AMiA?

[Aymn27]

Hello friends!
Could someone please tell me how "catholic" this movement within Anglicanism is? I am very impressed by what I saw on their website and by some of the homepages they provided to their parishes. Most seemed evangelical, but I saw a few that seemed more catholic. Does anyone know if they are like the broader Anglican Communion and allow anglo-catholic thought and practice?

Thanks,
Aaron

[PaladinValer]

AMiA isn't really AC Anglicanism or continuing church Anglicanism. It is an action of one province into the territory and authority of another.

[Aymn27]

AMiA isn't really AC Anglicanism or continuing church Anglicanism. It is an action of one province into the territory and authority of another.
Well, that is your view. I understand that their existence is controversial, and did not intend to get into a discussion about that, but wanted to know about the question in the OP. And..given the rules on this board as to who can post, etc..they certainly fall under Anglicanism. As a person looking towards Anglicanism, they seem to be a vibrant group, and looking on the internet - I see numerous attacks on them and very few negative comments about the ECUSA from them (just a personal observation).

Aaron

[Albion]

Well, that is your view. I understand that their existence is controversial, and did not intend to get into a discussion about that, but wanted to know about the question in the OP. And..given the rules on this board as to who can post, etc..they certainly fall under Anglicanism. As a person looking towards Anglicanism, they seem to be a vibrant group, and looking on the internet - I see numerous attacks on them and very few negative comments about the ECUSA from them (just a personal observation).

Aaron

Most congregations leaving ECUSA these days are heading to AMiA, if that affects your thinking. Most are Anglo-Catholic, or in that direction, but most are also charismatic. Consider that along with everything else.

While the bishops of ECUSA have been suspended from day to day participation in the affairs of the Anglican Commuion, the governing bishops of AMiA are still in good standing, even though this mission (AMiA) is not recognized as an independent member jurisdiction of the AC. This may explain the particular bitterness many mainline Episcopalians feel for AMiA.

[PaladinValer]

Albion, our bishops have not be suspended from all the affairs at the Communion level. That's a gross and inaccurate generalization.

And the bishops on AMiA are not in good standing due to their non-authorized status.

[Aymn27]

Most congregations leaving ECUSA these days are heading to AMiA, if that affects your thinking. Most are Anglo-Catholic, or in that direction, but most are also charismatic. Consider that along with everything else.

While the bishops of ECUSA have been suspended from day to day participation in the affairs of the Anglican Commuion, the governing bishops of AMiA are still in good standing, even though this mission (AMiA) is not recognized as an independent member jurisdiction of the AC. This may explain the particular bitterness many mainline Episcopalians feel for AMiA.
thank you..that helps...I understand that they are not "formally" recognized at this time. I re-read my reply and hope it didn't sound bitter (sorta did to me)...I apologize - as I am not looking for a debate/argument (sorry PaladinValer - if it sounded crude)...I can certainly understand why ECUSA would be unfriendly to them (from one perspective). However, when I think of Anglicanism, the AMiA is much closer to the picture I have in my mind (and I must admit, I am rather drawn to them). They really seem to be in mission!!

[PaladinValer]

What mission? To "evangelize" folks already Christians?

It is so sad that the primates have such little respect for their fellow Anglicans. It is a complete betrayal of the essense of Anglican traditions and values.

They are no differen than fundamentalist Protestants going into Russia to "convert" the "Orthodox heathens" to "pure Christianity" or they going into Latin America doing the same to the Vatican Catholics there.

[Albion]

I re-read my reply and hope it didn't sound bitter (sorta did to me)...I apologize - as I am not looking for a debate/argument (sorry PaladinValer - if it sounded crude)...I can certainly understand why ECUSA would be unfriendly to them (from one perspective). However, when I think of Anglicanism, the AMiA is much closer to the picture I have in my mind (and I must admit, I am rather drawn to them). They really seem to be in mission!!

You're welcome. In case there is any doubt, my comments about bitterness did not have you or any other individual in mind. I have noticed in the media, however, that this mood seems to be there in a general way about AMiA when members of ECUSA are speaking.

That could also be accounted for by the fact that this is the latest challenge to ECUSA from within, whereas the Continuers have been around long enough to be taken for granted. Then too, the Continuers have not expressed very much interest in working with the Anglican Communion--some but not a lot--but AMiA by its nature is on the "inside" and would no doubt play a leading role if there were any setting up of a separate province for the US in the Anglican Communion. I think you are right that the "mission" part of AMiA seems more alive than in some other Anglican bodies, whether in or out of the AC.

[Aymn27]

What mission? To "evangelize" folks already Christians?
I don't see it that way at all. It appears to me that they are aiming at those outside the church, also - are you thinking that those of the ECUSA who have left are being "indoctrinated" by a different gospel? I think they probably moved to a place more in line whith their own views and are attempting to stay within the confines of Anglicanism. To me it appears that any hint of orthodoxy within the ECUSA is attacked and silenced.


It is so sad that the self-righteous, ultra-conservative, hypocrite primates have such little respect for their fellow Anglicans. It is a complete betrayal of the essense of Anglican traditions and values.


I think for some, the flip side of the coin to all the "goings on" in the ECUSA would be judged exactly the same way.


They are no differen than fundamentalist Protestants going into Russia to "convert" the "Orthodox heathens" to "pure Christianity" or they going into Latin America doing the same to the Vatican Catholics there.
[/QUOTE]

As a proponent of the freedom of speech and ideas, I have absolutely no problem with any of the above things. If persons are not well enough grounded in their faith, then it is not "sheep steeling", but rather offering a different message/idea. It is up to the individual to discern what the truth is, if their current church cannot/does not sufficiently educate them, then it is that church's fault for their loss of the faithful.

As far as the ECUSA goes, where does/should the orthodox view fit in??

[PaladinValer]

I don't see it that way at all. It appears to me that they are aiming at those outside the church,

No; it is aimed specifically at ECUSA Episcopalians.

also - are you thinking that those of the ECUSA who have left are being "indoctrinated" by a different gospel?

What "different gospel"? That term is too-often used by evangelicals who themselves, more times than not, follow some heresy themselves (usually it seems either nestorianism, chiliasts, or montanism).

I think they probably moved to a place more in line whith their own views and are attempting to stay within the confines of Anglicanism. To me it appears that any hint of orthodoxy within the ECUSA is attacked and silenced.

You've missed the whole point. It is against not just the canons of the Anglican Communion to do what they are doing, but it is a directl assalt against Holy Tradition. No bishop has the right to invade another bishop's diocese without the expressed permission of the other bishop. In addition, no see/province has the right to invade another see's/province's territory without permission from that see's/province's primate.

I think for some, the flip side of the coin to all the "goings on" in the ECUSA would be judged exactly the same way.

And so they are, under however the same misconceptions that many non-ECUSA and non-ACiC AC Anglicans have about us.

Our provincial canons run our provinces (or at least they are this in the ECUSA; I welcome a ACiC Anglican to correct me if I am mistaken) autocephalously. A lot, if not most, of other Anglicans think our provinces are run like their's are; we are not.

As a proponent of the freedom of speech and ideas, I have absolutely no problem with any of the above things. If persons are not well enough grounded in their faith, then it is not "sheep steeling", but rather offering a different message/idea.

It is far more devious than that.

It is up to the individual to discern what the truth is, if their current church cannot/does not sufficiently educate them, then it is that church's fault for their loss of the faithful.

Oh yes, it is my ECUSA's fault that the hypocritical primates in Africa have the audacity of yelling at us for violating Lambeth when they've been violating Lambeth for far, far longer.:doh:

As far as the ECUSA goes, where does/should the orthodox view fit in??

Fallacy of Begging the Question.

[Aymn27]

No; it is aimed specifically at ECUSA Episcopalians.



What "different gospel"? That term is too-often used by evangelicals who themselves, more times than not, follow some heresy themselves (usually it seems either nestorianism, chiliasts, or montanism).



You've missed the whole point. It is against not just the canons of the Anglican Communion to do what they are doing, but it is a directl assalt against Holy Tradition. No bishop has the right to invade another bishop's diocese without the expressed permission of the other bishop. In addition, no see/province has the right to invade another see's/province's territory without permission from that see's/province's primate.



And so they are, under however the same misconceptions that many non-ECUSA and non-ACiC AC Anglicans have about us.

Our provincial canons run our provinces (or at least they are this in the ECUSA; I welcome a ACiC Anglican to correct me if I am mistaken) autocephalously. A lot, if not most, of other Anglicans think our provinces are run like their's are; we are not.



It is far more devious than that.



Oh yes, it is my ECUSA's fault that the hypocritical primates in Africa have the audacity of yelling at us for violating Lambeth when they've been violating Lambeth for far, far longer.:doh:



Fallacy of Begging the Question.
Since I am not Anglican, I cannot debate the points you mention(and I know too little to debate it anyways!!). I will just leave it saying that as an outsider looking in - I am much more attracted to the Anglicanism the AMiA is presenting or for that matter, the continuing Anglican movements like the APCK, TAC, etc.

[Albion]

Since I am not Anglican, I cannot debate the points you mention(and I know too little to debate it anyways!!). I will just leave it saying that as an outsider looking in - I am much more attracted to the Anglicanism the AMiA is presenting or for that matter, the continuing Anglican movements like the APCK, TAC, etc.

And don't forget that in the matter of violating canons, it all depends on whose ox is being gored. Had ECUSA not violated its own canons repeatedly over the past 130 years or so, REC, the Continuers, AMiA (all of whom protested changes in the faith that the canons did not permit) would not have felt forced to leave ECUSA in the first place. :)

[PaladinValer]

The AMiA has been around far longer than the most recent of elephant issues, Albion. Quit relying on false history.

And you'll have to show where the ECUSA has violated its "own" canons. Do please remember that the ECUSA is an autocephalousy of dioceses, to which each has its own canons and rules that either mirror or are aside those of the national church?

And as for the REC, the REC left because it simply didn't like the Oxford Movement, so pray tell me: what "canon" did any bit of the Anglican Communion "violate" here?

[trooper]

Tone is a little rough there, fellows. I belong to an ECUSA parish but am quite taken by the AMiA. And would probably join if there were an opportunity geographically. ECUSA has shown itself willing to lead, but unable to accept that some will not follow.

[PaladinValer]

We do, trooper; they just don't want to.

And joining a controversial (at best) group like AMiA which is also in violation makes no difference.

[Fish and Bread]

ECUSA is not schismatic. We want to stay and seemingly may not be allowed to. If anything, it's the African primates who are trying to force us to leave for what even they recognize as excercising our own proper provincial authority. I'd rather not throw such names around at all, though, and instead try to be gracious towards those with whom I disagree.

John

[pmcleanj]

We're going to have to review this thread and clean it up.

Sorry, guys. Time-out to give the mods time to moderate (and still have Sunday supper with our families :)

[pmcleanj]

Thank-you all for your patience. I know this is a contentious issue.

Please remember to address the issues, not the people or identifiable Christian groups; and avoid name-calling and accusations of schism.

[ahab]

There seems to be a predominance of ECUSA members of this forum which is unrepresenative of the whole of the communion. Whats more, many seem to be trying to spin their minority opinion into sounding like a majority.

I wonder is it possible for separate ECUSA and Mainstream Anglican sections to be started for the Anglican communion?

to be It is so sad that the primates have such little respect for their fellow Anglicans. It is a complete betrayal of the essense of Anglican traditions and values.
Thats why the temporary separation has occured, because the ECUSA has not recognised the essense of Anglican traditions and values. The Africans just represent the largest part of the majority who thanfully are vociferous enough to tackle the disaffected.

[ahab]

Apologies for the mistaken repetition

[ahab]

It is so sad that the primates have such little respect for their fellow Anglicans. It is a complete betrayal of the essense of Anglican traditions and values.

Africans make up a large part of the majority of the Anglican communion, and yet few post here. Most posters here are ECUSA/Canadian or European, and also much anglo-catholic tendancies. This means the forum Scripture, Tradition, Reason - Anglican is not balanced but favours those who have betrayed the essense of Anglican traditions and values..

Would it be sensible, following the suspension of the ECUSA leadership to create separate ECUSA and Anglican Majority sections

[Finella]

There seems to be a predominance of ECUSA members of this forum which is unrepresenative of the whole of the communion. Whats more, many seem to be trying to spin their minority opinion into sounding like a majority.

I wonder is it possible for separate ECUSA and Mainstream Anglican sections to be started for the Anglican communion?


Thats why the temporary separation has occured, because the ECUSA has not recognised the essense of Anglican traditions and values. The Africans just represent the largest part of the majority who thanfully are vociferous enough to tackle the disaffected.


Can you explain what makes the African Anglican churches so much more "traditionally Anglican" compared to the ECUSA? I am asking honestly, not facetiously.

[PaladinValer]

ahab, non-argument and false info. The ECUSA has not been suspended from the AC.

[ahab]

Hi Finella,

It was really a response to the general posting here, but specifically concerning post #16 and the African primates who are trying to force us to leave As the thread continues and that post has not been deleted, I thought it was necessary to address the point and re-focus on what the reality is.
Firstly it isnt just the Africans who are 'forcing' the ECUSA to leave but the rest of the communion are temporary suspending their dealings with the ECUSA.

I think your question has also probably helped me clarify my comments... thanks :wave:

[ahab]

Hi PaladinValer,

If I may clarify, "the Episcopal Church in the USA (ECUSA) and the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) have been asked to withdraw from the councils of the church and decide whether or not they wish to return to Anglican (and Biblical) teaching, or choose to “walk separately” from the Anglican Communion."

My apologies, I should have been more precise. But its very much an argument and certainly at least as much as trying to suggest simply that African Anglicans are tring to force the ECUSA to leave which you failed to pick up on.

[Fish and Bread]

The fact is that ECUSA has been very accepting of the more conservative provinces internationally. It is the conservative provinces who have not been very accepting of us. ECUSA is willing to walk in brotherhood with those whom we disagree with on these issues, but it seems as though the provinces of Uganda and Nigeria are not willing to walk in brotherhood with us. Those provinces have ever right to make that decision, but the spin that it all ECUSA's fault is not a very helpful or even a particularly true attitude. ECUSA has operated within the rules and boundries of it's canons. Things could have perhaps been handled in a better and more Christian way, which is why ECUSA has apologized, but ultimately ECUSA is within it's rights to make decisions for it's province. The same goes for the Anglican Church of Canada, who Nigeria and Uganda also have problems with, as well as the Episcopal Church of Scotland, which has issued a statement of what could be considered common cause with the US and Canada. It is also worth noting that South Africa's primate has worked very closely with ECUSA's primate lately on a poverty initiative, so the Nigerian/Ugandian view probably isn't even representative of all of Africa's bishops.

John

[PaladinValer]

ahab, oh so we aren't "Biblical" now? Like the African primates are more "Biblical?" Given historical fact, they've been less "Biblical" for far longer than the ECUSA has been less "Biblical."

Fish and Bread, my fear Duke of Walsingham, I couldn't agree more.

[AveMaria]

You know, I could care less if another Province decides the only appropriate garment for celebrating the Mass is a grass skirt and pink ruffled tutu. Or if they believe baptism is only valid when done by immersion, or to an adult, or with tomato juice instead of Holy Water.

That's the beauty of the Anglican Communion. Autocephelous Provinces.

This isn't an easy issue to discuss, because it always goes back to elephants, and not only are we not supposed to discuss pachyderms, I'm tired of discussing them. They're in the room, so I'll do my best to step around them and not trip and fall over anyone.

Elephants aside, the issue is really about this: Does an autocephalous province has the right to use it's own judgement, criteria, and discernment, when picking leaders?

Let's pretend that I'm Queen of a country called Poodleland. And Anglicanism, in the form of the Church of the Pink Poodle, is the state religion. In the Church of the Pink Poodle, we ordain women and have women bishops. We particularly like unmarried women clergy.

Is this any business of any other province? Even if they believe the Poodles to be morally wrong, does it effect their salvation?

[Simon_Templar]

I'm not an anglican, so I may not be allowed to comment on this discussion... if thats so.. I appologise.

However, there seems to be an view among the ECUSA members that the present debates about wether the ECUSA should be allowed in the AC etc etc, all goes back to "elephants". However, from what I read both in this forum and else where, I think this is an incorrect assumption.

It very much seems that the problems underlying all of these issues go deeper and further back than simply the elephant issue, and are really much broader issues. The elephant issue is simply something that other groups within the AC see as a symptom of deeper issues. I think they view it as more the "straw that broke the camels back" than as the entire issue.

I hope my comments weren't too unwelcome, or deemed to be argumentative.. it just seems from what I read that the two sides of these discussions are often talking about different things.

[PaladinValer]

It has nothing to do with the ECUSA at all.

AMiA was begun by the Province of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda because of their opinion that the ECUSA had "lost" its "traditional values" in 2,000. The Province of Southeast Asia was a co-sponser.

AMiA however is a violation of Lambeth Council as well as Holy Tradition that is as old as Christianity itself. A bishop cannot interfere with the affrairs in the diocese of another bishop. Primates also cannot interfere with the affairs in the province of another primate. AMiA however has done exactly that.

Although Lambeth resolutions are technically optional (not all provinces accept all of them; this isn't just the ECUSA or ACoC), this the one cannot function simply as that due to the structure of the Anglican Communion. It is made of autocephalous (self-governing) provinces,so violation of this is to basically shatter the historic structure of the Church.

This is why the ECUSA and the Archbishop of Canterbury have both decried the primates of Rwanda and Southeast Asia. In addition, I do not believe my ECUSA recognizes the AMiA at all, although I'd welcome a more knowledgeful source to correct me if need be.

[pmcleanj]

Recently, a couple of visitors came by STR who made me very proud of this little community. They said things like "This is a nice forum, where differences are discussed without the contentiousness of some other forums", and "I heard that this is one of the best discussion groups on CF". That is the epitome of what Saint Paul called the Christian community to, when he enjoined the to live so beautifully, with so much love to one another, that their non-believing neighbours would be attracted to Christ by the sheer attractiveness of Christian love.

Those non-believing neighbours are always with us, and our posts on this forum are a witness to them. Even other Christians and fellow-Anglicans may find guidance and encouragement in the compassion we are able to show one another here. It's easy to profess a love that is purely theoretical, that costs nothing. But we are called to Christian love, self-sacrificing love, agape love. The old saw that "I love him; thankfully I don't have to like him" is a cop-out that doesn't have a place in a mutually-commited Christian community. There are things to like and respect about every fellow poster here.

I therefore call on everyone here to the highest standards in our posts to one another:

Be generous with your time in responding fully to other posters. While a one-line label of a heresy or fallacy is quick and efficient, it's also discounting to the other poster. It's a kindness to explain fully what the weaknesses are that you see in the other's position. And, since not everyone has the same vocabulary, it may be a more effective way of making your point.
Recognize and admit that differences in opinion are just that. To say "X and Y disagree over Z" can create a mutually respectful discussion on a way that "X has betrayed the truth that Y holds regarding Z" does not.
In loving humility, weaken your own argument by eschewing the biting wit and emotionally targetted sarcasm that are appropriate to polemic debate. Not everyone has equally thick skin, and hurting the feelings of your brothers and sisters is still inflicting hurt on them -- which I know is not your intent.


The CF rules that that "You will not post anything that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum." That absolutely does NOT mean that you must agree on everything. It does NOT mean that debate will be stifled. But it DOES mean that all debating tactics must be kind, patient, loving, joyful, peaceful, long-suffering, and generous. Any tactics that are not must be moderated. And the least harm and offense will be caused, if everyone moderates himself or herself.

Regarding this thread, you might wish to go check your own posts, and see whether any of them require self-moderation.

Thanks for your help!

[Albion]

Elephants aside, the issue is really about this: Does an autocephalous province has the right to use it's own judgement, criteria, and discernment, when picking leaders?

Let's pretend that I'm Queen of a country called Poodleland. And Anglicanism, in the form of the Church of the Pink Poodle, is the state religion. In the Church of the Pink Poodle, we ordain women and have women bishops. We particularly like unmarried women clergy.

Is this any business of any other province? Even if they believe the Poodles to be morally wrong, does it effect their salvation?

Yes, it's their business; and no, it probably doesn't affect anyone's salvation.

Why is it their business? Precisely because the Anglican Communion is a voluntary association of churches professing a common faith. If some members no longer do, then the purpose for having the association in the first place is compromised...or at least, those who adhere to the purposes for which the association was formed can reasonable feel that this is what happened. If, on the other hand, there were NO agreements made on religious belief and practice when the Anglican Communion were formed, every province would, logically, be entitled to chart its own course. That wasn't the case, however.

But test yourself with some hypothetical situation. Is there no action that some province might take--something despicable and immoral to you--that would bring you to think that it IS your business as a person identified to the world by a common name with that other province? I doubt that it would be so easy to say such a thing except that with the particular elephant causing the stir now, you don't feel that he's that menacing. What if there were another, a different elephant? Would your answer always be the same?

[Finella]

Hi Finella,

It was really a response to the general posting here, but specifically concerning post #16 As the thread continues and that post has not been deleted, I thought it was necessary to address the point and re-focus on what the reality is.
Firstly it isnt just the Africans who are 'forcing' the ECUSA to leave but the rest of the communion are temporary suspending their dealings with the ECUSA.

I think your question has also probably helped me clarify my comments... thanks :wave:
Forgive me, but I still am unclear on where you are coming from, so I'll restate my question. How is the ECUSA less "traditional" than other national Anglican churches? How do other national Anglican churches rate on the Traditionally Anglican scale?

[Colabomb]

Forgive me, but I still am unclear on where you are coming from, so I'll restate my question. How is the ECUSA less "traditional" than other national Anglican churches? How do other national Anglican churches rate on the Traditionally Anglican scale?
Without debating the issues.....

Ecusa supports homosexuality and the ordination of women, which many Anglicans view s sinful and wrong.

[PaladinValer]

Colabomb, the way the ECUSA is set up, that's a bit of a stretch for the former. Ours is an autocephalousy province; the diocese control most of their own functions.

In addition, most AC provinces allow women to be ordained in the diaconate.

[Colabomb]

Colabomb, the way the ECUSA is set up, that's a bit of a stretch for the former. Ours is an autocephalousy province; the diocese control most of their own functions.

In addition, most AC provinces allow women to be ordained in the diaconate.
Deconesses, traditionally, do not recieve the Sacrament of Ordination. I can't speak for the AC, but Deaconesses, in the Tradition of the church, are not just "female Deacons".

[PaladinValer]

I didn't say deaconesses though, did I? :) I was referring to actual deacons.

[Polycarp1]

Without debating the issues.....

Ecusa supports homosexuality and the ordination of women, which many Anglicans view s sinful and wrong.

And applying the same caveat, I want to suggest a reword of your statement to make it more directly on target:

ECUSA supports the full inclusion of homosexual people in the life of the church, in the stance of many members without making a judgment as to the sinfulness of their sexuality and its practice, as well as the ordination of women. Many Anglicans view the attitude enscapsulated by the italicized phrase above as sinful and wrong.

This is not intended to be a smartalec on you, Colabomb. It's addressing a disparity between what's considered most important under the two different stances: the welcoming of all to the Lord's house without judgment, on the one hand; and standing staunch for traditional Christian morality, on the other.

I think it's very important to recognize that disparity. Nobody is "condoning sin" -- we ECUSAns are welcoming sinners of all kinds, knowing that the Lord's bountiful mercy is great enough for all. And you guys aren't being homophobic bigots; you're standing firm for what you believe to be the proper morality for a Christian to hold.

Once you get past that "He doesn't see things as I do, so he must be wrong," there are arguments to be made on both sides.

Paladin Valer's point, though, is important. The Bishops of Rwanda, who were so hot to suggest that ECUSA and New Westminster were violating the principles in a teaching document, had long since violated the covenants under which the structure of the Anglican Communion was set up in the first place.

To give a parallel which most of us are familiar with, it would be like an Eastern Rite Patriarch in Vatican Catholicism deciding to ordain bishops and send them over to the U.S. to ordain married men to the priesthood and set up a parallel organization to the Roman Rite bishops and archbishops here, with separate parishes and so on, not merely to service the few Eastern Rite Catholics here, but in direct competition with the U.S. Roman Rite Catholic churches.

[Colabomb]

And applying the same caveat, I want to suggest a reword of your statement to make it more directly on target:

ECUSA supports the full inclusion of homosexual people in the life of the church, in the stance of many members without making a judgment as to the sinfulness of their sexuality and its practice, as well as the ordination of women. Many Anglicans view the attitude enscapsulated by the italicized phrase above as sinful and wrong.

This is not intended to be a smartalec on you, Colabomb. It's addressing a disparity between what's considered most important under the two different stances: the welcoming of all to the Lord's house without judgment, on the one hand; and standing staunch for traditional Christian morality, on the other.

I think it's very important to recognize that disparity. Nobody is "condoning sin" -- we ECUSAns are welcoming sinners of all kinds, knowing that the Lord's bountiful mercy is great enough for all. And you guys aren't being homophobic bigots; you're standing firm for what you believe to be the proper morality for a Christian to hold.

Once you get past that "He doesn't see things as I do, so he must be wrong," there are arguments to be made on both sides.

Paladin Valer's point, though, is important. The Bishops of Rwanda, who were so hot to suggest that ECUSA and New Westminster were violating the principles in a teaching document, had long since violated the covenants under which the structure of the Anglican Communion was set up in the first place.

To give a parallel which most of us are familiar with, it would be like an Eastern Rite Patriarch in Vatican Catholicism deciding to ordain bishops and send them over to the U.S. to ordain married men to the priesthood and set up a parallel organization to the Roman Rite bishops and archbishops here, with separate parishes and so on, not merely to service the few Eastern Rite Catholics here, but in direct competition with the U.S. Roman Rite Catholic churches.
There is a major difference. Having Married Priests is not a matter of sin. Married Priests are not even considered banned by God amongst the Roman Catholics. They simply practice Celebacy of the Priesthood by choice, not by Scriptural and Traditional Mandate. They admit that.

The difference is that the Africans are sending Bishops because the American AC Church is violating what they consider to be the plain teaching of the Scriptures and Tradition. They are not sending Bishops over a Petty issue, but what they consider a matter of sin and apostasy.

Your example doesn't fit the situation in my opinion.

(Note, I did not make assertions as to the validity of either arguement. I am trying to obey the rules of the forum.)

[Aymn27]

There is a major difference. Having Married Priests is not a matter of sin. Married Priests are not even considered banned by God amongst the Roman Catholics. They simply practice Celebacy of the Priesthood by choice, not by Scriptural and Traditional Mandate. They admit that.

The difference is that the Africans are sending Bishops because the American AC Church is violating what they consider to be the plain teaching of the Scriptures and Tradition. They are not sending Bishops over a Petty issue, but what they consider a matter of sin and apostasy.

Your example doesn't fit the situation in my opinion.

(Note, I did not make assertions as to the validity of either arguement. I am trying to obey the rules of the forum.)
I have to agree with this (if I'm allowed to interject my opinion as a non-Anglican). It would be more like the Roman Church ordaining bishops and sending them into a region where Arianism or Pelagianism is "rampant" in the Church(at least if you view the ECUSA as being in error). I think there is a major difference between breaking a rule regarding providincial boundries and breaking a rule regarding Biblical and Traditional orthodoxy(from the AMiA perspective). I don't think the two can be compared.

[PaladinValer]

Colabomb, even the Vatican Catholic Church has never passed any doctrine or dogma stating that women cannot be priests. That means it is technically still possible, though under the pontificate of the late ++John Paul II, he said that the matter was not up for discussion. Now that he is (sadly) no longer pope, the matter could be brought back to the table.

[trooper]

One of the reasons that I would consider membership in an AMiA parish is that I have little option within my diocese to live within my conscience, except that I have found one parish that holds to the Truth, as I see it. If my bishop comes to visit, and brings with him a female priest as an assistant, or a gay priest, as an assistant during, say, his confirmation visit. Then, "my choice" in this parish is simply that I cannot have my children confirmed here. AMiA would give me the freedom of being directed by a bishop that didn't have those conflicts. I can assure you that my bishop would not ask the female to step out of the church so as to make me feel better.

[Finella]

Without debating the issues.....

Ecusa supports homosexuality and the ordination of women, which many Anglicans view s sinful and wrong.
That's it? That's the only difference between the ECUSA and "Traditional Anglicanism"?

I would have thought there was more to it than that.

One of the reasons that I would consider membership in an AMiA parish is that I have little option within my diocese to live within my conscience, except that I have found one parish that holds to the Truth, as I see it. If my bishop comes to visit, and brings with him a female priest as an assistant, or a gay priest, as an assistant during, say, his confirmation visit. Then, "my choice" in this parish is simply that I cannot have my children confirmed here. AMiA would give me the freedom of being directed by a bishop that didn't have those conflicts. I can assure you that my bishop would not ask the female to step out of the church so as to make me feel better.
Yet I have been forced (via limited options) to attend parishes where bishops and priests do not accept the ordination of women. But I accepted them as Anglicans, without question. If I had a choice I would not attend that church, obviously, but when I didn't have a choice I still attended and it was still meaningful to me personally.

I just can't bear to think of the homosexuality issue and ordination of women issue as "we're bearing on the side of caution by not supporting this" in regard to God's will for the church. From my perspective, it's all about oppression and civil rights; to me it's totally comparable to the Black civil rights movement. Yet despite the passion I feel for this issue, I'm not about to go and kick out the churches that disapprove of women's ordination or homosexuality, even though I see such views as sinful (and I'll not state why exactly so as to avoid the debate about these issues specifically). So why must Traditionalists proclaim/allow/promote schism when similar differences have been worked through previously in Anglican history?

[ahab]

Hi Simon_Templar,

Yes I believe you are right, ist the straw that broke the camels back.

[ahab]

Hi Fish and Bread,



The fact is that ECUSA has been very accepting of the more conservative provinces internationally. It is the conservative provinces who have not been very accepting of us. ECUSA That’s true, but the ECUSA's understanding of scripture passages differs from the what majority hold as crucial, and believe to be indicated as crucial enough to split on in scripture. If the majority are true to the gospels once given, which suggest in this instance brotherhood should cease.

but it seems as though the provinces of Uganda and Nigeria are not willing to walk in brotherhood with us. Well not just those provinces as has been pointed out, but the Anglican communion as a whole. The reality doesn’t seem to have sunk in.

but ultimately ECUSA is within it's rights to make decisions for it's province.

Yes but not my point., the view of a minority ECUSA is well represented, the majority Anglican communion isn’t., that’s really my point.

:)

[Brian Augustyn]

Colabomb, even the Vatican Catholic Church has never passed any doctrine or dogma stating that women cannot be priests. That means it is technically still possible, though under the pontificate of the late ++John Paul II, he said that the matter was not up for discussion. Now that he is (sadly) no longer pope, the matter could be brought back to the table.

Allow me to add some detail to this statement. While it is possibly true that the pope didn't rule out women's ordination infallibly, he was pretty definitively against it.

In 1994, Pope John Paul II issued a statement to the effect that the Church had no authority to admit women to the priesthood and that the question would have to be put off indefinitely. It wasn’t quite an announcement made from a position of infallibility, though it comes very close and there is some debate as to whether it qualifies as an infallible pronouncement.

For all the women who hoped that they might one day become priests, this struck hard, not simply because it denied them their aspirations but also because it appeared to deny them even the dignity of having a debate about the matter. To this day people who attempt to argue that perhaps women are fit to be priests do so with the risk of losing the right to call themselves Catholic theologians.

(The above taken from a longer article at http://atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/women.htm)

Since the Roman Catholic magesterium represents the man who shaped and ruled it for 27 years, it isn 't likely really that any new pope will challenge the church's stand on women's ordination.

The good news is, of course, that we as Episcopalians don't have to hope and wait. Our church already allows women to be priests. Hooray!

Brian

[Aymn27]

Colabomb, even the Vatican Catholic Church has never passed any doctrine or dogma stating that women cannot be priests. That means it is technically still possible, though under the pontificate of the late ++John Paul II, he said that the matter was not up for discussion. Now that he is (sadly) no longer pope, the matter could be brought back to the table.
Actually, it is infallabile, it goes against the teachings of Holy Tradition. It will never happen. The Pope does not pronounce everything ex cathedra (that is an extraordinary statement on matters of faith). He declared a moratorium on the subject and simply said it cannot be done - no Pope has the "power" to change that.

[PaladinValer]

Yes, actually they do. A moratorium can be cancelled. Something ex cathedra cannot.

[Brian Augustyn]

Actually, it is infallabile, it goes against the teachings of Holy Tradition. It will never happen. The Pope does not pronounce everything ex cathedra (that is an extraordinary statement on matters of faith). He declared a moratorium on the subject and simply said it cannot be done - no Pope has the "power" to change that.

As I understand it, it is not considered infallible unless and until it has been pronounced ex cathedra. If, as the article I posted suggests, the late pope's stance on women's ordination, may not be officially considered ex cathedra, then it is not closed and a later pope can reopen the issue anytime he wants. While highly unlikely, it could be changed.

If, as might also be the case, it is indeed deemed an infallible teaching, then it will not change.

As I understand it, however, if some future pope were to recieve new wisdom on an ex cathedra teaching, the change itself would then be ex cathedra and infallible. Highly unlikely, of course, but not impossible I'm told.

And, no, I'm not trying to be a wise guy.

:)
Brian

[Fish and Bread]

That’s true, but the ECUSA has not been accepting of the authority of the scriptures the majority hold as crucial, and is indicated as crucial enough to split on in scripture.

ECUSA voted for a plank at it's 2003 General Convention to reaffirm the full authority of scripture, which passed by a very large margin (It may even have been unanimous, though I honestly don't recall). I think most people on both sides of the major issues that divide us feel that they are being true to scripture. You'll find a few liberals here and there who don't accept the authority of scripture, but they are a small minority even among liberals. These disputes that come up are not truly over the authority of scripture but over an *interpretation* of scripture, which is an important distinction.

the view of a minority ECUSA is well represented, the majority Anglican communion isn’t., that’s really my point

Even my conservative Network rector is in favor of women's ordination and, if I recall correctly, there are four Anglican provinces which now ordain women, including the Church of England. I think it might still qualify as a minority view communion-wide, but only because Nigeria is against it and they are the second largest Anglican province in communion with Canterbury.

John

[julian the apostate]

F & B<****ese disputes that come up are not truly over the authority of scripture but over an *interpretation* of scripture, which is an important distinction

how come you are able to understand that, and it seems so hard for some to get it

that is the common ground

schism is worse than heresy

i dont want anyone to take the above comments as anything other that a plea for unity and tolerance on both sides

schism is worse than heresy is actually a common anglican saying to appeal for unity

[Colabomb]

Removed by moderator request.