Traditionalist Anglicans are to formally announce that they are setting up a new church in the US and Canada.
The move will make the long-discussed split in the Anglican Church in North America a reality.
It means in each country there will be two competing churches, both claiming allegiance to the Anglican Communion.
The American Church’s liberal stance on homosexuality has led some traditionalists, including some whole dioceses, to leave the Church.
Honest to Pete, if I had a nickel for every headline that has proclaimed “Anglican Split Finally Happens” I could finish my Christmas shopping this afternoon.
I haven’t been following the descriptions of this new province too closely. Will San Joaquin, Fort Worth, Quincy and Pittsburgh no longer be under the oversight of Southern Cone? And CANA, AMiA, etc no longer under their African provinces? I had understood those arrangements to be temporary.
#1: Go ahead, finishing the shopping!
The point of all this is that there are now two religions claiming allegiance for the “Anglican Way of being a Christian”: 1, the Gnostic universalism proclaimed by the PB and sustained more and more directly by GCs and diocesan bishops. Joined to this new Gnosticism is the polymorphous sensuality which bedevils the moral integrity of Anglicanism on our continent. 2, the orthodox (both in doctrine annd practice) Christianity supported by those gathering in Wheaton, IL today.
“Pete” could tell you which of these 2 is on the side of the angels.
Need I hint?
[blockquote]The Communion’s Secretary General, Canon Kenneth Kearon, has told the BBC that it is entering what he called uncharted waters, and he is calling on the leaders of the new Church to act in accordance with the Communion’s existing regulations.
“The issue as I see it is whether in fact this body, or province as they’re calling it, wishes to be recognised as a province of the Anglican Communion,” he said.
“And I think if they do, there are clear procedures by which that might be explored. And I do urge those involved to address the structures of the Communion.”[/blockquote]
Interesting – are we to take it that Canon Kearon and the ACO will now be actively assisting the approval of the new province by the Instruments rather than working to undermine it?
Hey, if Canon K
has his way
As at New Orleans
This province is already in bein’.
#4, your comment is interesting. I would think that it more likely that Canon Kearon would love to have an application on his desk that he could study, review, and evaluate ad infinitum. Remember the application from Ghana to form an independent provence has languished in the ACO for around 10 years. My sense is that the leaders of the new North American Church would be ill advised to let the ACO arbitrate their legitimacy, at least at this time.
Scott K, from the beginning of our relationship with Archbishop Venables, it has been agreed that our dioceses’ membership in the Province of the Southern Cone is only temporary until our new North American province is officially organized and functioning. Until such time as we are “up and running,” we will remain where we are, in my opinion.
#6 Well I imagine that it he was serious then the matter will come up for discussion at the Primates’ meeting and if approved then the ACC will be instructed to change their membership at their meeting.
I am not sure the waters are uncharted. There have been a great many new provinces created, many out of areas which used to come under the Archbishop of Canterbury.
It seems that a large part of the problems stem from no one is in charge. No decisions ever get made. A Council of Primates should be the governing body within the communion, with an ArchBishop elected from the Primates. Remeber, the Ministerial Priesthood has three parts to its office, the Prophetic, Priestly and Kingly. These devolved from Christ and establishes the authority of Bishops to rule. Enough of this democratic experiment. The Church should not be run by popular opinion.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
Our new province has been called a “new Church.” It isn’t. It’s the same traditional Anglican Church of the ages, but is separate from the heresies and apostasy calling themselves The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.
First, there may be two, but only one will be viable. Second, I wish the Anglican Provice would sub-title itself as the repentant and reformed Anglican Church in America.
#10 I would agree and rejoice…..only the emerging church has foolishly turned a blind eye to the ordination of women thus carrying the cancer accross with it. It is very difficult to defend WO whilst chastising others on the gay issue. If this is to be a truly ‘traditonal Anglican entity’ then it most certainly needs to return to the three fold order as held and shared by Rome and Constaninople- or else it is every bit as innovative and different to the true church of old than the other half.
For Catholic Anglicans there still exists little to give us assurance
CharlesB, the only “Churches” which need to repent and reform themselves are The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. Right now, they don’t seem to be interested in doing that.
[i]During a celebration service in Illinois, its leaders will unveil a draft constitution for the new Church. [/i]
Will women’s ordination will be allowed and will divorced people be able to get remarried in the church? Until those issues have been agreed on, they’ve got just as many problems as the rest of us.
#12… thanks to RPP for his thoughts. One quick question. In America and Great Britain, are most Anglican opponents of WO opposed also to women being ordained as deacons? I know that in the global south, some provinces ordain women as priests and deacons, some provinces as deacons only, and some do not admit women to any ordained ministry. Can you comment?
By the way, I agree with you that I think traditionalist Anglican protestants should be working VERY hard to make sure that their AC brothers feel very safe and protected and confident of their ability to follow their own tradition inside whatever new structures are begining to emerge. For example, although I am myself a strong Protestant, I was unhappy with a protestant bias in the Jerusalem declaration.
I have mixed feelings about WO myself, though I can’t say yet that I am definitely opposed to it (in principle) either. I don’t agree that Gay Ordination follows deductively from WO. (This would mean that it is logically impossible to support WO but not GO.) But where I would agree is that GO does logically follow from the actual historical process of how ECUSA introduced WO in the 1970s. If a person grants that that process was legitimate, then the same process (prophetic unilateral action by mavericks without a long period of intentional corporate discernment by the church, arguments made regarding “full inclusion” and “dignity” and bigotry) was also legitimate in the case of VGR.
Anyone can go through the service of ordination. But does God as the Holy Spirit come upon the ordinand and grant the Grace needed for the office? I have been taught that NO, Christ does not ordain wome. It doesn’t matter the service that the bishop does, it is what Christ does and he never commissioned women. Do we have the authority or right to contradict Christ? Not me. That is my story and I’m sticking to it.
The temptation to focus on the ordination of women will be the downfall of the new province….let’s hope they don’t allow the tail to wag the dog. (Although the far-right probably controls large amounts of funds).
For the 1000th time, the ordination of those who willingly engage in behaviors (e.g., the practice of homosexuality) which are totally prohibited to Christians by Scripture does NOT equate with the ordination of women to orders. A strong biblical case can and has been made for WO; it CANNOT be made for the practice of homosexuality.
Many of us deplored the ‘Philadelphia 11’ events, especially that the HOB caved in and deemed them ‘irregular ordinations’. That opened a floodgate, and many of us predicted that others would seek to do the same….and they have. Result: the purple-shirted wonders have failed time and again to hold each other accountable, and have therefore betrayed their calling, their people and their God. Shame on them!