Posted on 11/28/2006 6:29:46 PM PST by sionnsar
It appears a second meeting of bishops following up on the September New York meeting is scheduled for today (November 27th). Not surprisingly, Bishop Iker, on behalf of Bishop Duncan and himself, has said ‘No.” At least he is consistent, having earlier said precisely that he would not attend unless there were specific proposals for APO on the table. That not being the case, he will not go. No news is no news.
The only thing of much new interest in the letter released by the Diocese of Fort Worth is this:
“We believe the situation has deteriorated significantly in recent weeks with threats of lawsuits against bishops appealing for APO and of declaring “vacant sees.” We note that we are now tagged as “problem dioceses” and that we will continue to be monitored by the property task force headed by Bishop Sauls. We also note that this task force is going to cultivate relationships with persons in our dioceses who oppose the position taken by our diocesan conventions. Such posturing is meant to intimidate us and does not promote dialogue and conversation about the matters before us. I have been advised that legal counsel should accompany me to any future meetings with representatives from 815 or the General Convention.” (highlight mine)
I am not sure that what Bishops Iker and Duncan have before them is “posturing.” I hope not. Rather I believe what they are facing is genuine response to their denial of accountability to the offices they hold. Unfortunately, they have been well advised to bring legal counsel. We are down to the end game.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. I pray Iker and Duncan don't blink. My prayer would be for the establishment of an Anglican Church United with Rome for the Catholic-minded Anglicans who wish to maintain their Anglican heritage without the garbage in The Episcopal Church.
I would probably attend an Anglican Catholic Church (by the Catholic definition of Catholic, meaning in union with Rome), as the rite is more beautiful and there is much of the Anglo-Saxon tradition that is appealing.
Of course that would require the union, and union with Rome is a theological step, not a political one.
I am hoping that the eruption of the Devil in the Episcopal Church, which is so obvious and so open, will allow Anglican catholics to see their way theologically to become Anglican Catholics, and that Rome will see its way politically to make sure that there is a full-up Anglican Rite, a 24th Catholic Rite, that stands alongside of the Byzantine Rite and the Syriac Rite, etc., as a true rite of the Church (as distinguished from a Latin Rite indulgence). The difference is key: an indulgence can be removed, a rite cannot be abolished.
For union to take place, there needs to be a parallel movement. THEOLOGICALLY, Anglican catholics need to accept that the primacy of Rome is NOT political but spiritual and biblical, and accept it. POLITICALLY, Rome needs to accept that the Reformation cannot be undone, and that the Anglican Rite, while it was once a spiritual province of the Latin Rite, cannot be brought back into the Latin Rite. It is a separate Rite in its own right now, and that it requires its own independent patricarchal existence as a full PEER of the Latin Rite and the Eastern Rites. The old ecclesial line that gave England to Rome is broken forever by 500 years of history. The Anglicans, I believe, could make the spiritual and theological trek back to Catholicism: the need to Infallible divine power in the face of the literal Dedvil run amok is now so obvious. But the English are not going to be spiritually subordinate to the Italians again.
An Anglican Rite, which is not subordinate to the Latin Rite but IS subrodinate to the Pope, is the theological and political answer. The English get to win the political gain of the Reformation, but Rome wins the theological point. It's the only way.
I am no theologian, but I do know that the doctrine of papal infallibility is not found anywhere in scripture, nor is it found in the record of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is only a man made myth, proclaimed by a church council a mere 136 years ago. I cannot be accorded any real weight because of its origin (with man, not God).
Popes are human beings - sinners who fall short of the glory and perfection of God as portrayed in the person of the Son, Jesus. No pope, living or deceased, is or was infallible. Merely stating that he is doesn't make it so.
Until Rome repudiates that unbiblical doctrine, I don't think most Anglicans will accept Rome's authority over them, period.
Just my opinion.
It is in the Bible, in the power of the keys, given to Peter, to loose and to bind. And Papal authority was clearly understood to exist back to the earliest times. Eusebius reflects on Pope Victor's near use of it against heretics in the 100's AD (Victor was talked out of it, much as Peter was talked out of Judaizing by Paul.)
Anyway, this is the nut of the difference. Anglican catholics can be as catholic as they can be, but the divide between them and being Catholic remains irreducibly theological. Papal infallibility IS in the Bible, right there at Matthew 18:16 (or is it 16:18?). Peter uses that authority given by Jesus visibly in the Acts of the Apostles. And it is history going back to the 100s.
Rome, for her part, certainly can pave the way for political union by granting all sorts of rights and privileges to the Anglican Rite. But the theological point still stands, and is perhaps unbridgeable.
Of course, even if Papal Infallibility were unscriptural and sticks in the craw of Anglicans, residing in a Church that ordains open homosexuals does not allow them to stand apart from Rome on PRINCIPLE, unless they exit Anglicanism as well. Since they don't, the principled argument against an unused doctrine that is but a potentiality (infallibility, today) as a reason to remain aloof from Rome, while remaining in an organization that consecrates sodomites to the episcopacy is, well, not principled. It is political and stubborn.
Besides, everyone knows that regardless of what the Pope says, infallibly or no, there is always the personal veto, which individuals exercise all the time in deciding what they will actually DO or not.
The single largest group of Conservative Anglicans are the Evangelicals who would never join the Roman Church. Our Liturgical form of Worship superficially resembles that of Roman Catholicism, but the underlying Theology is thoroughly Protestant.
Our Priests are married, they are called by each individual congregation and are paid by each Congregation a salary set by the Vestry and approved at an annual Congregational business meeting. Bishops are elected by the members of each Diocese with an equal number of Clergy and Laity voting. The lay Delegates are elected by the members of each Parish.
These differences are far to great to overcome.
A number "Anglo-Catholics" have joined the Roman Church and I'm sure more will in the future and I say more power to them.
I believe the time has come for the Church to split with the Traditional Orthodox Parishes combining in a new Exodus from the Heretics running our once great Church.
Well, we can certainly see where a lack of an infallible leader has gotten the Anglican/Episcopalian Churches.
Christ is the head of His church - men of all denominations have forgotten that.
The true colors of the Roman Catholic Church are there in your statement for all to see. So, this is how it feels on the receiving end?
The good news of the Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing. The arrogance religiosity and the idolatry of wealth are evident in both the Anglican and the Roman Catholic churches and need to be rooted out. Nothing has changes since Jesus dealth with the Pharisees. There are still plenty of those in our churches today. Only Jesus Christ can cleanse His bride and He is doing so. I pray He continues to expose the darkness within the hearts of men who pretend to the priesthood. Better they are dealt with here on planet Earth than at the judgment seat.
Are you sure that you understand what infallibility means?
It doesn't mean that Popes are without sin, or not human beings, or anything of the sort. The state of being without sin is properly impeccability, not infallibility.
The human authors of Scripture wrote under inspiration, which is a higher gift than mere infallibility. Yet they, too were "human beings -- sinners who fell short of the glory of God".
The Pope is German.
I believe in a Holy Church, without spot or blemish. The cleansing you see needs to be done inside human souls, not in the Church. It is imposisble for the Church to need "cleansing". If it does, it is not the spotless bride of Christ.
Indeed! Sell it all and give it to the poor, just as Jesus said.
Who knew?
And the presence of an "infallible leader"? The Reformation.
And the turning away of millions, if not billions, from The One True Faith.
Screwtape's nephew Wormwood (if I remember the names aright) could have done no better.
At this late hour a "full-up Anglican Rite" may make little difference. The Catholic "Anglican Rite" I have read is more likely to be a bit of a turn-off for both '79 and '28 (U.S.) Anglicans -- the former for the old language, the latter for the tin-eared alterations (IMHO -- but I also consider the authors of the '79 to have been excruciatingly tin-eared).
OTOH, if Rome were interested in developing a full-blown Anglican Rite I'd be tempted to volunteer my services, if only as a cradle Anglican sounding-board. If you're going to call it Anglican, at least let it sound Anglican.
Cranmer may have been a heretic, but he sure could write.
So are you fer or agin' adopting a heretic's liturgy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.