Will the Anglican circle remain unbroken? (no spam)

[fable]

I'm not quite sure why you feel Anglicans are hypocritical because Roman Catholics are required to use the confessional. Anglicans aren't so required, so something's a bit off in that. What's more, the confessional was never a method of conforming to society. From the first, it was used to get human society to conform to certain religious ideas of proper spiritual conduct. The RCC was out to recreate Augustine's City of God on earth, and the RCC of the 13th century was going to lead the world there. So I'm inclined to think you may have the wrong branch of Christianity targeted when you fix sights on the Anglicans, and just possibly the wrong reasons behind the shift.

That's not to say any religion doesn't conform in time to the cultures in which it primarily exists. Religions are human tools, created by humans, and subsequently reformed to the differing needs of other humans. Yes, I know there are some among us who believe religions are nonsense or evil; but leaving aside demonization, religions also serve a range of cultural purposes aside from worship/indoctrination (take your pick). These purposes, and even the dogma itself, are malleable. They shift to meet a society's expectations partway, even as a society is shaped in turn by their primary religion's teachings. I think this has been demonstrated both ways so many times that examples aren't truly needed.

But does this make a religion hypocritcal? I don't think so. Religions aren't people. They're tools, as I said above. You can no more say a religion is hypocritical for changing over time than a government is hypocritical for shifting in its purposes, style of action, depth of field, etc, over 800 years or more. An individual person who believes in the stated values of a religion then deliberately acts in contradictory fashion to this could be called hypocritical, and if they did it repeatedly, they could be termed a hypocrite. But since few of us are perfect (at least, those with incomes below a million a year), I suspect we'd be wiser to be quiet about namecalling. The figure on the other side of the mirror we look at in the morning might be inclined to wink back at us.

[Maharlika]

@Godslayer: I'm a Catholic and what I have seen in your post, I do understand the point that you are trying to make.

However given this:

It has done this, in my opinion, by compromising their beliefs and turning hypocritical. the church has long, even from the time of its conception, held to beliefs and dogmas that are meant to make it more acceptable to the public and have no foundation in the Christian Bible. .

Some people will see such statements as a flame against their religion (Anglican) since you labeled them hypocritical, and also in essence of your statement, them not being true Christians at all (e.g., no foundation in the Christian Bible).

I have seen your use of the words "my opinion" and "I believe" which in a way, present your case in a seemingly non-offensive manner.

It is this statement...

It has done this, in my opinion, by compromising their beliefs and turning hypocritical.

...that makes me want to remind everyone to give a little courtesy in giving an opinion most especially if one is talking about other people's belief.

[fable]

Time to update, because it appears that the Anglican community, which fractured slightly over the issue of ordaining women--now is facing a major split. The issue is the ordination of gays (of either sex), and began to erupt following the election by his congregation of the first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in New Hampshire (US). Now it appears chances for reconciliation are very slim between the conservative and liberal wings of the Anglican church, as you can read here. At the heart of this lie very different cultures, and two views of what their scripture actually says on the matter. (Note that although the NY Times piece refers to "a minority" of Anglicans being conservative, it's a large minority and represents the sizable majority of Anglican in the African and South American continents.)

Thoughts?

[galraen]

Actually Fable, the minority reference was to American Episcopalians, not Anglicans as a whole. Given the rapidly declining numbers of Anglicans in the UK and the rest of the 'Western' world, the conservatives are probably in the majority in the world wide congregation. Which is why when forced to make a choice the hierarchy of the church would rather sacrifice the liberals in the US than lose the Africans.

[fable]

Actually Fable, the minority reference was to American Episcopalians, not Anglicans as a whole.

True. Thanks for catching that.

Given the rapidly declining numbers of Anglicans in the UK and the rest of the 'Western' world, the conservatives are probably in the majority in the world wide congregation. Which is why when forced to make a choice the hierarchy of the church would rather sacrifice the liberals in the US than lose the Africans.

It's a tricky situation, isn't it? Because to lose ties with the USians means losing that group which is doctrinally and culturally closest to the British. I suspect it is only a matter of time before a gay bishop arises in the UK.

[Lady Dragonfly]

After reading through this thread, I have a few little comments. First, only early Anglican Church required celibacy, so any bishop can marry etc, no problem. Gene Robinson has a partner, a state government employee.

Second, there is a huge difference between "being homosexual" (having thoughts and desires) and "practice homosexuality". Persecution for "being homosexual" equals to persecution for a "thought crime", and that is not the case; being resented by other members of church for the "homosexual practice" is a different story.
By the way, Rev. Robinson is currently receiving treatment in an alcohol rehab facility. I suppose, it is not easy to face all this publicity…

You know, I always wonder at the term "liberal" applied to any church. What is so liberal about churches or religions? Religion itself is the most conservative thing ever (I don't mean it in a negative way; just an observation) because it strives to preserve the old traditions and dogmas.

The church is not religion, of course, it is establishment and people. With ever-shrinking numbers of church-goers (and most important, donations) in the Western world, everything goes to attract more people (and donations). That is how some churches, IMHO, become "liberal", play "Christian rock music" and even "Christian rap music" during the service, dance and entertain and embrace gays in spite of all "biblical arguments" against homosexuality. On the other hand, why should anyone expect “political correctness” from any religious organization? Religious organizations go “by the book”, and they are free to interpret scriptures and God’s Will as they wish.

I would imagine the “liberal” attitude might be a foreign term for the other parts of the world. I am not surprised at the schism, not at all. I don’t understand why conservatives would like to attend a church condoning practice they hate? I also don’t understand why a conservative African church would choose to remain in the Communion promoting something this particular church considers highly inappropriate?

[galraen]

True. Thanks for catching that.



It's a tricky situation, isn't it? Because to lose ties with the USians means losing that group which is doctrinally and culturally closest to the British. I suspect it is only a matter of time before a gay bishop arises in the UK.

It already has, the fact that he wasn't 'practising' allowed the church to get around it, but it will arise again.

The church in the US might have been closest once upon a time, but I'm not sure that's true anymore. The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury declared the UK a country of mission over 30 years ago, and African 'Missionaries' have been working in the UK ever since. The fact that the second highest position in the UK, the Arch-Bishop of York, is a Ugandan speaks volumes about the near demise of the Anglican church in this country. If you go to most church services in this country, you'll find the vast majority of worshipers are over retirement age. At the current rate, the church will be non-existent effectively in 20 years time.

[Avane]

We request that the Episcopal Church (US) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC)."


Episcopalians and Anglicans have been at one another's throats since the fifteenth century in England, shortly after Henry VIII's "break with Rome".

After the Civil War in England and the demise of Oliver Cromwell's Republic, Episcopalians were the leading reglious group seeking to reinstate the monarchy.
They got the Stuart's back from Europe and onto the throne and thought, 'okay,be nice and say thank you', but the monarchy who were supposed to be Anglicans anyway (see Elizabeth I, Charles I, James I et al, Common Book of Prayer); and they [Anglicans] also had the biggest share of political/religious power in the House of Commons/Lords at that time. Episcopalians were left out in the cold...

Lady Dragonfly is totally right, what is 'liberal' about religion 'absolutely nothing, I'll say it again...' (think that came from the song War, pretty sure... 'War [do,do,dah,dah do,do]. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing..., I'll say it again!".) . As for Religion; I think that old Jefferson Starship song referencing christianity and Jesus is also incredibly relevant in the wider sphere of global interaction and religion. "One man of peace dies and a hundred wars begin". Pretty observant...
So you see this unfortunatley has probably little to do with sexual orientation and religious intolerance, but goes way back to old 'turf wars'; way back to Henry VIII and his declaration that the Pope was out and he was in. Sadly we are all the victims of circumstance and bigotry formed not necessarily by our society or mores.
Also "voluntarily withdraw their members..." C'mon someone out their has got a sense of humour! Good week-end.

[galraen]

Episcopalians and Anglicans have been at one another's throats since the fifteenth century in England, shortly after Henry VIII's "break with Rome".

Episcopalians and Anglicans were the same thing until the American War of Independence:

From Wicki The Episcopal Church in the United States of America is the Anglican Church representing the Anglican Communion in the United States of America and a few nearby nations of Latin America. Organized as a church shortly after the American revolution, it was the first autonomous province outside the British Isles of what is today the Anglican Communion.

Another intersting mistake that a lot of people make, including Anglicans, is thinking that the Anglican church is protestant. It isn't, it's a catholic church, a fact that is reinforced every time an Anglican recites the Nicene creed, which ends:

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[Chanak]

Another intersting mistake that a lot of people make, including Anglicans, is thinking that the Anglican church is protestant. It isn't, it's a catholic church, a fact that is reinforced every time an Anglican recites the Nicene creed, which ends...

I believe this brings up a subject that is certainly outside of the topic of this thread. The Nicene Creed is recited by Christian groups other than Roman Catholics and Anglicans; Lutherans, just to name one, utilize this creed. Your assertion is certainly open to dispute as it hinges upon the doctrine of a particular organization and how it perceives others outside of its organization. In the modern day at least, Protestant Christians are generally classified as such being that they share one thing in common: a rejection of the ascendancy of the Roman Catholic Pope as the Vicar of Christ, and head of His Body upon earth. In the eyes of the Vatican, anyway, this places millions of professing Christians outside of Salvation...since there is no salvation outside of the catholic (universal) church, which they judge themselves and only themselves as being.

[galraen]

Another intersting mistake that a lot of people make, including Anglicans, is thinking that the Anglican church is protestant. It isn't, it's a catholic church, a fact that is reinforced every time an Anglican recites the Nicene creed, which ends...

I believe this brings up a subject that is certainly outside of the topic of this thread. The Nicene Creed is recited by Christian groups other than Roman Catholics and Anglicans; Lutherans, just to name one, utilize this creed. Your assertion is certainly open to dispute as it hinges upon the doctrine of a particular organization and how it perceives others outside of its organization. In the modern day at least, Protestant Christians are generally classified as such being that they share one thing in common: a rejection of the ascendancy of the Roman Catholic Pope as the Vicar of Christ, and head of His Body upon earth. In the eyes of the Vatican, anyway, this places millions of professing Christians outside of Salvation...since there is no salvation outside of the catholic (universal) church, which they judge themselves and only themselves as being.

I guess it is diverging from the original subject of the thread, but I'm glad you replied. It seems I've been living under yet another false premise, I certainly wasn't aware that Lutherans used the Nicene or Apostolic creed. The only non-Anglican or RC churches I've encountered didn't use it, so silly me thought all protestant churches spurned it as well. I take it Lutherans do consider themselves to be protestant, certainly by the definition you gave, they and Anglicans would be, but I was brought up to believe that Anglicans weren't. Maybe my upbringing was at fault, although there are conficting thoughts within the Anglican community, and I was brought up in the 'High Church' tradition.

PS To return to the original topic, I think the schism within the Anglican community is inevitably going to get wider, until the church splits completely. It wouldn't surprise me at all if at some point in the future the 'High Church' element splits away and eventually re-unites with Rome.

[Chanak]

@galraen: LOL, I wouldn't call you silly. As a student (not a professor) of Christianity, yours is in my own estimation a valid claim but unfortunately is not one shared by the Roman Catholic Church. The Nicene Creed makes an appearance in the articles of faith of a number of Christian denominations; and while it may not appear verbatim in others, you will nevertheless find the same sentiments appearing in professions of faith. The Apostles' Creed is another matter, however. That usually appears verbatim in the liturgy of most denominations, and is typically recited during the rite of baptism (the mode of baptism, of course, differing amongst organizations). If my memory serves, the United Methodist Church recites that creed during baptism.

On topic: I am fascinated with your prediction that a schism might result in some some Anglicans going to the Roman Catholic Church. I truly wonder if instead of this occuring, an alternate communion would be formed. Doctrinally speaking, there exists a wide gulf between the Roman Catholic Church and the main body of what the Vatican terms Protestants - a rejection of the spiritual authority of the Pope only being one of them. I can understand the lure the RCC would represent to an Anglican mindful of over 1,500 years of tradition, something which the RCC can rightfully claim. By the same token, however, the Eastern Orthodox Church can lay claim to traditions strecthing back just as far into antiquity. From what I understand, the Orthodox Church claims itself as those churches of Asia Minor that Saul of Tarsus was appointed stewardship over by the other Apostles.

Scripturally speaking - and also from a standpoint that takes into account the plethora of translations available today - a New Testament framework exists stipulating the existence of a presbytery of bishops overseeing pastors, teachers and deacons in localized gatherings of disciples. Beyond this is where the fireworks start, and where the RCC model diverges into the authority of its own self over the canon of scripture, and the record of a body of writings attributed to Christians of the first four centuries following the resurrection of Christ. Going much further into this opens a pandora's box that will summon apologists eager to exercise their debating skills.

[fable]

On topic: I am fascinated with your prediction that a schism might result in some some Anglicans going to the Roman Catholic Church.

Something very much like that occurred a number of years ago when the Anglican Church accepted women into the clergy. At least a few congregations joined the RCC along with their Anglican pastors, with the understanding that the latter could officiate in their churches yet remain married.

[Malta Soron]

Another intersting mistake that a lot of people make, including Anglicans, is thinking that the Anglican church is protestant. It isn't, it's a catholic church, a fact that is reinforced every time an Anglican recites the Nicene creed, which ends:

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

'Catholic' isn't the same as 'Roman Catholic'. 'Catholic' means something along the lines of 'general', as in 'the church for all people'. 'Roman Catholic' narrows it to the church ruled by the Roman pope.