JERUSALEM: Pittsburgh Bishop Sees North American Orthodox Province Soon
News Analysis
By David W. Virtue in Jerusalem
www.virtueonline.org
June 25, 2008
Good News is coming for North American orthodox Episcopalians. A new province is on the way. It is only a matter of time now before it comes into existence.
The "separate ecclesiastical structure in North America", called for at Kigali by the Global South Primates in November 2006, is not far off, the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan wrote in a paper delivered to pre-GAFCON theological leaders in Amman, Jordan.
Drawing upon the history of North American efforts to establish an orthodox beach head in the U.S. Duncan noted that when founded in 2003, the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (Anglican Communion Network, or just The Network) proclaimed the vision of "a biblical, missionary and united Anglicanism in North America."
"We were given clarity that our work was to connect all the orthodox together, whether still inside the Episcopal Church or, increasingly, outside in various fragments as rescue efforts were undertaken by various Anglican Provinces. Local circumstances and missionary relationships were producing Rwandan, Ugandan, Nigerian, Kenyan and Southern Cone enclaves all across the continent. It was also clear that several of the historically separated Anglican bodies - the "Continuing Churches" and Reformed Episcopal Church - shared the same Faith as all the rest of us."
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, President of the American Anglican Council and a CANA (Nigerian) bishop, believes that it is more accurately a proto Province one that will bring together the multiple Anglican affiliations that are spread across the country that will, in time, become a full blown province. "We are moving inexorably in that direction. It is no longer a matter of if but when," he told VOL. Given the ever-growing population of American Anglicans under overseas jurisdictions, two issues have emerged: First, since Anglican congregations in some of our major cities are under different Episcopal jurisdictions, how will they work together? If these congregations find a way to serve together for the sake of serving their regions, then mission and evangelism will flourish. However, if they do not find ways to collegially work together to serve their regions, then these congregations will never get beyond being chaplaincies to those who choose to affiliate with them.
Secondly, a more serious issue arises which is that if a new, national Anglican province is actually formed, then who, if necessary, will be willing to lay down his claim to episcopacy for the sake of the visible and structural unity of this new province? How flexible will these new bishops (and the archbishops they serve) be for the sake of reaching the United States with the Gospel? Or, to put it negatively, how stuck will this new province be in old TEC models that are committed to maintaining personal and structural power, no matter what the cost?
While there are no simple answers to these questions there will be much sorting and sifting out about who will or will not belong to such a proto province.
Will the issue of those who are willing to ordain women to the priesthood continue to be a stumbling block to those who theologically refuse to accept the legitimacy of such ordinations?
Can evangelicals who ordain women and those who don't coexist comfortably with Anglo-Catholics who steadfastly see this as a profoundly theological communion-compromising issue and not just a pastoral one? Time will tell.
Will the newly formed Anglican Network in Canada throw their lot in with such a province? There seems no reason why they shouldn't.
One thing is for certain, the face and landscape of North American Anglicanism has changed forever. There is no going back, there will be no faux reconciliation, no leaving the lights on in the hope that the "lost" will make their way back to 815 Second Ave., rending their miters and cassocks in sackcloth and ashes asking for forgiveness. That day too, is done. More dioceses are ready to flee TEC's ecclesiastical embrace after the Lambeth Conference convinced that Episcopal Church leaders have gone astray.
Evangelicals/Anglo-Catholics and liberal/revisionists are on two different planets. There will be no intersecting of opinions, no more polite "conversation" or "listening". This GAFCON gathering is living witness to that. Defiance and rebellion against the moral order is written deeply into the warp and woof of The Episcopal Church. That will not change. General Convention 2009 will reinforce and enshrine the new Episcopal religion forever. Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola has called them "apostates" and so they are. Gene Robinson's ecclesiastical imprint and DNA is forever enshrined in the body of Episcopal Church history. There is no way orthodox folk will have any truck with him. It is over. A new province is aborning.
All that remains to be seen is how this will play out. Even if no formal declaration of a new communion is announced here, GAFCON will encourage North Americans to move forward in order to be proper stewards of money and resources. Bishop Robert Duncan and Common Cause Partnership leaders are looking for legitimacy and a stamp of approval from key GAFCON leaders who are themselves Primates and, I am told, they will get it. The face of North American Anglicanism has changed forever, it only remains to be seen now how the bigger picture emerges.
END
| Poster | Thread |
|---|---|
| Fisherman | Posted: 2008/6/26 11:31 Updated: 2008/6/26 11:31 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/8/25 From: Dallas - Province of the Southern Cone, DoFW Posts: 675 |
"It is only a matter of time now before it [new province] comes into existence."
Having always been the family optimist, call me a skeptic on this. I remain prayerful, but I'll believe it when I see it. What I do foresee is the continued slow departure of parishes and dioceses to be under foreign or domestic mission operations for a long time to come. I do hope I am wrong. |
| sentinel | Posted: 2008/6/26 12:07 Updated: 2008/6/27 22:10 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/6/11 From: Posts: 261 |
I'm afraid that you are probably right.
However, I do think what needs to happen is an establishment of a missionary jurisdiction overseen by a panel of foreign bishops. It does need to be organized under one umbrella instead of multiple, overlaping jurisdictions. As it is Anglicanism is looking like the ecclesiastical equivalent of the Oklahoma landrun. I am hesitant to see the a new, autonomous, province just turned loose. I know there are many who, for various reasons, are chomping at the bit for such a thing but I do not believe this is wise. There needs to be a laying of a new groundwork of establishing consistancy on doctrine and worship. - Canons need to be established (and I am beginning to think that there needs to be a global set of canons) - Seminary curriculum needs to be reviewed and corrected. In addition, teachers at these seminaries need to be scrutinized. - a pattern for godly church discipline MUST be established. Otherwise, all this will be for naught when the new province becomes like the old one in a few decades. As our Lord taught, you do not pour new wine into old wine skins. Therefore, there needs to be a renewal of the mind among the leadership as well as laity when it comes to how tings are done and why they are done. It took over 70 years to bring the Episcopal Church to apostasy and it will not be solved with one meeting. Neither will it be solved in a matter of a year. |
| sentinel | Posted: 2008/6/26 12:32 Updated: 2008/6/26 12:32 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/6/11 From: Posts: 261 |
Sixdays, I agree with your assessment. This will have to be dealt with before any new province can be established with any expectation of stability and longevity.
I hold to the classical evangelicalism of the english reformers and actually find it a little irritating that WO is assumed to be synonymous with evangelicalism. Those who support WO are heterodox - plain and simple. WO was and remains a cause in search of a theology. Quite frankly, I will have nothing to do with a new province that allows WO. As with the sexuality issue, this is not about WO in and of itself but about the authority of Scripture and the church's understanding and application of the Scriptures throughout history from the time of the apostles. |
| daveball | Posted: 2008/6/26 12:42 Updated: 2008/6/26 12:42 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/12/18 From: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 2281 |
Sentinel,
Some good observations. As much as I would like to see a NA Province ASAP, I think to rush into that would do nothing but divert energy from resolving the real root issues attendant to such a structure. Wish as some might, the issue of women's ordination is not going to go away and to avoid it will only leave us in the same type of conflicted life we have today. This is a bedrock issue. I will not accept WO and will not be part of an organization that practices it. There are many more like me so if a NA Province is formed that either accepts this or is ambivalent, where does that leave us? This is not the only issue, however. There are issues of serial monogamy (divorce and remarriage), real presence, confessional vs. counciliar view and many others. Traditional continuers have been by themselves for a hundred years so why should they compromise their position to join a province that does not accept their position? Why should those of us who are leaving TEc accept a partial "victory"? I think we need some serious discussion, though and planning as to what type of group will be formed, upon what principles, under what canons, and under what operating and administrative structure. I would not be surprised, myself, to see more than one group because I do not believe that the "beliefs" of the broad range of concepts people refer to as "orthodox" can be accomodated in one organization. Lord guide and direct our thoughts. Let us clearly hear you word in our hearts and minds. Give us courage to follow you. |
| patulous | Posted: 2008/6/26 13:03 Updated: 2008/6/26 13:03 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2007/5/18 From: Posts: 1746 |
I asked a priest of a Anglo-Catholic parish this question, "What do you think of women being ordained in the church"?
His answer was: I don't have the authority to do that. Meaning, God gave no authority for it? For you skeptics, I know that only bishops ordain. There is no place in the Bible that authorizes the ordination of women.....SO, why does Duncan do it??? I would not stand behind him for this purpose. |
| Cennydd | Posted: 2008/6/26 13:07 Updated: 2008/6/26 13:08 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/10/30 From: Los Banos, CA, Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin Posts: 6684 |
I agree with the previous posts. I have been saying for many months that our new province is in the process of being born.
Yes, there are some problems which will need to be resolved, such as women's ordination and the prayer book, but they CAN be taken care of. This will take time and patience, which, unfortunately, seems to be in short supply these days. This has been a long time coming, and we must show patience and perseverance. Remember: God is at work here....and we must never allow ourselves to lose sight of that fact! Cennydd |
| lkwells | Posted: 2008/6/26 13:25 Updated: 2008/6/26 13:25 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/2/19 From: Posts: 607 |
"Can evangelicals who ordain women and those who don't coexist comfortably with Anglo-Catholics who steadfastly see this as a profoundly theological communion-compromising issue and not just a pastoral one? Time will tell."
This is a very silly question, and only very silly people are pondering it. The answer is simply No. Those who advocate, practice, or tolerate WO can no more be a part of Christ's body than the advocates of VGR and SSB. Any fudging or temporizing (on either issue) will only bring more of the same old degenerate false religion. The real problem, however, is the arrogant and self-righteous notion that there will be an "Orthodox Anglican Province Soon." Why do the jonny-come-latelys feel that they are about to invent the wheel? There has been an orthodox Anglican community in the USA since 1977. The new bunch are welcome to join it, after they repent and purge themselves of their remaining heresies. You can join us, but we are not about to join you. |
| patulous | Posted: 2008/6/26 13:44 Updated: 2008/6/26 13:44 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2007/5/18 From: Posts: 1746 |
Well said Ikwells.
Some of the so called anglicans of today believe as the UK, ACC, and TEC and can not get away from WO. They can not believe that this is a problem for the church......take the example of PB Schori. Enough said! |
| DomWalk | Posted: 2008/6/26 14:48 Updated: 2008/6/26 14:49 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2007/6/9 From: Left Coast, USA Posts: 619 |
WO is an issue. So is the creative interpretation and disregard for the 39 Articles and the doctrines of the BCP.
The "continuers" innovated in doctrine, just as the current TEC catholic innovators do. Different doctrines, same attitude: "We know better than the BCP". It's ironic to hear a group of serial schismatic innovativers crow about being an "orthodox Anglican community", whilst tut-tutting at those leaving the TEC now and calling them "Johnny come-latelys". Oh, the pride! Of course, the "continuers" are neither orthodox nor Anglican, other than ceremonially. But, when ceremonialism is your standard, hey. And yes, that does sound just like TEC. Arrogant, many are, but when you've defined yourself on a monomaniacal "we're holier than thou" basis, that comes with the territory. The unfortunate irrelevance of the "continuing movement" -- it's more accurately called a "discontinuous decay" -- means that the conservatives in the TEC went without domestic help for 30 years, until the Africans became powerful enough and the situation in TEC bad enough for help to come from without. Already, the Global South presence in the USA blows away anything the discontinuers *ever* had. And it's just getting going. + + + |
| Cennydd | Posted: 2008/6/26 15:00 Updated: 2008/6/26 15:21 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/10/30 From: Los Banos, CA, Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin Posts: 6684 |
Oh, how I look forward to the day when all of this stops! It is NOT FOR US to decide who's right and who's wrong! NONE OF US! It is for GOD to decide....and Him alone, but I'm not going to castigate everyone who doesn't agree with me....and neither should anyone else!
Sure, I AM against WO! It's one the worst things to ever happen to the Communion, as far as I'm concerned and Mrs Katharine Jefferts Schori is the Prime Example of that! I AM in favor of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, but I'm not going to let it be a stumbling block for me. The problem is that so many of us can't see the forest for the trees! The truth is that we have forgotten what is REALLY important: The authority of Holy Scripture....NOT tradition, NOT "this is how we do things," NOT "this is what we feel comfortable with," NOT "This is what WE believe." The Word of God revealed in Holy Scripture is what matters, and NOTHING ELSE! No reinterpretation, no examination of what Holy Scripture means for us today, based on our "experiences:" NONE of that! We forget that at our peril. Cennydd |
| sentinel | Posted: 2008/6/26 16:15 Updated: 2008/6/27 17:13 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/6/11 From: Posts: 261 |
Well said DomWalk, well said.
I would venture to say that the disregard for the 39 Articles and the doctrines of the BCP are exactly why things are as they are now. |
| sentinel | Posted: 2008/6/26 16:47 Updated: 2008/6/27 17:15 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/6/11 From: Posts: 261 |
Cennydd,
You are correct that we do not set the standards of what is right or worng in God's eyes - God alone does that. However, God has given us the Scriptures for reproof, correction, and for instruction in righteousness and therefore the means by which we may test the spirits. We are "not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers" but instead "kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, and correct our opponents with gentleness". However, it is expected that we are obligated to correct when necessary. |
| Ikerliker | Posted: 2008/6/26 17:54 Updated: 2008/6/26 17:54 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2007/1/16 From: PA Posts: 2046 |
There will have to be two camps. One with WO and one without WO. There are plenty of people for both camps. We aren't going to be able to work around WO. Those of us who oppose it will not give in on that point, not should we. Bishop Duncan is an awesome man but until he stops ordaining women, I will have to pass until we have a structure for Anglo-Catholics. I am done compromising.
|
| FrankV | Posted: 2008/6/26 18:26 Updated: 2008/6/26 18:27 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2007/1/5 From: Colorado Springs, CO Posts: 291 |
Ikwells:
Correction - there has been an orthodox Anglican communion in the U.S. since the 1870's not the 1970's, ie., the Reformed Episcopal Church. They have managed to exist alone quite nicely all those years. Among other things, they do not ordain women. |
| PB1928US | Posted: 2008/6/26 18:52 Updated: 2008/6/26 18:52 |
Not too shy to talk ![]() ![]() Joined: 2007/9/6 From: Posts: 40 |
Friends,
A weed needs to grow in order that one may see it as it truly is. Then, you pluck it out from the roots and kill it! The weed has only begun to grow, and we know it in terms of the sexuality issues. W/O, and the other issues like serial monogomy will also need to be addressed. Then, we will see the weed at its fullest. Only then can we truly join as one positively orthodox anglican church. Lex Orandi Lex Credendi |
| recchip | Posted: 2008/6/26 19:11 Updated: 2008/6/26 19:11 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/2/23 From: Fairfax Virginia Posts: 171 |
FrankV,
Thanks!!! We in the REC have started to feel like the "poor relations" in all of this. With the exception of one photo of Bishop Sutton on one blog, there has been NO mention of the REC (or other CCP groups for that matter) in all of the GAFCON reports. As you mentioned, we DO NOT ORDAIN WOMEN. Many of us in the pews are keeping an eye out to make sure that we don't start merging with those who do!! |
| Cennydd | Posted: 2008/6/26 19:13 Updated: 2008/6/26 19:13 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/10/30 From: Los Banos, CA, Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin Posts: 6684 |
FrankV, the only problem that I have concerning the Continuing churches is the fact that they're so fragmented. I don't have the exact numbers at hand, but my guess is that there are thirty or more jurisdictions; many with just a half dozen or so parishes or missions and led by one or two bishops. They need to unite as one Church. I don't think they will.
I personally agree and subscribe to the Affirmation of St Louis, although I'm not a continuing Anglican. I chose to remain what most of us call orthodox Anglican by staying faithful with my bishop and diocese, and I have no regrets. I don't know whether or not our new province will remain in the Anglican Communion or be a part of a new Communion centered outside of Britain. That will, I think, depend on the aftermath of GAFCON and Lambeth together. Cennydd |
| Yo-Am | Posted: 2008/6/26 19:49 Updated: 2008/6/26 19:49 |
Not too shy to talk ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/8/20 From: Posts: 21 |
"There has been an orthodox Anglican community in the USA since 1977"
I am so glad you said community and not province or even communion. And you should have said communities as the many competing fragments are not in communion. The megalomanical bishops splintering and fragmenting the continuing churches into ever smaller pieces, while all the time claiming to be striving for union, are terribly unappealing. Let's hope CCP succeeds and avoids this most ungodly fate... |
| SaintElvis | Posted: 2008/6/26 20:06 Updated: 2008/6/26 20:06 |
Just can't stay away ![]() ![]() Joined: 2008/5/4 From: Posts: 125 |
The charges here against the CC are generally misinformed.
There are fewer 'St Louis' Continuing Jurisdictions than there are GS-USA now and likely about even on Bishops. There has been much in the way of movement towards unity including recent declarations to the fact from the ACC and APCK and EUCNA as well as the ACA and FiF and a diocese of the APCK joining the ACA. There are no heterodox practices among any of these churches. As to the Articles a quick look can gauge their overall relevance to today's revisionism: "XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church. It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one" This clearly reflects the Preface of the BCP. As to the Missal used in many CC I have no preference either way but the question apparently is do the Articles condemn the practices of the CC by using alternative servicesas long as they are orthodox? Clearly they do not. XXXVII. Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates. This is clearly held out against the interference of a Pope who is no longer alive and against a practice no longer a problem. XXXVIII. Of Christian Men's Goods, which are not common. Ditto XXII. Of Purgatory. Ditto- Rome has reformed this. XXX. Of both Kinds. Ditto- You can receive in both kinds. XXIV. Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the people understandeth. I have seen this at AMiA Conventions (I am not attacking just stating a fact) during 'healing' sessions but not during a service. Now you can demand that I affirm these and follow them to the letter but I can not see how they would have any effect on the current crisis in any manner! |
| Cennydd | Posted: 2008/6/26 22:47 Updated: 2008/6/26 22:47 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/10/30 From: Los Banos, CA, Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin Posts: 6684 |
I would point out that our diocese is a member of Forward in Faith North America.
Cennydd |
| Yo-Am | Posted: 2008/6/26 23:32 Updated: 2008/6/26 23:32 |
Not too shy to talk ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/8/20 From: Posts: 21 |
ACA is member of FACA. FACA just signed up with CCP. So, is ACA seeking union with Rome or union with fellow Anglicans? I note ACA activities are now featured on the CCP website...
|
| SixDays | Posted: 2008/6/26 23:40 Updated: 2008/6/26 23:40 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/2/23 From: G.K.K. Posts: 304 |
I have no idea what all these initials stand for.
Kind of reminds me of the movie "Renaissance Man" when Danny DeVito having been given directions on an army base in all-letter format asks, "Can I buy a vowel". SD |
| PB1928US | Posted: 2008/6/26 23:56 Updated: 2008/6/26 23:56 |
Not too shy to talk ![]() ![]() Joined: 2007/9/6 From: Posts: 40 |
Yo-AM,
The Anglican Province of America dates back to 1968. Lex Orandi Lex Credendi |
| SaintElvis | Posted: 2008/6/27 0:59 Updated: 2008/6/27 0:59 |
Just can't stay away ![]() ![]() Joined: 2008/5/4 From: Posts: 125 |
The ACA (of which I am a recent member) seeks to open discussions towards Communion- a continuation of the efforts by the Anglican Communion towards Rome in the past: remember ARCIC? ARCIC has been DOA since WO, merely a formality of polite if indifferent chatter. Remember it was WO that slammed the doors shut on union with the Eastern Orthodox in the seventies- a work that had started in the 19-teens and had resulted in the permission for Orthodox to receive Communion in Anglican Churches in the absence of an Orthodox Church. A work much aided and assisted by Anglo Catholics and I would point those interested in the matter to the writings and efforts of Bishop Charles Grafton of Fond Du Lac on union with the EO and his concise arguments against "Romanism". And Grafton is an Anglo Catholic who built an entire diocese out of his own pocket!
As to fellow Continuers I know of no Continuing Church wherein one refuses Communion to another. I have visited many and been treated as family. I know of no Continuing Church that refuses Communion to a properly Baptized and Confirmed Christian who has been Confirmed by a Bishop in the Succession of the Apostles including visitors from the 'new continuers' if they can demonstrate the above. I do know of Continuing Bishops who have Baptized Episcopalians who had not been baptized properly (in the name of Father Son and Holy Ghost). For instance if Cennydd, who's Bishop is a righteous and Godly Bishop, visited the East Coast and walked into our "Continuing Church" she would be welcome with open arms. One of our assisting priests is FiF-UK and has been accepted into the ACA with no problems from his FiF Bishop in the UK. This may rankle some because these folk have not yet left the C of E en masse but we live in a time more like that of the Arian heresy than the Elizabethan Settlement so we need to recognize the orthodox where ever and whom ever they be in this modern diaspora. As to "fellow Anglicans" I will point out the ACA sent a Bishop as an observer to one of Bishop Duncan's big tent shin-digs and he was refused entry. Regrets were eventually communicated. So you tell me union with fellow Anglicans or what? It would help if our fellow Anglicans would be a bit more receptive to differing views of what constitutes orthodoxy and open to abandoning man made innovations. I have been a Continuer for a short time and have found some problems but overall it is an orthodox solution to ECUSA without the lets back up the car to just before the crash philosophy (preGC03) which simply will end up with another crash. At some point we are going to have to admit that there are some real problems in the way the Anglican Communion has done business and dealt with authority over the last century or more and make adjustments. Whether this or some closer relationship with Rome happens in our life time is questionable. I would also point out it is not the CC that disregarded the Articles in the 60's and 70's but left because the majority ignored them. The failure to try and excommunicate heretics (XXXIII) is clearly PreGC03as well. So it is a bit disingenuous to make accusation when history demonstrates the double standard. John of Hewlett |
| FrankV | Posted: 2008/6/27 2:11 Updated: 2008/6/27 2:11 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2007/1/5 From: Colorado Springs, CO Posts: 291 |
Recchip: Although I am not a member of the REC (I'm in CANA sort of by default), I have the highest regard for Bp. Sutton and the REC statement of Doctrine. That can easily be found on the REC website if you just google on "Bishop Ray Sutton". I used Bp. Sutton's series of DVD lectures on Anglican History (presented at Cranmer House Seminary in Houston in 2007) as the foundation for my Men's Adult Education course at Grace and St. Stephens (CANA) in Colorado Spring. Bp. Sutton expressed with outstanding clarity a position for reformed catholicism as a theologically sound middle ground between Anabaptism on the one extreme and Roman Catholicism on the other extreme. Bp. Sutton traces the development of Anglicanism from the earliest Apostolic period through the first 500 years of a standalone, non-Roman Christianity, on through the middle/dark ages under Rome and thence through the Reformation to the modern day secularization of the Church.
This series with my embellishments was extremely well received by some very hard-bitten orthodox critics. The Men's study actually evolved into a coeducational group. The point I am making is that there was/is an eager audience out there wanting and seeking a liturgically, doctrinally sound church based on scripture as the guiding principle. In my opinion, Bp. Sutton could be the ABp. of Canterbury and clear the whole mess up in short order; otherwise, let us look to a new separate communion of like minded Christians. ![]() |
| Cennydd | Posted: 2008/6/27 2:56 Updated: 2008/6/27 2:57 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/10/30 From: Los Banos, CA, Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin Posts: 6684 |
SaintElvis, take the "s" from the word "she," you'll see what I am.
I would be open to an amalgamation of everyone who calls himself or herself an "orthodox Anglican Christian" into one Church in this country, but there are several sticking points which are in the way: The ordination of women, the Book of Common Prayer, and the issue of who would lead the Church temporally. The first two issues are the thorny ones, and they require the most work. One Church can demand the adoption of the 1928 BCP, another the 1662 BCP or an earlier version, but who's to decide which one is the "right" one? The issue of women's ordination raises another problem: How do you tell the faithful Christian women who have served so well for so long that they can't serve any longer simply because they're women? Sure, they should never have been ordained in the first place, but are you willing to offend them and risk civil rights lawsuits? Can you afford to defend against them, because there certainly will be lawsuits, of that you can be sure! Nobody knows all of the answers, and anyone in authority who claims he has those answers is a fool! Cennydd |
| SaintElvis | Posted: 2008/6/27 3:36 Updated: 2008/6/27 3:36 |
Just can't stay away ![]() ![]() Joined: 2008/5/4 From: Posts: 125 |
Sorry bout that I realized the mistake after I pushed the button- my apologies.
WO does not in any way suggest orthodoxy as it is a rebellious act and usurps the direction of our Lord. It ignores the 'Binding" of 19 centuries. It is based on a lawless act in the 70's. It as an act was without any support from any part of the Church Catholic. at least one of the women was not even baptized. It was a unilateral act based not on Biblical example or warrant but on a secular social agenda seeking to confuse sexuality and the roles assigned each in Epistles of Timothy and Titus. As such it breeches not only the Sacrament of Ordination and thus the others Sacraments administered by the truly ordained but it also breeches the Commandment regarding Covetness. Those first women simply wanted to breech what they saw as another male dominated corporation- all who followed were mislead or agreed. All this has been said ad nausium and there has never been any serious refutation of these points only that well the women are nice people, etc... But Cenny, by far most of these women hold to such doctrines as homosexuality and Gnosticism etc and you cannot include such in any reforming of an orthodox province. They destroyed hundreds of parishes my old one included they served well alright but not like you mean. Their brand of sexual confusion leads right to VGR. If you confuse headship and who is to be the 'father' of God's people on earth you can certainly confuse who is to marry whom. If they are truly Christian in charity they will step down. Many have. Cenny they were never 'ordained' that is an ontological impossibility. They are a product of a civil secular notion and if they revert to such for authority they simply prove the point they are of secular manufactor and not a Biblical one. The Bible directs us to resolve our differences outside of the courts. If they are offended by the Gospel or by Christ's example so be it. Why would I need to defend against them? there are no priestesses in my jurisdiction. No one knows all the answers but we can discern those readily answered by Scripture and Tradition. All the real BCP's are fine there are different emphasis here and there but all except the 79 should be up to the parish. There is no "demand" to adopt the 28 it is a defacto lawfully approved and valid edition universally recognized as such since the Episcopal Church was a recognized Province without the heresies now associated. I prefer the 28 as I am not about to acknowledge the King or Queen as ruler but if you feel the need knock yourself out! |
| SaintElvis | Posted: 2008/6/27 3:47 Updated: 2008/6/27 3:47 |
Just can't stay away ![]() ![]() Joined: 2008/5/4 From: Posts: 125 |
Hey Cenny how about you/ I'll vote for you as head of the new province. What do you think?
![]() |
| recchip | Posted: 2008/6/27 4:09 Updated: 2008/6/27 4:09 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/2/23 From: Fairfax Virginia Posts: 171 |
Frank V,
I would agree to make Bishop Sutton the head bishop of a new communion, BUT THE SEE CANNOT BE IN DALLAS, too HOT!!!!(GRIN). Our rector was trained by Bishop Sutton after the bishop "rescued" him from Dallas Theological Seminary. We have finally been forgiven by the Church of the HOly Communion (Bp. Sutton's parish in Dallas) for "stealing" Father Camlin. We are "middle of the way" as REC'rs. In our old Diocese (Northeast-based in Philly) we were just about the most High Church. In our new Diocese (Based in Nashville) we are probably in the "lower half" in re churchmanship. For example, we do communion every week, that is very unusual in the Northeast but is pretty much expected in the new diocese. Father Camlin wears an alb (but not a chausable-yet). We don't have incence (yet) etc. Again, I am glad that Bishop Sutton's work has been helpful to you. BTW, if you have not read it, I highly reccommend his book on Baptism. "Signed, Sealed and Delivered." |
| Sodslaw | Posted: 2008/6/27 4:20 Updated: 2008/6/27 4:20 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2007/8/3 From: Orthodox Bunker Posts: 330 |
New Province- Will believe it when I see it
Continuing Churches- Too many "bishops", too many unaccredited degrees, too many wannabees. Without anything new coming out of Canterbury, the idea of the new province is DOA. (or the whole province becomes the continuing church. One liberal blogger posted to her website: GAFCON GAF= a mistake Con= an attempt to deceive I was hoping that we would answer her with something definitive. Promises are ten a dime, meanwhile godly priests are being bullied and beaten with little or no hope. Come on!!!! |
| Cennydd | Posted: 2008/6/27 4:35 Updated: 2008/6/27 4:36 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/10/30 From: Los Banos, CA, Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin Posts: 6684 |
SaintElvis, you do make some good points! Food for thought! Actually, I have to say that the entire women's "ordination" thing started with Women's Lib, which in turn got it's start when the Armed Forces began commissioning women officers in World War 2. They simply carried it forward a few years from there, and got serious about it in the '60s. That's when the idea of shattering the Glass Ceiling originated, I believe.
I remember when the idea of "ordaining" women in the Episcopal Church took root in the late '60s, and resulted in the "irregular" and illegal "ordination" of the Philadelphia Eleven....in 1973, I believe it was. My wife and I had been at our former parish in the Diocese of El Camino Real for about a year when we were first exposed to the idea of women's "ordination." A woman from another parish in our area was exploring Holy Orders...."discernment" was the byword, and I heard her talking to another parishioner about "breaking the glass ceiling" and "getting into a man's profession." I told her that it wasn't a profession, but a calling, and she said "Whatever!" I thought no more about it after that. It wasn't long after that, when I was enrolled in the Diocese of California's School for Deacons at CDSP in Berkeley, that I decided that this was wrong, and also that the diaconate was not for me. I also began to have my doubts about what the Church was doing even back then in 1974. My wife and I, because we had just bought our home after I retired from the Air Force, and I had a job which paid very well, decided we could "stick it out and hope that things changed." Well, they changed, alright....for the worst, and we left in 2003. We've been at our present church since then, and have never looked back! We know that things are going to be a bit rough for a while, but we also know that we're in the right hands spiritually. God is working His purpose out, and we have put our trust in Him. Cennydd |
| SaintElvis | Posted: 2008/6/27 11:16 Updated: 2008/6/27 11:22 |
Just can't stay away ![]() ![]() Joined: 2008/5/4 From: Posts: 125 |
Spot on Sodslaw.
There are too many bishops period. Not just CC lets look at all of the new "Africans" just ordained. Bishop Minns was looking for that purple shirt when I was at the D of V convention in the early 90's. And yes too many unaccredited degrees and to many educated in ECUSA seminaries which amounts to the same thing or worse. There is movement afloat to reign this in the ACA and it has met with some resistance but not from the top. The 2 clergy in our church have about 8-9 accredited degrees between them. The problem is where to educate men. If the Continuers and the Gaffers do not publish and educate we are all done in a short while. By the look of notions I read here education is not a Continuing problem but endemic. One clever fellow noted that the new law in ECUSA is Shoria law how about that as an answer? Bishop Florenza now of ACA was one of the first out the door in the seventies along with his parish. They served him papers while he was at the hospital seeing to his dying son. They knew where he was and the circumstances. The CC knows about being bullied, beaten and maligned. Let's hope the lib is not right. SO far they did not have the stones to pull the plug. |
| sentinel | Posted: 2008/6/27 11:45 Updated: 2008/6/27 22:10 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/6/11 From: Posts: 261 |
Cennydd,
Don't kid yourself, the longer we go with all of these rescue missions via CANA, AMiA, and others, the more likely that the same kind of divisions will occur and will start occuring over the next few years. |
| CalDreamin | Posted: 2008/6/27 23:16 Updated: 2008/6/27 23:16 |
Quite a regular ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/11/10 From: Posts: 41 |
Bp. Duncan may be allowed his hopes, but there's no evidence to support his ideas. WO and too many purple shirts are among the problems. But what about enforcement of standards? The only way to avoid creating another TEC/PECUSA mess is to have some central authority of accountability (like Rome or the Orthodox). And all these little chieftains won't give up their purple shirts, let along subordinate their selfish desires to a central authority.
So we will have a loose federation of CC but hardly a province. A province would have to stand for something (other than "We're not KJS!"). |
| culdee662 | Posted: 2008/6/28 19:27 Updated: 2008/6/28 19:27 |
Not too shy to talk ![]() ![]() Joined: 2008/3/20 From: Posts: 21 |
Again, David is brave against the Goliath; in this Website I get again all the news I need, all the news I want to need from "the world."
I try to size myself for "Evangelical-ness" versus "Anglo-Catholicism"-- as categorically I do not wish the Bad Fruit alternative-classification-category for my dialogics. In most ways, I am certain that an INVISIBLE CHURCH exists (cf. Augustine, CITY OF GOD 1:35; cf. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnfl02.1v.ii.xxxvi.html )this would put me in a somewhat "Evangelical" camp I suppose. On the other hand I appreciate the Catholic teachings of the Orthodox Church and comfortably read Aquinas, John of the Cross, St. Francis de Sales; the Benedictine Rule is what in essentials I follow after eviction forced the loss of the Rule I had written myself for "servant-of-God/culdee" vows on May 21, 1994. (And actually having been bequeathed on request a copy of the Benedictine Rule from a Catholic Convent in 1968, this nourishment-- the rule of the local Abbey of Gethsemani in Bardstown-- I found quite congenial even for life 'battling the Devil in the Desert' [Chapter 1, hic.]) Most compelling to me here though is the possibility for real discipleship-- not just gussied Lenten reference to Bonhoeffer's sacrifice be-times. I see in this great and inspiring thrust a way to practice a REAL Christianity as enunciated so well in James M. Houston's JOYFUL EXILES (InterVarsity Press, 1984.) When I say 'real,' I mean an honest beckoning to 'take up the Cross and follow Him' (compare Mark 10:21, etc.) If one REALLY means this business, then by whatever terms I will enlist and abet him. I regret that my 'liberalism' of bygone days was what I thought I had to have in a very actual way to avoid the Bad Fruits in ECUSA, RC, and yea Fundamentalist preaching-- which typically is addressed by what would pass for an offical credalism coupled with covert/sub-rosa dirt in secret-- and then followed (of the creature, not the Creator Christ) netting in social promotion. For this SIN, I am REPENTING (Greek: METANOEO/METAMELOMAI-- "to completely transform the 'existential' self to New Man/Creation.") I now see my 'liberalism' status post ante as an incompletion: as not grasping the A = A tautology of the Creeds as the Emblem of an A = B which is the moral proof of the Creed with one's Way in Jesus. On this point, I was blessed much by this reading in MERE CHRISTIANITY-- apologies for not now having time to find the exact page for this alluded reference. To me, this makes LOGIC-- in particular I can reconcile it with the study/reading of the modern logicians and Aquinas and Ockham-- all espousing Orthodoxy in their ABSOLUTIST ways. Thus it is that I crave none other than this ABSOLUTE!!! Thank you, my Orthodox Siblings, for my chastening! With this chastisement, I am working toward your solid goal. No compromises this time, ever, as David-saith-contra-this-Goliath! --Vernon Lynn Stephens, Culdee Louisville, Kentucky USA |


























