Anglicans must split

[TomUK]

The Bishop of Rocester has spoken out against the recent election of Schori.

"Sometimes you have to recognise that there are two irreconcilable positions and you have to choose between them.

"The right choice is in line with the Bible and the Church's teaching down the ages, not some new-fangled religion we have invented to respond to the 21st Century."

He said the US Church has become detached from its Anglican roots.

"Nobody wants a split but if you think you have virtually two religions in a single Church something has got to give sometime," he said.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5093544.stm

[pmcleanj]

This is an official moderator post.

Since ECUSA's convention is a contentious issue among Anglicans, non-Anglicans should avoid weighing in on either side, neither with debate of their own, nor with support for any contender. Such posts are violations of Christian Forums rule 1.4: they will be deleted and may lead to the poster being warned.

Whether you are Anglican or not, the Christian Forums rules against flaming, baiting and defamation; and all other Christian Forums rules; continue to be in force in threads relating to ECUSA's General Convention as in all other threads. The rule against flaming "groups of members" applies equally to disaffected or disappointed members of ECUSA who might be inclined to flame ECUSA; and to those who are satisfied with any outcomes who might be inclined to flame subgroups or lobbies within ECUSA.

In particular please note that, regardless of your position on the issues facing this convention, ECUSA identifies itself as a Christian group and you may not state or imply that they are non-Christian.

Flaming, baiting, defamation, or any other violations of Christian Forums rules will result in General Convention threads being closed until all violations have been removed; and may lead to the posters' being warned..

Regards,
Pamela Mclean
Senior Moderator, Scripture,Tradition,Reason-Anglican/Old Catholic

Please be sure you have read this (http://www.christianforums.com/t2946763-please-read-this-before-posting-here.html)before continuing to post here

[gtsecc]

Which side will Canturbury recognize as the legitimate American Church?

[karen freeinchristman]

Which side will Canturbury recognize as the legitimate American Church?

That is the million dollar question.

[Aymn27]

Which side will Canturbury recognize as the legitimate American Church?
IF....he communion is to stay in tact..they have no choice but the new one....

[kiwimac]

The Bishop is, frankly, wrong.

Just because he has a problem with the ordination of women is no reason to make it a communion-wide problem.

Kiwimac

[DeoJuvante]

Which side will Canturbury recognize as the legitimate American Church?
The side that recognises the duly elected leaders of the Church?

[cenimo]

One of those "duly elected leaders" appointed in 2003 is still the major cause of a lot of the ongoing problems.

Persoanlly, I don't have problems with a female bishop, but I do have major problems with a Presiding Bishop, male or female, that supported the bishop appointed in 2003.

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.
Ephesians 5:11

[PaladinValer]

The only bishop in the Anglican Communion that decision is up to is the Archbishop of Canterbury.

And I might add that, despite all the hoop-lah going on here, the election is well within grounds of the highest eschelons of Anglicanism: The Anglican Consultative Council.

In addition, several other bishops and primates, some coming from provinces from Third World countries, have expressed joy and gratitude for our upcoming new Presiding Bishop.

I might also remind folks that the Church of England last year voted to remove legal barriers that would disallow women from being bishops.

So this isn't just an "ECUSA" thing. Its worldwide. As I've said many times before, currently, 14 entire provinces allow women to be bishops. More than half allow women priests. Almost all of them allow women deacons.

So far as I can see, the Church is getting exactly what it wanted out of the ECUSA: no open homosexuals (or bisexuals I'm sure is implied) have been elected. And from what I've heard, there is going to be a new official note of apology and request for reconciliation.

So with all due respect, please back off. If you want to find a new target in which to assalt, by all means, that's fine, but this particular target (women clergy) is very weak and in targeting this, I'm questioning the desire of "reconciliation" by the "other side" of the spectrum.

To end, I'll repeat the beginning: The Archbishop of Canterbury desides who is In Communion in terms of my church. I do not recognize that authority from any other bishop, cleric, or laity.

[ContraMundum]

The only bishop in the Anglican Communion that decision is up to is the Archbishop of Canterbury.....

.....To end, I'll repeat the beginning: The Archbishop of Canterbury desides who is In Communion in terms of my church. I do not recognize that authority from any other bishop, cleric, or laity.

There's more to it than some single guy in England making decisions about the world wide communion.

Anyway, putting church politics aside, the main issue is about who Jesus Christ of Nazareth thinks is in the faith and who isn't. We should judge all bishops and archbishops according to His word, His authority.

Pray for Dr Williams.

[PaladinValer]

Wrong. The Archbishop of Canterbury in his role as First Among Equals decides who is In Communion with the Anglican Communion.

It isn't a CoE thing I was talking about, it was an ABC thing. They don't equivocate.

[ContraMundum]

Wrong. The Archbishop of Canterbury in his role as First Among Equals decides who is In Communion with the Anglican Communion.

It isn't a CoE thing I was talking about, it was an ABC thing. They don't equivocate.

Prove it. Start by discussing the election of ABC's, and try to tell me this isn't about the CofE first and foremost. Then we can discuss the roles of various mechanisms in the CofE and their influence and various controls on the office.

The ABC is not a Roman Pontiff, PV. Yet, even Bene has a college to answer to.

[PaladinValer]

Last time I'll say this.

The ABC is more than just the senior Primate of the Church of England. He's also the First Among Equals (and how, mind you, does that give you the notion that I think he's like a pope?) and he's one of the Four Instruments of Unity.

That's what I'm talking about. How do these roles of the ABC have to do with the ABC's roles as senior Primate of the Church of England (aka Primate of All England), Metropolitan of Canterbury, and Bishop of the Diocese of Canterbury?

The Church of England, while interdependent with all other provinces, does not officiate the whole of the Communion. And the ABC, as I've shown, is more than just the senior highest ranking bishop there. He's the First Among Equals (ie: NOT POPE; DO NOT FALSELY ACCUSE ME OF SAYING THAT AGAIN) of the entire Anglican Communion. As I said, those two roles do not equivocate. They are separate roles for the same person.

Where did I get that wrong?

[ContraMundum]

Where did I get that wrong?

Simple: although you deny the title of "Pope" to the ABC, you assume he operates as one. I, on the other hand, say he does not act as a Pope, and I defend not only the title "first among equals" but also the practice.

He does not act unilaterally. That is the point.

[Naomi4Christ]

The split already happened. Those who Continued in the way of the forefathers simply continued on the way, and have been prosperous.

The New Religion is not Anglicanism, it is something else.

I'm wondering if this is something that only bothers those who attach great importance to denominationalism. I just see us as all Christians, whichever denomination they belong to. I can't really get much beyond seeing a denomination for its administrative functions.

I think that "new fangled religion" was a strange choice of words for Ali-Nazar to use. Calling something a new religion almost makes it seem non-Christian, which is, of course, not on at all.

As for the Anglican Communion having to split over this, why don't we all ask ourselves what difference that would make to our lives as we do God's work in our own locations. I don't think it would make any difference to what goes on in the streets of my town, or affect those we are taking the gospel to.

[DeoJuvante]

I'm wondering if this is something that only bothers those who attach great importance to denominationalism. I just see us as all Christians, whichever denomination they belong to. I can't really get much beyond seeing a denomination for its administrative functions.

I think that "new fangled religion" was a strange choice of words for Ali-Nazar to use. Calling something a new religion almost makes it seem non-Christian, which is off course not on at all.

As for the Anglican Communion having to split over this, why don't we all ask ourselves what difference that would make to our lives as we do God's work in our own locations. I don't think it would make any difference to what goes on in the streets of my town, or affect those we are taking the gospel to.
I can't come at the idea that the Anglican Church or any Catholic Church is 'merely' a denomination. Because of our episcopal structure, we celebrate mass with a priest under the authority of a bishop, which binds the entire diocese together. One couldn't just do away with the diocese and continue celebrating with just priests... we would be something very different.

[Naomi4Christ]

I can't come at the idea that the Anglican Church or any Catholic Church is 'merely' a denomination. Because of our episcopal structure, we celebrate mass with a priest under the authority of a bishop, which binds the entire diocese together. One couldn't just do away with the diocese and continue celebrating with just priests... we would be something very different.

See, that does absolutely nothing for me. I see my vicar as there to support us in our ministries, and the bishop is there to provide adminstrative as well as sagely moral support to the parishes.

[DeoJuvante]

See, that does absolutely nothing for me. I see my vicar as there to support us in our ministries, and the bishop is there to provide adminstrative as well as sagely moral support to the parishes.

Must be yet another catholic/evangelical split.

[ContraMundum]

I agree Naomi but I think the Anglican communion has had a special witness, which recently has changed. It used to be considered orthodox and conservative by and large.

[pmcleanj]

I'm wondering if this is something that only bothers those who attach great importance to denominationalism. I just see us as all Christians, whichever denomination they belong to. I can't really get much beyond seeing a denomination for its administrative functions.

I think that "new fangled religion" was a strange choice of words for Ali-Nazar to use. Calling something a new religion almost makes it seem non-Christian, which is, of course, not on at all.

As for the Anglican Communion having to split over this, why don't we all ask ourselves what difference that would make to our lives as we do God's work in our own locations. I don't think it would make any difference to what goes on in the streets of my town, or affect those we are taking the gospel to.
What a superbe and loving post Naomi! I couldn't agree more!

[pmcleanj]

Closed for staff review

[karen freeinchristman]

Thread re-opened. Sorry about the delay in re-opening.
Can I ask that everyone try to be gracious from here on out? :)

[IowaLutheran]

Pray for Dr Williams.

Ditto.

http://news.google.com/news?imgefp=CBMwzC_qec0J&imgurl=www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/06/21/ucanterbury.jpg (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/21/ucanterbury.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/21/ixnews.html)

[kiwimac]

And for all the PB's around the world

[TomUK]

I thought the role of PB was different to that of AB. :confused: