What has become of our Anglican friends?

Ugh… the Anglican Church keeps stumbling over every crack and crevice along the road. First, it was with contraception. Now, there is an openly gay bishop in the Episcopalian wing! Agh! Why can’t they hold fast to their traditions?

[quote=luckyirishguy14]Ugh… the Anglican Church keeps stumbling over every crack and crevice along the road. First, it was with contraception. Now, there is an openly gay bishop in the Episcopalian wing! Agh! Why can’t they hold fast to their traditions?
[/quote]

They left their traditions a long time ago, it has been nothing but a slippery slope since they left the Catholic Church and proclaimed the King as the head of the Church.

I think like many other Christian churches they are fractionalized; I have met some very traditional Anglicans who are laboring in their vineyard and are dismayed about much of what is happening internally. I have met others who welcome every innovation and change proposed. We are somewhat all in the same boat in regard to our internal affairs.

:gopray2:

[quote=HagiaSophia]I think like many other Christian churches they are fractionalized; I have met some very traditional Anglicans who are laboring in their vineyard and are dismayed about much of what is happening internally. I have met others who welcome every innovation and change proposed. We are somewhat all in the same boat in regard to our internal affairs.

:gopray2:
[/quote]

In the case of the Anglicans, they have not only become fractionalized, but have done so in a polity that cannot cope with such a turn of events.

Anglicans state, almost with pride, that they reject the concept of magisterium. That, I’d think, was part of what prompted Cardinal Newman to observe that, theologically, they were “unstable as water.” But to stretch that analogy, the water was held in the glass of the British Empire and Crown. When they mattered, they could exert some influence over what went on in their church. But the Empire is no more – the colonies are now all on their own (even the ones that didn’t revolt) – and the Crown is a constitutional construct. Tony Blair named the last Archbishop of Canterbury.

Put a tea cup on the table upside down, and put a marble on the bottom (which is now on top). You can move the marble a little bit, but move it too far, and it rolls down and away. That’s a church without magisterium. Now, turn the cup over, rightside up, and put a marble inside it. Move it up the side and let go, and it returns to the central point. The return in analogous to the influence of a proper magisterium. (A simple analogy, so please don’t stretch it too far. It’s only meant to illustrate, not explain.)

Australia, Canada, and the US don’t much care what England thinks, and England doesn’t much care what the Crown thinks. The former African and Asian colonies, now sovereign nations, certainly don’t much care, either. If some hold to the truth they have, and others embrace the culture, as the Western Anglican establishments certainly have, fission becomes inevitable.

Right here in Vancouver BC, in one Anglican diocese, there are already 3 recognizable groups: One follows a revisionist Anglican bishop who blesses same sex “unions” and denies the uniqueness of Jesus. Another denies this bishop, but doesn’t acknowledge any bishop at the moment, but remains (somehow) in the Anglican Church of Canada. A third has left the Anglican Church of Canada, but claims membership in the wider Anglican Communion through episcopal oversight from the Anglican Province of Rwanda, Africa. That’s just one diocese.

There is neither a structure nor an authority in Anglicanism today to sort the above mess out, and it is spreading. Some groups that split with Canterbury are making moves to come together, and perhaps join up with the groups currently in communion with Canterbury, but opposed to the revisionist theology. Where this will all end up is anybody’s guess.

Prayers for those who seek to hold onto the truth they have are very much in order. Without an evident mechanism to guard the faith, these folks are in for a rough ride.

Blessings,

Gerry

Greetings, Gerry,

Not a bad assessment, from this Anglican perspective. Toss in a little worship of the Spirit of the Age, and you about have it.

Not all Anglicans would deny the concept of a Magisterium, though. But it would be more on the lines of the Vincentian Canon, and the Councils of the undivided Church. Not enough of an anchor in times like these. And the PM chosing the Primate is not a novelty; it’s part of the Erastian nature of the CoE.

As you say, where it ends is anyone’s guess. Me, I’m betting on a third orthodox Province of the CoE (a tradeoff to Blair for the females in miters he wants to see), which will pick up the Episcopal oversight functions that the African and Southeast Asian prelates are performing for various more or less orthodox groups in North America. Whither then, no one can say

GKC

Anglicans are following their tradition. It is leading them right out of Christianity. I believe Chesterton said, “Presbyterianism is no religion for a gentleman and Anglicanism is no religion for a Christian”. lol

[quote=cestusdei]Anglicans are following their tradition. It is leading them right out of Christianity. I believe Chesterton said, “Presbyterianism is no religion for a gentleman and Anglicanism is no religion for a Christian”. lol
[/quote]

Don’t think so. The “Presbyterianism” part is attributed to Charles II. Chesterton did quote that, at least once, but I have no knowledge of him saying the last portion. Sounds more like Belloc. Could be wrong.

GKC

As a former Anglican, now Catholic, it pains me to see the slow disintegration of the communion.

The communion I believe is now little more than a federation of national churches. In and betweeen these churches there are ruptures and I think it is a matter of time before a large body within the communion strikes out on its own. Smaller versions of this (flying bishops re womens ordination) have already happened.

There is much to be valued in Anglicanism (esp CS Lewis) but I fear for Anglicanism and Anglican’s future.

JGC

[quote=JGC]As a former Anglican, now Catholic, it pains me to see the slow disintegration of the communion.

The communion I believe is now little more than a federation of national churches. In and betweeen these churches there are ruptures and I think it is a matter of time before a large body within the communion strikes out on its own. Smaller versions of this (flying bishops re womens ordination) have already happened.

There is much to be valued in Anglicanism (esp CS Lewis) but I fear for Anglicanism and Anglican’s future.

JGC
[/quote]

So do I.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

It has been enveloped by the veil of political correctness. Which is really a religion of itself.
Has anyone heard anything about a new Bible version which has been approved by the Arch Bishop of Canterbury?

[quote=luckyirishguy14]Ugh… the Anglican Church keeps stumbling over every crack and crevice along the road. First, it was with contraception. Now, there is an openly gay bishop in the Episcopalian wing! Agh! Why can’t they hold fast to their traditions?
[/quote]

…Because only the Catholic Church was promised to be guided by the Holy Spirit. These are truly dark days for the Anglican Church.

[quote=Lilyofthevalley] It has been enveloped by the veil of political correctness. Which is really a religion of itself.
Has anyone heard anything about a new Bible version which has been approved by the Arch Bishop of Canterbury?
[/quote]

Yes, indeed, the new Bible “version” and Rowan Williams’s endorsement has gotten a lot of attention.

Among the features endorsed are the use of nicknames for the people in Holy Scripture (Peter, for instance, becomes “Rocky” :bigyikes: ) , and references to husbands and wives become references to chosen partners. :whistle:

Some years ago an Anglican named J.B. Phillips wrote paraphrases of books of the New Testament. Being paraphrases, they were not the stuff for theological examination, but they were very readable, respectful, and in their place, useful. It is a sad commentary that Anglicanism has gone from J.B. Phillips’s work to Rowan Williams’s endorsement of sacreligious abomination.

Blessings,

Gerry

Jerry, you are being sarcastic, aren’t you?

[quote=Lilyofthevalley] Jerry, you are being sarcastic, aren’t you?
[/quote]

Not sure how to reply. :confused:

If you are referring to my observations on the content of the new “translation,” the things I mention are there. Here’s a brief news clip on it:

+++++
‘Good As New’ Bible Roils Britain

By Robert Nowell
Religion News Service

London, June 28–(RNS) A controversial new translation of the Bible that has St. Paul recommending a “regular partner” for sex has received a warm commendation from the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, for its “extraordinary power.”

The version, “Good as New: A Radical Retelling of the Scriptures,” was written by retired Baptist minister John Henson. Its modern idiomatic English features the names of people and places in contemporary slang.

St. Peter thus becomes “Rocky,” Barnabas becomes “Cheery”–apparently the literal meaning of the name in Aramaic–Thessalonika becomes “Tessatown,” and Bethany is called “Dategrove.” Paul, however, stays Paul and Corinth stays Corinth.

The new translation is much more direct than most Bible readers have been used to. In the King James version, Paul tells the squabbling Christians of Corinth: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”

In Henson’s version, it goes this way: “Some of you think the best way to cope with sex is for men and women to keep right away from one another. I think that is more likely to lead to sexual offenses. My advice is for everyone to have a regular partner.”

In addition, Henson leaves the door open to various possibilities when he has Paul saying, “Husbands and wives should strive to meet each other’s sexual needs. They should submit to one another for that purpose.”

In his foreword, Williams asks: “What would Christianity look like, what would Christian language sound like, if we really tried to screen out the stale, the technical, the unconsciously exclusive words and policies and to hear as if for the first time what the Christian scriptures were saying?”

Henson’s translation does not include all the books of the New Testament–Revelation is missing, for example, as are some of the Epistles. He also adds the Gospel of Thomas, which has never been accepted as part of the Christian canon.

+++++

And adding the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, well … :banghead:

And my respect for Phillips’s work is as noted.

Blessings,

Gerry

Gerry, that is HORRIBLE. The latest version certainly fits today’s lifestyle though. Too bad the anglicans went down the tubes like that.

[quote=Lilyofthevalley] Gerry, that is HORRIBLE. The latest version certainly fits today’s lifestyle though. Too bad the anglicans went down the tubes like that.
[/quote]

Well, horrible it certainly is, but we should remember, in fairness, it’s the work of a Baptist, not an Anglican. Still, an endorsement from Canterbury is a sad, sad turn of events, bespeaking an utter loss of Christian discernment on the part of the denomination’s corporate apparatus.

Blessings,

Gerry

I am surprised about a Baptist doing such a thing as well. You know how Baptists can be about King James only etc.

[quote=Lilyofthevalley]I am surprised about a Baptist doing such a thing as well. You know how Baptists can be about King James only etc.
[/quote]

There are as many types of Baptists as you can picture. They go on the spectrum from the extreme right to the extreme left:

Dave Hunt (extreme Fundamentalist)
Tim LaHaye (moderate Fundamentalist)
Charles Stanley (evangelical conservative)
Pat Robertson (semi-Charismatic)
John MacArthur (semi-Calvinist)
Billy Graham (ecumenical moderate)
Clark Pinnock (“openness theology” heresiarch)
Tony Campolo (progressive Evangelical)
Jesse Jackson (socialist and camera-lover)

All of these men are Baptists. The Baptist churches are - by nature - congregational in polity with few connections to a central organization. Their beliefs (other than believer’s only immersion baptism and congregational government) run the gamit.

LOL@ Jesse Jackson being a camara lover!!!.:stuck_out_tongue:
I have listened to John McArthur, he is very strict and rigid.

[quote=JGC]There is much to be valued in Anglicanism (esp CS Lewis) but I fear for Anglicanism and Anglican’s future.

JGC
[/quote]

Not to mention Dorothy Sayers (author of The Whimsical Christian) and J.B. Phillips (author of Your God is too small). I wonder what Lewis would make of his church today? C.S. Lewis wrote in a 1948 essay “Priestesses in th Church?” that if the Anglican church ordained women, it would be a break with much of Christian tradition and “the Church of England herself would be torn in shreds by the operation.” Looking at the Anglican/Episcopalian communion today, i would have to say that Lewis was remarkably prophetic.

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.