Posted on 10/27/2007 1:44:33 PM PDT by Huber
I think Anglican ecclesiology has probably always been a mess. This is partly a result of the way Anglicanism came about in the 16th century, initially through a break with Rome for the King’s own idiosyncratic reasons. So there’s a sense in which the national identity of the Church came first to Anglicanism in a rather topdown sort of way.
However, what emerged over the ensuing decades, and indeed centuries, was a national and then international church which underwent reformation. This was on a different path from the continental Reformation and Counter Reformation but was heavily influenced by at least the former. However, we can pretend no longer that it was a peaceful reformation that met with little resistance. It had many martyrs and the acts of uniformity were ruthlessly and tyrannically imposed on the English people.
In a recent article for the Church of Ireland Gazette (Anglicanism and Protestantism, October 19) Professor Alister McGrath attacks a sort of wishful thinking that places Anglicanism solely in the Catholic tradition. This type of thinking primarily emerges through the plainly unhistoric way in which Anglicans have imagined themselves to be always in a via media between Protestantism and Catholicism.
Yet as recent historians have pointed out the original English reformation was far more self-consciously about finding a middle way between Zwingli and Luther than between Rome and Geneva. Furthermore, other Protestant churches, not just Anglicanism, retained aspects of Catholic order, high views of the sacraments and even an episcopate while still maintaining a Protestant outlook. Anglicanism can therefore be rightly considered different and unique, like every other single church, but certainly cannot claim to uniquely occupy that mythical via media.
Instead it was a later development, the Oxford Movement, which resulted in Anglicanism tilting itself towards a Catholic ecclesiology. While it is true that there were always tensions between Catholic and Protestant elements in the Church of England these cannot ever be said to have represented a via media, as much as a very broad church. Anglicanism has been captured by this Catholic ecclesiology for the past century or so most notably in the ARCIC process. Furthermore, in the proliferation of Anglican Churches throughout the world, there are indeed many provinces which view themselves solely through a Catholic ecclesiological perspective and others which take a more pragmatic Protestant view of things.
The crucial point of the current debate about the future of Anglicanism during this crisis over human sexuality is that either Anglicanism becomes a family of Protestant churches with varying degrees of relationship between its parts, or it continues on its trajectory towards a more fully Catholic vision of the church. And it is here that the Archbishop of Canterbury is signalling the direction he favours in a letter to the Bishop of… [Central] Florida, John Howe.
In the letter, he signals a vision of Anglicanism which rejects the Protestant emphasis on national churches, and instead argues that Anglicanism’s catholicity is expressed through its bishops and dioceses. He writes: “Any diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such.”
This letter was written in the context of a traditionalist bishop seeking reassurances from the Archbishop as a number of his ministers contemplate separating from the diocese in order to retain their Anglican identity. In other words, that Anglican identity is to be found through a bishop in communion with Canterbury, rather than establishing new non-geographic episcopates whose relationship to Canterbury is less clear.
This provides one possible way through the current mess in which the American Episcopal Church finds itself, but leaves a huge number of questions up in the air. Should Anglicanism be solely defined by relationship to Canterbury? What does this emphasis on Bishop and diocese say about Anglican decision making? Only a few years ago, liberal Americans were arguing that the Bishop and diocese were the basic ecclesiological unit and therefore that was where these controversial decisions on same sex blessings and gay clergy should be taken.
On the other hand, the more Catholic view at that time seemed to suggest that such controversial decisions should be taken at the highest synodical level possible. And for many whose consciences are troubled by being in relationship with what they regard as an heretical and apostate denomination such as The Episcopal Church, is it going to help to be separately in communion with a Canterbury which is hedging its bets?
--This article appears in the October 25th , 2007, edition of the Church of England Newspaper on page 14
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. Which is probably correct, given that Lambeth invitations are and (I believe) have always been extended to bishops, not to provinces.
This provides one possible way through the current mess in which the American Episcopal Church finds itself
Yes, but... Only if the bishops acknowledge some sort of subservience to "The Anglican Communion"
What does this emphasis on Bishop and diocese say about Anglican decision making? Only a few years ago, liberal Americans were arguing that the Bishop and diocese were the basic ecclesiological unit and therefore that was where these controversial decisions on same sex blessings and gay clergy should be taken.
I don't think ++Rowan's comments can be properly understood outside the context of the Anglican Covenant idea, which is part of what "Windsor-compliant" is ultimately supposed to mean.
What this whole mess has brought out is the fact that the Anglican Communion has no means to effectively deal with those who behave unacceptably -- be they Americans and Canadians on the homosexual issue, or the Africans pushing into places where they have no jurisdiction. The Covenant would deal with this weakness by making its subscribers subservient to some governing structure. And, incidentally, it would require somebody to have at least some of the trappings of an Anglican pope.
You're buying into the American heretics' attempt at moral equivalence.
"Flying bishops" have been part of the Anglican landscape literally for years. The concept was first used to assist parishes objecting to the ordination of women in dioceses whose bishop permitted it.
815, in fact, agreed to such a scheme in theory, but then simply refused to implement it in any circumstances. (Just as they have, with one excuse and another, refused to ratify the election of the orthodox bishop of South Carolina.) They then argued that orthodox parishes' efforts to get alternative episcopal oversight on their own because 815 refused to move (and ABC refused to implement the appeals process) were JUST as bad as their defiance and disobedience in the matter of ordaining homosexual bishops and blessing 'unions'. And again, the ABC bought into that moral equivalence.
Cantuar has been completely outmaneuvered and outpoliticked by the American heretics.
Nothing left to do but turn out the lights on the Anglican Communion. It's done.
Frankly, I think both the ABC and TEC are leftists for whom the end (leftwing political ideological capture of the church) justifies the means. When it suits their political goals, they argue primacy of the bishop (thus dissenting orthodox parishes should stay with their TEC bishop), and when it suits their goals, they argue primacy of the national churches. I don’t think either one really cares about the ecclesiology for theological reasons.
No, I'm not, actually. I've been against the African inroads for years, because the net effect has been to divide the faithful, and to strengthen the hand of the liberals in the Episcopal Church.
And, as I've said before, I seriously doubt that the Americans who have placed themselves under the (many different) African and other bishops are there to give obedience to them. Rather, I think they're doing the same thing we conservatives always do -- try to win the One Big Battle. And I also think that, when things get difficult and the Africans begin expecting obedience, the Americans will tell them to shove off.
What you've presented is really an opportunity for legalism.
A bit of crudity might perhaps make the point best: what of the prospective groom who gets caught schtupping the maid of honor -- after church has been rented and the priest has agreed to preside, but before the wedding itself? Would the man be welcome at the altar?
++Rowan's intent was clear: alignment with African bishops is grounds for disinvitation. Simply showing up with the invitation in-hand is not going to change that. "Typical Anglican Politeness" might still let them in the door ... but if they're honest, they won't show up at all.
Well, yes.
Wow...I can’t see any evidence that you’ve folowed this issue for any period of time, or that you’ve given it any serious thought.
Wow. I can’t see any evidence that you’ve offered anything substantive in your response. Have you got anything other than snideness?
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.