Skip to comments.Archbishop: No Change Over Gay Bishop
Posted on 12/14/2007 2:42:25 PM PST by SmithL
LONDON, United Kingdom (AP) -- The archbishop of Canterbury said Friday he will not reverse his decision to exclude a gay U.S. bishop from joining other bishops at a global Anglican gathering next year.
The office of Archbishop Rowan Williams said he also had not changed his mind about refusing an invitation to Martyn Minns, a traditionalist U.S. priest who was consecrated as a bishop in the Anglican Church of Nigeria to minister to disaffected Episcopalians in the U.S.
Williams, spiritual leader of the world's Anglicans, said he has recruited professional mediators in trying to reach greater understanding between the U.S. Episcopal Church and its critics both at home and abroad.
The Anglican Communion is a 77-million-member fellowship of churches that trace their roots to the Church of England. The Episcopal Church, the Anglican body in the U.S., caused an uproar in 2003 by consecrating the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.
Anglicans are now on the brink of schism, and attendance at next year's assembly, called the Lambeth Conference, has become a focus of the tension. Theological conservatives and liberals have separately threatened to boycott the meeting because of who was and wasn't invited.
Williams dedicated his Advent message to the crisis. He said that just under half of world Anglican leaders have not accepted the pledges by the Episcopal Church that it won't confirm any more gay bishops for now or approve official prayers for same-sex unions.
"We simply cannot pretend that there is now a ready-made consensus on the future of relationships between (the Episcopal Church) and other provinces,"
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
“Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, leader of the Episcopal Church, said in a statement that she has “repeatedly offered to engage in dialogue with those who are most unhappy,” but her offer “has not yet been seriously engaged.”
Maybe it’s because her word means nothing after Dar es Salaam.
I should preface this remark by saying, "With all due respect", but I can't be that disingenuous. Williams is surely no +Nicholas of Myra who slugged Arius at the Council of Nicea. He is no +Athanasius the Great or +John Chrysostomos who suffered exile and death for their Orthodoxy. He is no champion of Anglican Christianity like countless known and unknown hierarchs and preachers and missionaries and martyrs. What would a bishop like +JC Ryle think of this spineless character? This man is more than a heretic and more heretical than merely the ArchDruid; he's a clown, a pathetic clown worthy only of contempt from "orthodox" (let alone "Orthodox") Christians.
Don’t leave us in the dark, K. - tell us what you really think!
While I’m sure there have been faithful bishops in Anglicanism over the centuries, the honest question is: can we really be shocked at this, since their forefather were the all the bishops who cowtowed to Henry VIII? The only bishop who stood up to that scoundrel was St. John Fisher.
“While Im sure there have been faithful bishops in Anglicanism over the centuries, the honest question is: can we really be shocked at this, since their forefather were the all the bishops who cowtowed to Henry VIII? The only bishop who stood up to that scoundrel was St. John Fisher.”
An Orthodox hierarch recently told me that Anglicanism has carried with it the seeds of its own destruction from the day Henry VIII established it...but I have to say, this time with all due and real respect to the Orthodox hierarch, that any group which could produce a +JC Ryle had and likely has elements of holiness worthy of both note and profound respect by both Latins and the Orthodox.
“Dont leave us in the dark, K. - tell us what you really think!”
You ask too much, dear lady! You, of all people, know how timid, shy, retiring and wall flower-like I tend to be!
How does one dialog with such?
what about William White, Chaplain of the Continental Congress and 1st Presiding Bishop, and all those early Bishops. One of the first things they did was to scratch out the King’s name from all the prayer books and substitute the American leaders. Samuel Seabury, the first American Bishop consecrated at a midnight mass by the bishops in Scotland, much to the dismay of the Church of England and their Primate - George VIII
That’s you, tentative and retiring ...
Some of Anglican Primates, such as dear Abp. Akinola in Africa, are sounding very Orthodox, at least to my half-educated ears.
“said he has recruited professional mediators in trying to reach greater understanding “
(panic) ABANDON SHIP!
“Some of Anglican Primates, such as dear Abp. Akinola in Africa, are sounding very Orthodox, at least to my half-educated ears.”
Some of what he says really is quite Orthodox and he certainly is a brave hierarch, living daily with threats from Mohamedans to his community and frankly to himself. His armor is The Faith as he understands it. Compare him to the prancing sissies, sob sisters, limp wrists and fellow travelers of most of First World Anglicanism!
But, TC, if you want Orthodoxy in Anglican dress, read Bishop Ryle! He was sublimely Orthodox in a Victorian evangelical Anglican way. His “tracts” are abslutely incredible.
I quite concur!
Abandoned almost a quarter-century ago. Anglicanism is not dependent upon, nor need it bow to, the Arch-druid.
IV (and a disgrace he was, too)
I'm missing two, somehow . . . < g >
Also, George III was never the Primate - that is the Archbishop of Canterbury. During his time, there were eight (he reigned for 60 years).
I’ve enjoyed some of Bp. Ryle’s writing that Sionnsar has posted ... and I think I have a book somewhere on the shelves. Bp. Ryle is popular with the neo-Puritan Protestants, although they’d probably have a cow about his sacramental theology, if they bothered to look into it.
Yes, the Anglican Bishops didn't come from a tradition strong enough that it produced leaders like Pilla. Or Popes like Alexander VI or John XII.
Wow, Prince Charles looks just like King George VI - only more so, if you know what I mean ...
Too bad he doesn’t ACT like him . . . George VI was a Good King.
Prince Charles resembles, in one way, his ancestor George IV, who married a charming socialite, only to see his marriage deteriorate due to the infidelities of both parties.
Good points, both of you. George V also has a similar facial structure, although it’s harder to see behind the tonsorial flourishes. Both of them were quite decent gentlemen ... dull in a *good* way :-).
George IV was in a position similar to Prince Charles’s: he was Crown Prince (and later regent) for so many years, and didn’t take the throne until he was an old man.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
Lies, all lies.
The Presiding Bishop's "dialogue" consists of vicious litigation directed at anyone who dares to disagree with the Party line.
George VI was small in stature, and a man with no ambition to be king. Not an imposing figure, but a man of courage. They called him “George the Good.” Lucky enough to be married to a good, strong woman. Elizabeth like her mother, and in her day as pretty as a movie star. At the time of her coronation esembled Deborah Kerr. I think.
You mustnt have read Nostradamus Criswell Thackerays The Next Four Georges.
“Harris, I am not well. Get me a glass of brandy.”
Well put. Williams is a bureaucrat who sucks up to the British elite on whom he is dependent for his job. Like most bureaucrats, his chief concern is to preserve organizational "structure" rather than doctrinal integrity. How characteristic that he is hiring a team of mediation consultants - just to show his masters in the British Labor Party that he is doing something.
Is that William Makepeace's cousin that he never would talk about?
I have some advice for Archbishop Rowan Williams, which he of course will not take: invite Bishop Martyn Minns but not “bishop” “Selfish Gene” Robinson. Repent and embrace orthodox Christianity, or else the Anglican Communion as we have known it goes down the tubes.
V at least looks like a guy!
The resemblance is uncanny.
That was an official royal portrait of George VI, that I grabbed in a hurry. Badly painted, and photographed from an awkward angle. This photograph of George VI in his naval uniform is a much better likeness:
If you compare that picture with feckless Charles, you can see the strength of character in his grandfather that he so sadly lacks.
(and I didn't pick a bad picture of Charles on purpose. That is his OFFICIAL photo on the Royal website!)
Speaking of uncanny resemblances, look at this photo of Georgie and his cousin Nicky (who didn't come to a good end at all)!
Nicholas’s mother Dagmar (Maria Feodorovna, wife of Alexander III of Russia) and Queen Alexandra, George V’s mother, were sisters, daughters of King Christian IX of Denmark.
In my humble opinion it already has, a long time ago. (I have a declared bias in the matter, having departed from ECUSA and the wwAC a quarter-century ago). Too much was compromised in the name of "unity," which simply allowed the American infection to spread to Canada, New Zealand and Mother Church.
The wwAC either needs to reform itself and become what it is not at present, or it will not be worth membership.
“Nicholass mother Dagmar (Maria Feodorovna, wife of Alexander III of Russia) and Queen Alexandra, George Vs mother, were sisters, daughters of King Christian IX of Denmark.’
Which, of course, is why Nicky and Georgie were cousins.
Can you say, inbreeding???
I think "propinquity" is a little more polite :-)!
And I still think Charles looks exactly like King George VI, except that the distinctive features are even more distinctive on Charles. He's like a caricature of George!
You would feel the same way if you were introduced to a woman who rarely washed herself or her clothes. Caroline was, by most accounts, a skank (not that the alcoholic, womanizing George IV was any better).
. . . but at least he WAS clean!!!!!!
A common misconception (perpetrated by Catholics) is that Henry VIII “created” Anglicanism. That is simply not true. Anglican Christianity dates to St Alban in the year 303. By the 16th Century, the Anglican Church had its own liturgical tradition- the Sarum Rite- apart from the Roman Rites used on the continent.
Henry VIII’s reforms amounted to nothing more than eliminating the Bishop of Rome from all affairs in England. All else remained the same (see Six Articles). Anglicanism as we know it today is a product of the Elizabethan Settlement and the Restoration.
While there have been (and currently are) some Anglican bishops and leaders whose actions and beliefs are questionable (to put it mildly), if their existence invalidates Anglicanism, then by the same reasoning Roman Catholcis and Eastern Orthodox are pretty much screwed.
“Anglicanism as we know it today is a product of the Elizabethan Settlement and the Restoration.”
The Elizabethan Settlement was purely political and was plainly good politics. It was terrible theology because it established a system whereby apostasy and heresy could with official approval co-exist within the same ecclesial body. In my opinion, this is where what we see today in Anglicanism became inevitable.
Your comments about the existence of an Anglican Church before Henry VIII are historically questionable, at least after the Council of Whitby. The fact that the Sarum Liturgy was used hardly means that The Church in England was somehow less than fully subject to Rome or that its bishops, from Cantuar and York on down, were not under the omophorion of the Bishop of Rome.
As to whether or not Anglicanism is defective on account of the actions of a few bishops, well the primary problem may well be with their position within the Apostolic Succession. It is a given that no woman can ever be a bishop, and yet Anglican bishops have consecrated them. It is well settled that bishops are to be celibates, or at least the husband of only one wife, yet Anglicanism celebrates the consecration of men with multiple marriages. The canons are absolute that priests may not marry after ordination, yet in Anglicanism this is a common occurrence. Issues surrounding practicing gay hierarchs aside, it certainly appears that the people who act as bishops in the Anglican Church care little for the canons and Holy Tradition of The Church and to that extent, the invalidity of Anglicanism, if indeed it is invalid either as a part of The Church or as a Christian ecclesial group, can in greatest measure be laid at the feet of the very persons who have been charged since Nicea to protect The Faith.
As with all matters religious in the 16th Century, the Elizabethan Settlement was highly political. However, among other issues, it established the use of the English service in the Book of Common Prayer (which were based on the Sarum Rite), married clergy, and Communion in both kinds. The 39 Articles were part of this. The Settlement successfully defended the historic episcopate and the sacraments against the machinations of the Puritans.
The Council of Whitby established union between the Celtic bishops of the line of St Patrick and the Roman bishops of the line of St Augustine Cantuar. On paper, the Bishop of Rome was still the senior prelate in the West, however he did not exercise real authority in England (or anywhere else outside Italy and the Holy Roman Empire). More direct Roman authority was not established until the Norman Conquest in 1066 when, in exchange for a Papal Blessing, Duke William agreed to oust the Saxon bishops and replace them with Normans beholden to Rome. This he did. The merger of the Anglican and Roman churches was effectively accomplished by force of arms.
Even after the Conquest, the Church of England functioned with a higher degree of independence than on the continent. The reason for this is that England was the only truly unified and centrally controlled state in the West. Her King was powerful enough to easily overshadow the Bishop of far-off Rome. The people of England enjoyed their Catholic Faith, but they also enjoyed their independence from the continent. When King John and King Henry III appeared to jeopardize that independence, the barons forced them to recant.
You and I would agree on the gay bishop and female bishop thing, as well as the remarriage issues. We would disagree on the episcopal celibacy rule (St. Paul the Apostle said a bishop must be the husband of one wife). But if you wish to write off Anglicanism because a minority of bishops (most of them American) choose to ignore historic church policy regarding bishops, then I could easily write off Roman Catholicism because a minority of its bishops (most of them American) choose to ignore divine policy regarding young boys. I do not do that because I can plainly see that what Cardinal Law and his ilk did in no way represents Catholic doctrine and discipline. Likewise you should be able to see that what Gene Robinson and his ilk have been doing in no way represents Anglican doctrine and discipline.
Not necessarily. A multitude of disciplinary canons changed what +Paul had to say and The Church never changed those canons. The question therefore is, by what right did the Anglicans change those disciplinary canons. If Anglicanism is in fact a particular English church, it is arguable that it could have the right to make such a change, but I suspect that if in fact that is the argument, the other particular churches would react by pointing out that the mind of The Church wasn’t there and that such innovation by one part of The Church was inappropriate, +Paul to the contrary notwithstanding. The same considerations of course apply to remarriage, open communion, women’s ordinations, etc.
“But if you wish to write off Anglicanism because a minority of bishops (most of them American) choose to ignore historic church policy regarding bishops, then I could easily write off Roman Catholicism because a minority of its bishops (most of them American) choose to ignore divine policy regarding young boys.”
But you know, to the extent that the Latin Church ignores and ignored what those priests and hierarchs did, it deserves condemnation, which it has received from Orthodoxy. This isn’t to say that Orthodox hierarchs aren’t liable to heresy. Heresy almost invariably comes from hierarchs, at least in the East and there have been cover ups of the actions of the “pink rasos” crowd in Orthodoxy too. But it isn;t widespread and in Russia where some priest celebrated a gay marriage, he was defrocked and the temple torn down so that not a stone lay on a stone. That reaction and the reaction (or non reaction) of the Latins, however, is of an entirely different order from that of, apparently, most of Anglicanism which either sits by saying nothing or actually applauds the notion that sodomy is no sin and the HS is doing a new thing. That’s what lead some Orthodox hierarchs and theologians to question whether or not Anglicanism is a valid part of The Church.
“I do not do that because I can plainly see that what Cardinal Law and his ilk did in no way represents Catholic doctrine and discipline. Likewise you should be able to see that what Gene Robinson and his ilk have been doing in no way represents Anglican doctrine and discipline.”
That’s not the point. One hopes they don’t. The point is that if substantial segments of a church publicly support sinful depravity on the one hand or cover it up on the other, without any consequences then those hierarchs who are “orthodox” must cut the heretics off. If the “orthodox” can’t or won’t do that, then they are equally responsible with the heretics for the destruction done to the Faithful and liable to the charge that the heretics do indeed represent the doctrine of the church or group.
You are correct that a substantial majority of the Episcopal Church’s members either wholeheartedly support the revisionists or simply don’t take their faith seriously enough to take action against them. That is why it is the orthodox who are walking out to meet in high schools (as my parish did) instead of the liberals. Some things are simply more important than stained glass windows. However, the Episcopal Church itself is a small minority in the Anglican Communion. Combined with Canada and England, they still constitute a shrinking minority in the Communion. Most of the Anglican hierarchs (especially the ones who do not ordain women) are certainly not sitting idly by while ECUSA carries on. Rather they are making a stand for the Truth, and if that means tossing the Church of England out of the Anglican Communion, then so be it. Remember, it was long before Gene Robinson that several overseas primates took the extraordinary step of sending their own bishops into the USA.
In 2003, it looked to some in other denominations that Anglicanism was finished and that there would be an influx of ex-Anglicans into their denominations. Now the unthinkable may happen- Anglicanism will survive and will be much stronger for it.
“Most of the Anglican hierarchs (especially the ones who do not ordain women) are certainly not sitting idly by while ECUSA carries on. Rather they are making a stand for the Truth, and if that means tossing the Church of England out of the Anglican Communion, then so be it. Remember, it was long before Gene Robinson that several overseas primates took the extraordinary step of sending their own bishops into the USA.”
At the Council of Nicea, +Nicholas crossed the hall and slugged Arius the heretic. For this he was expelled from the assembly but reinstated the next day after a number of the bishops were visited by the Most Holy Theotokos in a dream and told that +Nicholas was doing God’s will. If there is a Lambeth Conference next year and people like Schori and Robinson and Chane go over to have tea with the ArchDruid, do you suppose any “orthodox” Anglican bishop will have the fortitude and strength of belief to cross the hall and publicly slug, metaphorically or otherwise, those heresiarchs? I don’t.
there is an important message here for the RC concerning female priests. Let all of those who believe it would not be the end of the Catholic Church pay close attention to the disaster that female clergy have created in the Church of England.
They already did. They’ve done it by establishing episcopal jurisdictions of their own provinces in the United States and Canada without even asking ECUSA for permission. What would the Greek Church do if Patriarch Alexi flew to Athens and consecrated three men to be bishops of the Russian Church in Greece? They’ve done it by refusing to share the Eucharist with Schori, Griswold and crowd. What if the canonical patriarchs weren’t able to share the Eucharist at one of their gatherings? What if the College of Cardinals couldn’t celebrate Mass together?
Nobody is really sure what the Lambeth Conference will look like or if there will even be one. Will the orthodox bishops show up if the heretics are invited? St. Athanasius and the orthodox majority showed up at Nicea even though the heretic Arius was invited. They then put him and his heresies in their proper place. All of the bishops, including those who pretned to be bishops, may very well be in England this summer, but gathered in two different places with Archbishop Williams playing some sort of shuttle diplomacy. The heretics will not allow a format that will lead to a repeat of the 1998 smackdown, and the orthodox are not willing to spend money on another useless gathering.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.