Posted on 06/23/2009 9:01:56 PM PDT by PAR35
BEDFORD — Fueled by disputes over many issues — including ordaining a gay bishop — conservatives who have left the national Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada approved a constitution Monday creating a new Anglican Church in North America.
After nearly unanimous adoption of the constitution, some 800 Anglicans — representing 700 dioceses and other groups with some 100,000 parishioners in the U.S. and Canada — stood and sang PraiseGod From Whom All Blessings Flow, in celebrating the new organization.
- snip -
Duncan, who will be ordained as archbishop of the group Wednesday night at Christ Church Plano, said the big challenge is "to keep the main thing the main thing — sharing the transforming Gospel of Jesus Christ with all who will listen."
...
(Excerpt) Read more at star-telegram.com ...
Rick Warren will address the group.
Local option on ordination of women.
Ping
Sounds like mostly good news to me. Still...
“Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams of the Church of England, the symbolic leader of the 38 national bodies making up the Anglican Communion, has voiced concerns about the alternative North American province and said its recognition could take years.
Duncan said, however, that many conservatives in Africa, South America and Australia are dismayed over same-sex marriages and gay ordinations — particularly that of the Rev. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire — and support the proposed province.”
Hearing disapproval or concern from Rowan Williams would seem to me to be not a bad thing, either. He’s certainly no Pope and appears to have a fragile moral compass that’s off on more than one occasion.
Only compass in the world that can point in three different directions simultaneously, and not see any contradictions in itself.
Ok, I’m Catholic and don’t mean this question to be disparaging in any way — I just don’t know. Why set up a new group? Why not just rejoin the Orthodox or Catholic Church?
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this low-volume ping list.
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
The Anglican Church was originally devised as a 'big tent' or 'umbrella' to stop the Catholics and the Puritans (in the historical sense) in England from merrily burning each other depending on who was in power at the moment.
You could be either 'almost Catholic' or 'almost Puritan' and still be Anglican. You could actually BE Catholic or Dissenter and get away with it, so long as you attended the Anglican church and kept your mouth shut.
So inside the Anglicans you have very different groups in terms of beliefs, liturgy, and practice. Usually they are referred to as "high" (more Catholic - 'smells and bells', elaborate ritual, devotions to saints, emphasis on the Eucharist) and "low" (more Protestant - plain sanctuaries, little ritual, emphasis on the sermon as center of the worship). You also have the "middle" or "broad" church group, which tries to sort of compromise with everybody and offend no-one. To further complicate matters, there is also a separate continuum that runs from Evangelical to Ritualistic, as well as some Charismatics.
Most of the folks who are trying to organize a new church are on the 'low' or Evangelical end of the spectrum. They would not be at all happy in the Catholic or Orthodox churches.
With the exception of a few "high" Anglican congregations that were permitted to join the Catholic Church while keeping their distinctive English form of the liturgy (the "Anglican Use Rite"), most "high" Anglicans/Episcopalians left for the Catholics (or in lesser numbers to the Orthodox) on their own or in small groups. We jumped ship back in 2003 and dog-paddled across the Tiber to our very friendly and active parish where we remain.
There are many reasons. Some better than others. As for Orthodoxy, most Anglicans are "utterly western" and would have great difficulties adjusting to the eastern ethos.
As for Rome, I'm afraid that Apostolicae Curae made it very difficult for Anglicans so inclined to go "home to Rome." Also, many Anglicans are firmly protestant in outlook and could not accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church in its entirety.
Anglicanism was always held together by little more than a gentleman's agreement. Once that agreement was breeched, the spiralling downfall began and hasn't stopped and, in my opinion, will not stop. For Anglo-Catholics (the few who are left, anyway) there really is nowhere to go but Rome. For the rest, they'll continue to rearrange the deck chairs.
By the way, this is not the first "Anglican Church in North America" to split from the US and Canada over issues of orthodoxy. In the late 70s, the first ACNA was established in the aftermath of the innovation of priestesses. Sadly, it splintered into a number of different groups over time, as I expect this newest one will. It seems to be what Anglicans do these days.
Perhaps once the Episcopal Church stops taking its former members to court over property it can't possibly use (other than turn to cash) things will settle out and an orthodox, protestant anglican province will unite the various anglican bodies. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
Back in the early 19th century the Evangelicals led a major defection, which became the Methodist Church. It was called "Enthusiasm" at the time, and was frowned on by the old-fashioned "High and Dry" Tory Anglicans, who were not the same as the modern "High" Anglicans. Archdeacon Grantly in Anthony Trollope's novels is a good example of the old-fashioned high-and-dryers, while Bishop Proudie and his horrible wife are examples of Evangelicals. Trollope didn't like Evangelicals much, mostly for social reasons. (English social distinctions make my head ache, they're worse than American Southerners.)
The modern group we now call "high" didn't happen until the Oxford Movement. Of course, many of the Oxford Movement became Catholic, most notably Cardinal Newman.)
I think the Evangelical or low wings tend to have to start their own new movements because there's not an organized group waiting to welcome them. The high wing, on the other hand, always has the Catholics right there with the lights on and the door on the latch.
When we went for our little talks with our new rector (a gracious Irishman who gave generously of his time to a couple of renegade Episcopalians), we discovered after some assigned reading and discussion that we were so "high" that we had no theological grounds of difference and had only two points on which we needed to change: the validity of Anglican Orders and the supremacy of the Pope.
We were able to assent to both those points, mostly because "by their fruits shall ye know them" and it had become obvious that the Anglican hierarchy wasn't working to lead or discipline or much of anything else. The absence of Adult Leadership in New York or in Canterbury made it plain to us that, as in a marriage, somebody ultimately has to be in charge.
My husband put it more succinctly, "Monsignor, we can deal!"
As a historical footnote, it was obvious that Apostolicae Curae was strongly influenced by political issues of the time (much English anti-Catholicism was originally political in origin). In the late 60s there were very intense discussions going on at a fairly high level about revisiting Apostolicae Curae and at the least devising some sort of conditional recognition of Anglican Orders. But the ordination of women stalled that activity, and then the outrageous homosexual circus killed it stone cold dead.
Very similar to my own experience. Reading Newman's Essay on the Development of Doctrine was extremely helpful to me.
I think that Apostolicae Curae made it harder for those Anglicans most likely to go to Rome to do so. It required us to say that we had never been confirmed (or, in the case of clergy, never ordained). As a life long "smells and bellser", I take the sacraments very seriously and it was extremely difficult for me to come to terms with having to say I was never confirmed and had never really received communion.
In hindsight, you can make a case that Apostolicae Curae could have merely stated that, based on the history of Anglicanism, the question of Anglican orders was so muddied that it was impossible to say one way or the other whether they were valid, and anyone joining the Church from the Anglican world would need to be conditionally confirmed (and in the case of clergy ordained). This would have made the road much easier for Anglicans and I don't see how it would have compromised the Roman position.
Have you ever read Absolutely Null and Utterly Void by John Jay Hughes? I've got to get my hands on a copy one of these days. I read it years ago and would like to read it again - though for me the question is now moot. Incidentally, he was (to my knowledge) the only Anglican priest to be received by Rome and ordained sub conditione.
The new province..ACNA, as I understand it, only recognizes TWO sacraments...Many are NOT aware of this...One could pose the question..if marriage isn’t a sacrament, then why are we making such a big deal about who marries whom?
As to your question on joining the Catholic church - if you could see the terrible shape of the church in Dallas and FT Worth, as a result of sex scandles, and how long bishops held on to power even after the Vatican sent a replacement, then you would have some idea why leaving does not look like a better alternative. As a man that gets up each day and reads a meditaion from the writings of John Paul II, I can say it has been a thought, but it is better to work out the relationship when possible. My wife and I did attend Orhodox churches in Dallas, but since the service is in Greek, it makes for a difficult time to try to be with Christ.
Why not leave for Rome or the East? In so doing, we would be ceding the second biggest church in the world to the forces of heresy, heterodoxy and worldly desires. At some point we have to stop running from the evil that seeks to destroy Christ’s Church. At some point we must stand and fight. That stand is being made in the Anglican Communion. All around the world, from Jacksonville to Jos, from Sydney to Vancouver, from the Thames to the Congo, Anglicans are fighting the creeping evil that is seeking to consume their church and every other faithful church. I really hope that our Catholic and Orthodox friends understand that if we lose, this evil will come for them next.
The Anglican Church recognizes two sacraments that were institutued by Christ himself: Baptism and the Eucharist. It recognizes five other sacraments as well: confession/penance, marriage, confirmation, ordination and unction.
The Anglican Church recognizes marriage as a sacrament, but not as a sacrament instituted by Christ during his time on earth.
“Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.”
“What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder” doesn’t do it for you?
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.