Archbishop of Canterbury


#1

Has anyone seen the new Bible translation called “Good as New”. The Archbishop of Caterbury wrote the forward in this new translation. It completely butchers Scripture. It actually condones fornication. It is all over the web. I read about it on the BBC. The Archbishop hopes it will “spread in epidemic profusion through religious and irreligious alike.”


#2

There are a couple of old threads about the Good News Bible. The wording itself is quite shocking. I’m not sure what’s more shocking though, his endorsement of the book, or his induction as an honorary Druid a couple of years ago.

PS: On the othe hand, his induction could mean nothing at all, since the Queen is also an honorary member.


#3

[quote=AmandaPS]There are a couple of old threads about the Good News Bible. The wording itself is quite shocking. I’m not sure what’s more shocking though, his endorsement of the book, or his induction as an honorary Druid a couple of years ago.

PS: On the othe hand, his induction could mean nothing at all, since the Queen is also an honorary member.
[/quote]

It doesn’t. It’s a literary and cultural society. OTOH, there’s a plentitude of other things to fault ++Williams for.

GKC


#4

[quote=GKC]It doesn’t. It’s a literary and cultural society. OTOH, there’s a plentitude of other things to fault ++Williams for.

GKC
[/quote]

If I recall, when he was elected Archbishop of Cantebury, was it brought up that he was pro-homosexual? Is this true?


#5

What do Anglicans or Episcopalians say to this? The few I have told in my area say this is the straw that breaks the camels back.


#6

[quote=AmandaPS]If I recall, when he was elected Archbishop of Cantebury, was it brought up that he was pro-homosexual? Is this true?
[/quote]

It would be more accurate to say that he was not anti-homosexual. It was known that he was in favor of lessening restrictions on homosexuals in the Church, but he had also stated he would not push a personal agenda on that, if he was selected as Archbishop of Canterbury.

GKC


#7

Following the hoo-ha regarding the ABC’s Foreward, the book’s author stated that it (the foreward) was originally written for another book, and wasn’t even sure if Rowan had seen the final version. That said, some folks are pretty hot under the collar, even those that don’t wear them. Even some of the less vicious detractors are saying it was poor judgement. I guess nobody’s infallible.

OTOH, I have read many things that I might consider thought provoking and interesting, even if I don’t agree with them. Maybe it’s the same with the ABC. Also, I’ve not seen anybody saying (not even the author) that this book, which doesn’t even have all the books of Scripture in it, is supposed to be an authorized version of the Bible. It’s just a book. Reminds me a lot of The Cotton Patch Bible. Remember that one?

BTW, be careful not to confuse the Good as New with the Good News Bibles. Neither might be suitable for lining the bird cage, but they are different.


#8

I’m not sure what Hoo-Ha means, but hasn’t the ABC ordained known gay priests and bishops?


#9

Also, the “book” or new translation, or whatever you want to call it is in print being sold. I have a hard time believing it was printed and sold without the ABC knowing exactly its message.Anyhoo, the BBC is calling it a new translation, as are all other sites. Personally, I think it is disgraceful ,whatever it is. It is even more disgraceful that a church leader backs it.


#10

[quote=katiem]I’m not sure what Hoo-Ha means, but hasn’t the ABC ordained known gay priests and bishops?
[/quote]

I’m not sure if he has as ABC, tho I believe he did in the past. There was the Jeffry John’s thing, but that ended up not going thru, and it was assumed the Rowan asked Johns to back down.

(I probably should have said “brouhaha”, but the kids were screaming something about a fire in the living room. Plus, there is something vaguely sacrilegious, or even French, about the term.)


#11

[quote=mean_owen]I’m not sure if he has as ABC, tho I believe he did in the past. There was the Jeffry John’s thing, but that ended up not going thru, and it was assumed the Rowan asked Johns to back down.

(I probably should have said “brouhaha”, but the kids were screaming something about a fire in the living room. Plus, there is something vaguely sacrilegious, or even French, about the term.)
[/quote]

When Gene Robinson was being confirmed, did he do anything about it?


#12

[quote=katiem]Also, the “book” or new translation, or whatever you want to call it is in print being sold. I have a hard time believing it was printed and sold without the ABC knowing exactly its message.Anyhoo, the BBC is calling it a new translation, as are all other sites. Personally, I think it is disgraceful ,whatever it is. It is even more disgraceful that a church leader backs it.
[/quote]

I don’t claim to know what he really thinks. To the best of my knowledge, he hasn’t said anything further about it.


#13

[quote=AmandaPS]When Gene Robinson was being confirmed, did he do anything about it?
[/quote]

There was nothing he could do other than express his opinion of the election/ratification/ordination. The Archbishop of Canterbury is not the Pope of the Anglican Communion. (IIRC, he recommended they not go thru with it).

Now, AFTER General Conference ratified the election, he and other members of the Anglican Communion have gotten together to see what this means for the Communion- both in terms of how to respond to the decision by the ECUSA, and also for the wider reaching and probably more important theme of authority, polity, and union among the different churches constituting the Communion.


#14

Thanks for the info, mean_owen.

Forgive my ignorance, but what are his powers?


#15

[quote=AmandaPS]Thanks for the info, mean_owen.

Forgive my ignorance, but what are his powers?
[/quote]

Amanda- My understanding is that he once cured a ham.

I guess it’s safe to say that, if you were to consider the powers of a Catholic Archbishop within his See, the authority of the ABC is somewhat similar. Incidentally, in some of the other Anglican provinces, the powers of the Archbishop (or as in the US and one or two other places, Presiding Bishop) may be somewhat lesser or greater, and there tends to be a greater role of the priests and laity in some decisions. Some URLs regarding the role and authority of the ABC are at the bottom of this post.

At the level of the Anglican Communion, although the ABC is the symbolic “leader”, he cannot pull many strings of the other Primates (Archbishops/Presiding Bishops), because ultimately each Province is responsible for its own governance. (Think about what a problem it would have been for the early Episcopal Church in the US after the revolution if they had to follow the ABC, who was loyal to the King. And it was a problem they had to deal with. Incidentally, the Anglican Communion as an official entity didn’t come around for over a century after the US revolution, and there were many other churches in the Anglican tradition in other nations).

More authority comes from the Lambeth Conference, when all the Primates come together every 10 years. They make resolutions and stuff, but ultimately even these are only gentlemanly agreements, not really enforcable. This is one of the bigger problems about the Robinson confirmation- because at Lambeth of 1998 one of the resolutions was that, as a communion, they weren’t going to go that route, at least yet.

There are other polity problems. Once Robinson’s diocese had elected him, there really wasn’t much the rest of the US church could do about it. The vote at General Conference was really a ratification of the election process (i.e. was it conducted fairly), NOT whether they approved of the candidate- that’s for the diocese, not General Conference, to decide. Thus, probably some of the folks who voted “for” Robinson did not necessarily approve of the election of an openly gay Bishop.

Again, this is a much a issue of the political organization as the theological aspect. Problem is, do the folks who want the ABC to step in and exert authority really want to set up a mini-Pope? Sure, as long as it suits their needs. Do they want Lambeth to be more binding? Maybe. We’ll see. They have been convening to decide what to do about the Robinson ordination, and are due to report this fall.

cofe.anglican.org/cgi-bin/news/item_frame.pl?id=105

archbishopofcanterbury.org/role/index.html

anglicancommunion.org/acns/acnsarchive/acns2600/acns2618.html#overview


#16

Mean_owen, thanks for the information.


#17

My pleasure, Amanda.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.