[In the recent General Synod vote on Women Bishops] the Liberal wing of the Church of England has achieved a massive gain. But their position is not without hazard. Both Archbishops advised against the step that has been taken. Other senior bishops also disapproved. Substantial numbers in the Synod voted against the final motion. Hundreds of clergy have indicated they would have to rethink their position in the Church.
“This, then, is the situation confronting Traditionalists in the Church of England. The General Synod has effectively voted that they be marginalised. Archbishop John Sentamu denied strongly that they were being thrown out, and technically that is true. But they are being bypassed and rendered irrelevant.”
===========================================================
A succinct and operatively accurate assessment.
Now is the time for the progressive-revisionists to start committing acts against the traditionalists/orthodox as they move to gleefully consolidate their victory.
This will probably manifiest itself as some sort of ‘British-style’ Jacobin purge, a la the French Revolution. ‘Out with the old, in with the new.’
Watch for the CoE progressive-revisionists to suddenly become strong supporters of the episcopacy in governance matters that affirm and support their radical ascendancy and strong defenders of their perceived idea of ‘how things should be’ when they are challenged by those Anglicans of a traditional/orthodox belief.
The thing to bear in mind is that the way the Church of England (and the Anglican Communion) always changes is by radical principled action. The Oxford Movement led the way in the 19th century. The Liberals led the way in the 20th. If the Evangelicals and Traditionalists want to get anywhere in the 21st they will have to adopt the same approach.
Although I would strongly prefer that traditionalists have stronger protections than this “gentleman’s agreement” my experience (in the UK) is that for the Brits such an agreement still means something important and that what they end up creating in the code has a very good chance of being robust, honorable and adhered too by the great majority of churcmen (besides radical activists who respect no boundaries and have little sense of decency).
My concern regarding Anglo-Catholics (who I love, admire and support in all things besides W.O. and full inclusion for GLBT Christians) is that none of their churches (in the U.S. anyway) are growing and most if not all have ASA’s around 70-100. All of the historically Anglo-Catholic parishes are a ghost of the glory they once were. An excellent example is St. Clement’s Philadelphia: it is more empty than full on most occassions and yet they have preserved the old Catholic customs and traditions and women are allowed no place at the altar or in the liturgy besides singing in their magnificant (and paid) choir. Why is this?
My fear is that Anglo-Catholicism, for the most part, is known by the average Episcopalian as being stridently anti-women, shrilly conservative, and elitist (i.e. opera crowd, high brow, boys only club). The richness of the Anglo-Catholic theological. missional and holiness tradition are buried treasures shared only with “the right kind of people” shades of gnosticism increasingly abound. If even higher walls of protection and stronger gates are created Anglo-Catholism will go the way of the Shakers.
Why has Anglo-Catholicism been in such deep decline since around the seventies and what can be done to allow the movement to thrive once again?!
#3 I think that’s an easy one to answer–Anglo-Catholicism should leave the elite bounds of the Episcopal club, submit to Rome, and bring a much-needed liturgical lift to their local RC diocese. Plenty of non-elite families will come along.
BTW, in the UK, many AC parishes are doing rather well–far better than the liberals, in any case.
Austin,
Because of theological differences, many of us CANNOT, in good conscience, submit to Rome. We agree with most of the theology of the historic Anglican Communion, but not the direction in which it is devolving.
Some cannot because of the provisions against divorce and remarriage and full communion in the Roman Church (why join that in which you cannot participate?).
So there are some very real barriers to just saying “Just join Rome!”
For some of us, that is not possible.
Peace
JE <><
Yes, #5.
And, for all the unfaithfulness of those who vote and exert power over the AC, the AC is still for many…I count myself one…a precious inheritance of the Celtic/Catholic expression of Western Catholicism. Perhaps, orthodox Anglicans would do better to make their witness within the RCC, and essentially give up the possibility of helping the AC repent and return to its own inheritance.
To trade the strength and holiness of the historical AC for the juridical model of modern RCC may be a “necessary evil”. However, John Henry Newman’s case for “Anglicanism” being a ‘paper religion’ is becoming harder and harder to refute, as the C of E, and the TEC maul the face of Anglicanism. My own diocese of Ft. Worth is about to take an intermediary step out of TEC into a province which is faithful to the AC heritage. However, many in our diocese…and I among them…know that our ultimate home may very well be the RCC.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that a marriage and divorce/remarriage would only be a hindrance to those who were married in a RC service or under a RC priests authority.
Actually, no. any Christian religious ceremony is recognized by the RCC as a valid and binding marriage. CIVIL cermonies are not recognized, if this was the only ‘wedding’ preformed.
Thus, if a wedding took place in, say, a Methodist church it would still be considered a valid marriage and if a divorce occured, the person must be subject to the rules of annulment before one can be admitted to full communion in the RCC.
And in spite of witness to the contrary, these are not very easily obtained.
Re # 3
Archangelica,
Your question can be in part answered by the fact that huge numbers of High Church Anglo-Catholics relaize that they are under siege in a denomination that really doesn’t like them and tolerates them (barely) only out of some sense of charity. They also increasingly are coming to realize that no matter how orthodox (small ‘o’) their parish might be, in most cases th
ICXC
eir bishops are overt heretics or worse. They, like my once staunchly High Church & Affirmation of St. Louis Godfather, are coming to realize that they have no long term prospects in TEC or the broader AC.
Anglo-Catholicism is dead. It has been for a while. All that happened on Monday is that the CofE published a belated obituary.
Re #5
Jim,
I am not sure if you’re an Anglo-Catholic or low church evangelical. If the latter I suggest the LCMS. If the former I would suggest checking out Western Rite Orthodoxy. Unlike in the UK where that is sadly not an option it does exist here in N. America.
ICXC
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
Arrggg sorry for broken post above. – John
York said,
“By 2014 the Church of England should look rather more like The Episcopal Church in the United States…”
That should make Madame Schoriate thrilled. By 2020 there will be a British Oven Mitt Primate denying the oft-touted and selectively abused “via media, diverse, big tent” understanding of Anglicanism and will then thrust the CofE into a civil war.
TEC: Talking Endless Constructs.
Coming to an island near you.
AO:
I’m very much Anglo-Catholic, having joined the Episcopal Church in 1986 coming FROM the Roman Church. I really have no desire to return to the RCC. (I also state for the record that I indentify with all three threads: Catholic or Sacramental; Charismatic; and evangelical, but I love the smells and bells of a full-blown liturgy! And when accompanied by people worshipping filled with the Spirit and strong Word-based preaching — oh, my! It just doesn’t get any better!)
There are two Orthodox churches here in our area:
Holy Mother of God Greek Orthodox (reasonably close)
St. Mary and St. George Coptic Orthodox (within the county, but quite a distance driving wise).
I’ve visited the first, and to tell the truth, it didn’t do a whole lot for me.
I’m a bit put off by the ‘Coptic’ label, for up until recently, there was quite a bit of disagreement on whether they were Trinitarian or not, based on their published and historical understanding of God.
My wife has expressed her opinion NOT to join either. She’s more ‘low church’ Episcopalian (not Evangelical, just Episcopalian, born and raised in a parish that had Morning Prayer three Sundays a month and eucharist on the fourth.)
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
“My fear is that Anglo-Catholicism, for the most part, is known by the average Episcopalian as being stridently anti-women, shrilly conservative, and elitist (i.e. opera crowd, high brow, boys only club). The richness of the Anglo-Catholic theological. missional and holiness tradition are buried treasures shared only with “the right kind of people†shades of gnosticism increasingly abound. If even higher walls of protection and stronger gates are created Anglo-Catholism will go the way of the Shakers. ” My experience tells me this is largely true. I think one reason is that much more “catholic” liturgical practices have been adopted by the broad church parishes, so one does not have to go the “ultra-high” chruch route. Something that seems to be missing from the discussion of “going RC” –at least in the US — is that they are increasingly and to a greater and greater degree a church of immigrants from Latin America and Mexico particularly but also from Asia. I don’t think Benedict’s liturgical reforms are going to have much impact in the US.
Deacon,
I beg to differ. American Catholics have been complaining about the English translation of the liturgy ever since it was rushed into production. Benedict’s reforms will do much to improve the American RCC liturgy.
Pax,
Jim Elliott <><
Jim Elliott, since I’m living here among Copts in Egypt, I can tell you that they seem just as Trinitarian as any other Orthodox folks I’ve seen. Their website and some history reading on my part make me believe that this was a long-ago political battle between Alexandria and Constantinople, and that Coptic belief about the divine and human natures of Jesus are really not significantly different from other Eastern Christians. They are Nicene Christians, which is more than we can say for many TEC leaders. Certainly Copts have managed to survive and keep their faith intact in the face of 1400 years of Arab Muslim pressure.
That said, it appears to be an ethnic church. It’s Egyptian; services here are in Arabic with some of it in Coptic, which is the descendant of ancient Egyptian, the same language as the hieroglyphics (it’s Semitic, like Hebrew and Arabic). Like the Greeks, the Russians, and so on, you would need to make an ethnic conversion as well as a religious one, to a great extent. I’m sure this is why so many of us who are native English speakers are having great trouble giving up English Christianity. I’d rather try to fix it, personally.