Upheaval in the Anglican communion over lesbian bishop

Inside Catholic ^ | December 7, 2009 | Margaret Cabaniss

[NYer]

I don't envy Archbishop Rowan Williams. The leader of the global Anglican communion has had a busy couple of months -- on one hand, dealing with the news of the Vatican's offer of a personal ordinariate within the Catholic Church for Anglicans looking to convert... and now, on the other, with the Episcopal Church in the United States electing an openly lesbian bishop to the Los Angeles diocese. If confirmed, the Rev. Canon Mary D. Glasspool would be the first lesbian bishop in the Anglican communion.

But the global communion is still struggling with the question of whether practicing homosexuals should be ordained bishops, and a moratorium on electing other gay bishops (after ECUSA ordained Bishop Gene Robinson in 2003) was agreed to in 2004. Last summer, however, ECUSA voted to lift the moratorium, in spite of Canterbury's protests.

Archbishop Williams responded to the latest news:

"The election of Mary Glasspool by the Diocese of Los Angeles as suffragan bishop-elect raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole," Williams wrote.

The archbishop pointed out that Glasspool's selection must be confirmed by leaders of the U.S. church before she can be consecrated as a suffragan, or assistant, bishop. "That decision will have very important implications," he said.

At the America magazine blog, Austin Ivereigh thinks "schism" is too strong a word here, but he sees big changes coming:

[W]e're looking at a future in which there will be a much smaller 'core' Anglican church -- with which Rome will do business - surrounded by satellite groupings of Anglican churches whose communion with Canterbury will be largely nominal and which have increasingly less in common with each other; or which, in the case of the Catholic Anglicans, will find their home in Rome's new ordinariate plan. . . . The restructuring of the 70m-strong Anglican Communion is under way.

Father Dwight Longenecker, however, sees it as more of the same:

[T]here's not really very much to say that has not been said already umpteen times. Archbishop of Canterbury: "This raises serious implications..." Evangelicals:  "We really are going to leave this time. We really are. We really mean it this time. We do." Liberals: "One more step away from homophobia! Hooray." Anglo Catholics: "A woman bishop and a homosexual! Does that count as two strikes or one?"

ECUSA does seem to like testing Canterbury's limits. Whether this will be the straw that breaks Williams's back remains to be seen.

[Gamecock]

To some folks the ends justifies the means, doesn’t matter what those means are.

[Carlos Martillo II]

As a Catholic, I don’t see the movement of conservative Anglicans into our Church as such a positive step; we have our own problems with dissent, and this would complicate it. The fact that they’ve accepted so much liberalism for years, only to balk at the homosexuality question, doesn’t lead me to think they have much in common with Catholic ideology.

[Poe White Trash]

To some folks the ends justifies the means, doesn’t matter what those means are.

That can't be right! As everybody knows, saying that the ends justifies them means flies in the face of RC ethics, the CCC, and at least 12 1/8 papal encyclicals. Don't be a hater! /sarc

[RonF]

If the AoC gives TEC (they don’t style themselves the ECUSA anymore) an ultimatum over this issue they will vote to leave the Anglican Communion. Which will remove about 2% of the members and 90% of the money (O.K., I haven’t checked those figures and they’re not precise - but I bet they’re in the right ballpark). Hence his reluctance to do so.

[RonF]

There is only to be one "faith" (Ephesians 4:3-6), not many.

True. That does not eliminate the acceptability of multiple denominations. Jesus did not prescribe the offices of Pope, Primate, Metropolitan, Bishop, etc. He didn't establish forms of liturgy. It is possible for two groups to have conflicting opinions and practices on what the proper polity is for administering the Church, different forms of worship, etc., etc. and still hold and pursue a common faith.

But what we have here with TEC is actually a different form of faith. They have proclaimed that what the vast majority of Christians recognize as sin - homosexual sexual practices - is NOT a sin and in fact in some circumstances can be celebrated. That's the sticking point to me.

[marshmallow]

More dishonest numbers, I see.

And the real number is................??

[Alex Murphy]

And the real number is................??

One that includes at least 242 Catholic churches that call themselves Christian but all disagree with each other.

[marshmallow]

OK, so we've got 242 "Catholic" churches. Thanks for that info. It wasn't what I asked but thanks anyway.

You've stated that the 30,000-40,000 Protestant figure quoted is incorrect. Fine.

Provide us with the correct answer.

To save future conflict, what number should we quote when referring to the number of Protestant churches?

[Alex Murphy]

Provide us with the correct answer. To save future conflict, what number should we quote when referring to the number of Protestant churches?

They're your apologetics - do your own homework.

"Now that I understand the methodology used to arrive at the 30,000 number, I won't use it any more..."
-- markomalley, post #1 on his thread The Facts and Stats on "33,000 Denominations"

[marshmallow]

They're your apologetics - do your own homework.

Lovely.

I don't mind doing homework but I was hoping you might save me the trouble and simply provide us with a figure with which you're in agreement. A claim of error presupposes knowledge of the correct answer.

The thread to which you link (thank you) gives a figure of 9,000 Protestant "denominations".

Are you in agreement?

[Alex Murphy]

The thread to which you link (thank you) gives a figure of 9,000 Protestant "denominations". Are you in agreement?

Can you name all 9,000, any better than you can name the 20,000 30,000 40,000?

[marshmallow]

Um....... I can name one.............is it more than one?

[Alex Murphy]

Um....... I can name one.............is it more than one?

One down, two-hundred and forty-one to go....

[NYer]

Jesus did not prescribe the offices of Pope, Primate, Metropolitan, Bishop, etc. He didn't establish forms of liturgy.

Scripture clearly established "offices" and a "hierarchy" among Christians. The offices of "bishop, priest (presbyter) and deacon" are mentioned in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1,8; Titus 1:7 ). This is "organization" Not every believer can "claim" to be a bishop, priest, deacon or even "apostle" The word "office" is specifically used in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1) to describe these positions. Webster defines "office" as "A special duty, trust, charge, or position, conferred by authority or God and for a public purpose; a position of trust or authority." And the office of "apostle" is to be continued (Acts 1:20-26) to the present day. Not all believers are "equal" nor have the same gifts (1 Corinthians 12:8-10; Ephesians 4:11). The Church is to be a "visible, earthly" entity. Christ directed us to the Church to resolve disputes (Matthew 18:17).

It is possible for two groups to have conflicting opinions and practices on what the proper polity is for administering the Church, different forms of worship, etc., etc. and still hold and pursue a common faith.

The only example that comes to mind is the Orthodox Church but with limitation.

[RonF]

My statement - that Jesus did not prescribe the offices of Pope, etc. or establish forms of liturgy stands uncontradicted by your comments. Scripture does, indeed, mention the basic offices of deacon, priest and bishop, and many churches have these, although in many cases they call a priest a "minister" instead. But certainly there's plenty of aspects of these offices that are subject to some local variation. An obvious example is whether or not priests can marry. While scripture can be interpreted as advising on the matter it does not command, and the Catholic Church itself had married priests for 1000 years or more.

[marshmallow]

Excellent........progress indeed!

There you have it folks, there's more than one Protestant denomination...........LOL!!

In view of your alacrity in disputing the numbers provided by others but profound reluctance or inability to provide any alternative, perhaps we should refer to the number of Protestant denominations as an "unknown". Let's call it "x"; x is the unknown.

Therefore we can express the number as follows; 1< x < 40,000.

If we were to express the number of Protestant denominations in terms of this mathematical expression, would that occasion any dispute??

[NYer]

An obvious example is whether or not priests can marry. While scripture can be interpreted as advising on the matter it does not command, and the Catholic Church itself had married priests for 1000 years or more.

Priests may not marry - not in the Latin, Eastern Catholic or Orthodox Churches. Married men may become priests but priests may not marry. And here is the basis for that.

What the Catechism of the Catholic Church says on "Celibacy of the Clergy:"

1579. "All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate 'for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.' [Mt 19:12 .] Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to 'the affairs of the Lord,' [1 Cor 7:32 .] they give themselves entirely to God and to men. celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God. [Cf. PO 16.]"

1580. "In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities. [Cf. PO 16.] Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry."

1599. "In the Latin Church the sacrament of Holy Orders for the presbyterate is normally conferred only on candidates who are ready to embrace celibacy freely and who publicly manifest their intention of staying celibate for the love of God's kingdom and the service of men."

My Eastern rite pastor chose celibacy; his great grandfather, however, was a married priest.

[Poe White Trash]

The only example that comes to mind is the Orthodox Church but with limitation.

A millennium-long schism is a fairly significant "limitation," you must admit. And it was dicey at times before 1054.

[NYer]

A millennium-long schism is a fairly significant "limitation," you must admit.

A Catholic-Orthodox Joint declaration of 1965 lifted the mutual excommunications dating from 1054.

JOINT CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DECLARATION OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI AND THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH ATHENAGORAS I

[Poe White Trash]

Therefore we can express the number as follows; 1< x < 40,000.

If we were to express the number of Protestant denominations in terms of this mathematical expression, would that occasion any dispute??

Of course it would occasion dispute, since such expressions are being proffered in an apologetic spirit, not in a spirit of seeking truth and clarity.

Personally, I think that 1< x < 40,000 best expresses the number of times non-Protestants have re-packaged for sale the old canard that "The Protestant, Bible in hand, is his own pope."

I ain't buying it.