its connection with the Hussites) in order to staff his takeover of the church bureaucracy, that doesn't mean he agreed with them. Having shot his old dogs, (More, Wolsey, and the rest) he needed some new ones and Cromwell got them for him from the Protestants.
There were people that Henry and More and their torturers had had killed at the begining of the takeover who would have been made bishops had they survived to the end of it. No accident that so many of those who did become bishops had spent time abroad, England was a risky place for Christians of Reformed convictions through most of Henry's reign.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
The "branch theory" is the popular Anglican ecclesiology that there is one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and that the Anglican, Roman and Orthodox communions are branches of that.
This is not at all what I've always understood the term to mean, which is that that there is one body of Christ, made up of all Christians, and that all the different denominations and churches and whatnot are branches. That's what it meant in the Baptist church I grew up in, anyway.
Same here for this Anglican.
Although I first heard the phrase "branch theory" on these boards from Fr. Gregory, who said that it was what I believed.
All the churches are "branches" of the Church in a sense - not the denominations like the CofE ort the Baptists or the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox, but the actual churches themselves, local communities of Christians. The denominations are more for administrative convenience.
Which is why, much as Mike would like us to go, few evangelicals are likely to leave the CofE or any other Anglican church over gay bishops - or at least not greatly more than "leave" all the time anyway. Because we're used to seeing the local church, the actual community of Christians we meet with, as "the church" for us, and attach less importance to the superstructure of dioceses and whatnot. So a dodgy bishop here or there is not, to us, the sort of taint that a woman bishop might be to many Anglo-Catholics.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Did anyone readthis ?
Seems relevant to the current discussion....
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Good God. An article in the Guardian which actually shows some understanding of the Church.
Will wonders never cease?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Isn't all this now really about 'succession'?
I was brought up a Congregationalist, in a tradition which basically had two attitudes to the issue of succession. On the one hand, catholicity (the term was used! With gusto!!) was assured through the succession of doctrine - sort of resting on the quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus understanding of what is catholic. On the other - and many Congregationalists would deny this, but there's no doubting the quality of those who didn't, people like Nathaniel Micklem, Daniel Jenkins etc. etc. - there was the ministry as guarantee of catholicity, because it had long been reckoned in mainstream Congregationalism that an ordination in the absence of representatives of other churches as representatives of the Great Church would be seriously deficient. Ordination was strung out as between the representatives of the local church, and (to use a Presbyterian phrase) 'those presbyters to whom it doth belong'.
(I made sure that a Minister of the Church of Scotland was among those imposing hands on me, for reasons now to become plain!)
I am now a Presbyterian. There are Presbyterians who hold to both the above approaches, but also, in the Church of Scotland, Ministers are ordained by their Bishop, that is, the Presbytery. Melville's Presbyterianism essentially made all misniters into coadjutor Bishops, dividing the old monarchical jurisdictional authority ( potestas iuritdictionis) of the Bishop among the Ministers, and specifying that it was to be exercised conjointly by the Ministers qua court, qua Presbytery. There is, of course, a lineal succession of Ministers, ordained by imposition of hands, back to the pre-Reformation Church of Scotland. Whic for some is very important (me, for instance) and for others not.
Mind you, ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) I have always thought it a mark of superior catholicity when a church can acknowledge the catholicity of 'lower' as well as 'higher' churches.
Or as I used to say, when I was Minister of Bethesda Congregational Church in Tywyn: "We are in full communion with the sees of Canterbury and Rome. If they aren't in full communion with us - that's their problem!"
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
And a last thought:
quote:
"We are in full communion with the sees of Canterbury and Rome. If they aren't in full communion with us - that's their problem!"
So, guys - how would this translate in terms of future relations with the Anglican Church in Nigeria, and the Archdiocese of Sydney?
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Dyrfig ; the author is a campaigner for disestablishment and a self-described protestant who thinks the term needs reclaiming!
Did you agree with it?
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Of course I agree with him - there really isn't a proper theological justification for establishment, and he is right to analyse the CofE as only having the power to hold itself together whilst it was genuinely part of the establishment (any future holding together will have to be by virtue of trust, honesty and - I know people are going to have difficulty with this one - charity).
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Almost.
I'd question who actually wants a split. Merseymike, some members of FiF (possibly, if they can get it on financially advantageous terms), I suppose that if Reform went there would be few tears shed by the rest of us. But actually in lots of dioceses, deaneries and even parishes people of diverging views do work together. On good days one cites the diversity in the Church of England as one of the glories of Anglicanism. So it's not a given. If ECUSA ceases to be in communion with Nigeria then so what?
Besides, I can't see Tony Blair devoting the vast amount of parliamentary time necessary for disestablishment so the "woe unto Ilium" or, given the authors perspective, "joy unto Ilium" bit is probably overstated. The real scandal of Establishment is how appointments are made which could be modified without the heavens falling.
But by Guardian standards 8/10.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
This may be of interest .
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[
All the churches are "branches" of the Church in a sense - not the denominations like the CofE ort the Baptists or the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox, but the actual churches themselves, local communities of Christians. The denominations are more for administrative convenience.
Which is why, much as Mike would like us to go, few evangelicals are likely to leave the CofE or any other Anglican church over gay bishops - or at least not greatly more than "leave" all the time anyway. Because we're used to seeing the local church, the actual community of Christians we meet with, as "the church" for us, and attach less importance to the superstructure of dioceses and whatnot. So a dodgy bishop here or there is not, to us, the sort of taint that a woman bishop might be to many Anglo-Catholics.
The "Branch theory" is a precise ecclesiological term and its meaning is just as Fr Gregory posted. This is the definition you'd find in a theological dictionary. The other ideas are nice but not really what one means when referring to Branch Theory as classically formulated.
Now, Ken, from my experience it is those who believe in a congregationalist idea of the church (stress on local, ignore the national etc) who are more likely to break away. If the local is all that matters then you can break away easily. If the denomination is merely for administrative covenience, then it is not essential and can be left.
For a catholic, to leave the larger "structure" is schism. It is to be cut off from the Body. We see the Church as organic. Bishops are the focus of this organic unity- being in communion with your bishop is to be in communion with the Church universal. You do not break away easily- schism is a serious matter, the early church saw schism as sinful.
If you think this is crap- look around you. The more protestant wings of the Anglican family are those who wish to break away, not the catholic (FinF types break communion but their belief in catholic order makes it necessary for them to seek alternative episcopal oversight. This is an attempt to remain within the Church Catholic. Personally, I think FinF logic is flawed, but I can see what they are trying to do. ). If an evangelical parish falls out with the diocese, the province, whatever, it has no theological reason not to break. I know a few parishes who would make this step if certain developments happened. Unlike FinF types, they wouldn't need to find alternative episcopal oversight.
For what it's worth, I want to say that I don't want evangelicals to leave. I love the CofE for what it is. However, as I think MM was saying, certain evangelicals threaten to leave and withold money etc. to get their own way. If this is the way they want to play it, then they should do as they say, and leave.
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Up date from my previous link is found here .
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
"The Cathedral Chapter and the Bishop's Senior Staff regard LGCM as a legitimate Christian organisation, and its commitment to greater inclusivity as a proper moral claim on church and society - and wish it well in its forthcoming conference."
Which is code for "we've decided to shout with the biggest crowd. Very f****** right on, Father.
<Edited by moi. There is only one 'f' in f******
[ 04. September 2003, 16:12: Message edited by: Professor Yaffle ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elizabeth Anne
Altar Girl
# 3555
|
Posted
So...
How long will it be before +Robinson stops being "The Gay Bishop" and just becomes "The Bishop of New Hampshire"?
Posts: 974 | From: New York | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elizabeth Anne:
So...
How long will it be before +Robinson stops being "The Gay Bishop" and just becomes "The Bishop of New Hampshire"?
Hopefully, not too long. I imagine it will be similar to when we first had women priests- after the initial fuss, curiosity etc. people begin to see that the person concerned is perfectly capable of being a good priest/bishop. I imagine that only the extreme opposition will continue to make a fuss- the laity in general usually just need time.
We live in hope ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
So Lambeth 98 - that thing about how God loves lesbians and gays just like everybody else - doesn't mean anything at Manchester Cathedral?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
So Lambeth 98 - that thing about how God loves lesbians and gays just like everybody else - doesn't mean anything at Manchester Cathedral?
As a native of Manchester, I'm extremely disappointed with this decision. Manchester has a significant gay community and this can only seem like the church has raised and extended the middle finger to them
{edited to make the post conform better to the rules of English grammar...}
[ 04. September 2003, 18:48: Message edited by: Cardinal Pole Vault ]
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Very shabby, indeed.
[The decision, not Degs.]
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Ruth and Ken
As the blessed Cardinal of Vertical Displacement Sporting Activity has made clear, from my initial statement; the Branch Theory was (and is) an attempt by Anglicanism to justify its claim to be part of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The tests of the Scriptures, the Creeds, the Apostolic Succession etc., were adduced to substantiate that. It was a 19th Century Tractarian thing and Newman in his Anglican phase referred to it ...
Why John Henry Newman Converted to Catholicism
This is the context for Rome's decision against Anglican orders and Anglicanism's response.
Only later did Protestant Christians hijack the Branch Theory so that they could include themselves. In so doing, Anglo Catholics were wrong-footed and rarely publically denied other Christian denominations a place at the Catholic table, (although privately not all were or are happy about that).
Of course, this is one of the major areas of disagreement and difference of perspective amongst folk on the Ship and I have no desire to derail this thread for a particularly Old Horse! Nonetheless I should point out that Rome and Orthodoxy have been as strong in rejecting the Branch Theory as later Protestant Christians have been in embracing it .... which probably says quite a lot about the origin and status of the idea ... no matter how many Anglo Catholic originally tried to use it to defend their position against what many in the Tractarian movement called "The Italian Mission."
Back to the Thread ...
Of course if Anglicanism wasn't so fond of having specially themed services for special interest groups the LGCM could just come along to the usual Solemn High Mass (private joke for all those in Manchester ) and had a guest person speak. Can you imagine the headlines? "Rowan declaims ... Cathedral can't celebrate the Eucharist!"
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Tee Hee I like it ... ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Oh dear, I'm not supposed to say that now I'm not an Anglican am I?! ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif) ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Oh dear ... 2 minutes have gone by and I can't edit!
To be fair it is a very long time since I was present for a service in Manchester Cathedral ... but I can say this. A more drab, uninspiring example of Christian architecture I hope I shall never see.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Of course, this is one of the major areas of disagreement and difference of perspective amongst folk on the Ship and I have no desire to derail this thread for a particularly Old Horse!
Those of us who believe (and not all, I think, in a Branch Theory manner, as this is the first time I've heard the term) that Anglicanism, Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and a small handful of others are the churches with valid Apostolic Succession and Sacraments appreciate that.
My thoughts (well, angry emotions mainly) on the Manchester decision are on the thread in Hell. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
This thread is Limbo bound.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
