When one's church is realigning, it is important to understand the theological implications of this realignment. Both you and K have frequently called attention to your own moves to Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy, respectively. From your posts, it has been clear that in your decisions you carefully considered what some might consider “finer points” of theology and its reflection in the liturgy. Whether or not you were “drowning” when you made your move, you chose paths which derive their legitimacy in part from an unquestionable apostolic succession and an understanding of the sacraments that carried forth from the first centuries.
It is truly a great blessing that Anglo-Protestants now have a clearer future, but it is important for orthodox Anglo-Catholics to understand that this announcement appears to do little to address their path forward. At this point, their options appear unchanged: to join a Continuing Anglican (”Affirmation of St. Louis”) Church, to embrace Protestantism, or to swim the Tiber or Bosphorus.
All I'm saying is that the changing realignment required GAFCON to make plain something that has always been glossed over -- the theological differences between 'low' and 'high' Anglicans.
So the fallout over Vicki Gene and his ilk has exposed a far deeper and older split, which can no longer be ignored because the survival of actual Christian Anglicanism is at stake.
Although I wish that all the evangelicals could find it in their hearts to reconcile with Rome, given the history of the Anglican church that is probably impossible. The evangelical wing of the Anglican church, to a greater extent in Britain and to a lesser extent in the U.S., has always been anti-Catholic to some degree. Just read anything written by Charles Kingsley and you'll see what I mean.
“Both you and K have frequently called attention to your own moves to Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy, respectively.”
Actually, H, I didn’t move anywhere. Like my family for the past 1800 years or so, I’ve always been Orthodox (we have little imagination), however my reasons for staying there are as you have written.
“It is truly a great blessing that Anglo-Protestants now have a clearer future, but it is important for orthodox Anglo-Catholics to understand that this announcement appears to do little to address their path forward. At this point, their options appear unchanged: to join a Continuing Anglican (”Affirmation of St. Louis”) Church, to embrace Protestantism, or to swim the Tiber or Bosphorus.”
Going to Rome or Constantinople have always been my advice when asked, but I am compelled to say that the more I learn about Continuing Anglicanism from people like the noble sionnsar, the more I see a sort of Western expression of Christian Orthodoxy. I do understand that it is not Orthodoxy, but I do also think its a “modern” expression of something very ancient in English speaking Christianity and to that extent it looks familiar and pleasant and “licit”, canonical issues aside.