online poker SuperSignupBonus

Anglican Schism

Not just CoE. Druids, Jedi Knights, tree huggers and other beliefs welcome. (All except Scientology)

Anglican Schism

Postby Bruce Everiss » Fri 20 Jun 2008 5:15 am

Inevitable really, the bible is anti homosexual. So if you follow the bible (pretty much the basis of Christianity) then you are going to have a low threshold of tolerance for homosexuality. This is somewhat at odds with modern western liberalism where traditional values are now eroded to nothing.

The Daily Telegraph's take on this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ality.html
Daily Telegraph wrote:.................They warned that the church is gripped by its most serious crisis since the Reformation, and could only be saved by the repentance of the Americans who triggered the row by ordaining an openly homosexual bishop, the Rt Rev Gene Robinson, five years ago.
The formal pronouncement of the schism is contained in an 89-page document titled “The Way, the Truth and the Life”, which has been drawn up by conservative Anglicans ahead of the breakaway Gafcon summit next week and which has been seen by The Telegraph...............


Image

And the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/world ... ?ref=world
New York Times wrote:....................Once a decade, hundreds of bishops of the international Anglican Communion meet in Canterbury, England, for the Lambeth Conference.
This summer, in the most tangible demonstration yet of the church’s divide over homosexuality, more than a quarter of the invited bishops are expected to boycott the conference and attend a rival meeting for conservative Anglicans in Jerusalem, called the Global Anglican Future Conference...........


So the burning question must be: Which side of the schism will the parish of Harbury and Ladbroke land on?
.
.
.
User avatar
Bruce Everiss
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Fri 2 May 2008 7:54 am

Re: Anglican Schism

Postby Bruce Everiss » Fri 11 Jul 2008 10:28 am

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show ... ature.html

London - Dark storm clouds of a schism are gathering over the 2008 Lambeth Conference, the 10-yearly meeting of Anglican bishops in Canterbury, England, where an escalating controversy over homosexual priests could prove the biggest challenge to church unity since the 16th century Protestant reformation. Looking back to 1998, when the row was contained with face-saving formulae condemning homophobia while not condoning gay equality, the leadership of the Anglican Church must feel like having performed a Lambeth Walk - the strutting 1930s dance which took two steps forward and one back.

At the half-way point between 1998 and 2008, adherence to slogans of unity and tolerance was shattered by the landmark consecration in the US of Gene Robinson, an openly gay priest, as a bishop of the Episcopal Church, the US branch of the Anglican Communion.

Robinson's appointment, as Bishop of New Hampshire, unleashed a firestorm and deepened divisions between the traditionalists and liberal wings of the 80-million-strong worldwide Anglican Communion to breaking point.

Like a schoolmaster punishing unruly children, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the worldwide Anglican Church, took Robinson off the guest list for 2008 - a move that has only strengthened Robinson's resolve to make his presence felt on the fringes of the gathering.

"When we avoid people we find uncomfortable it ... ceases to be an incarnate conversation," commented Katharine Jefferts Schori, a strong supporter of Robinson who was named presiding Episcopal bishop in 2006.

The divisions over homosexuality afflicting the US church have long since crossed the Atlantic, with many in the English church saying it is no longer a question of if, but when, a schism would occur.

"There are two churches of England, travelling in different directions," one long-time observer said of the agonizing debate.

Both sides have contributed to raising the temperature ahead of the Lambeth Conference from July 20 to August 4.

Pointedly, just weeks before the conference, senior London clergyman Martin Dudley defied church rules by presiding over the church blessing of two gay Anglican priests - complete with a traditional wedding liturgy, bridesmaids and rings.

The ceremony, on May 31, infuriated the Church of England leadership and strengthened the resolve of some 200 break-away traditionalist bishops to boycott Lambeth and instead hold their own "rival" conference in Jerusalem at the end of June.

That meeting, called the Global Anglican Future Conference (Gafcon), and dominated by traditionalists from Africa, South America, Asia and Australia, condemned the "false gospel" that had paralysed the Anglican Communion on homosexuality while also deploring the "spiritual decline of the most economically developed nations."

In their Jerusalem Declaration, the traditionalists, claiming to represent at least half of the membership of the worldwide communion, and more than a third of its bishops, accused liberal Anglicans of "re-writing the Bible to suit their current lifestyles."

"It has been a most agonizing journey towards Lambeth," the conservative bishops said in their final declaration, while rejecting as a "myth" that they were a "homophobic" movement seeking to seize power within the Anglican Church.

The Jerusalem meeting set up a global grouping called The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (Foca), which would form a primates' council that would "send bishops anywhere in the world to help traditionalists counter liberal policies."

Critics have called it the formation of a "church within a church" and said the moves now under way posed an unprecedented threat to church unity.

"Although the instigators claim they are focused on reform from within, it is said to represent the worst blow to church unity in the West since the Protestant reformation of the 16th century," said Ruth Gledhill, the long-standing religion correspondent of the London Times.

But Archbishop Peter Jensen of Sydney, Australia, who has emerged as a key player on the Anglican conservative wing, denied the movement was seeking to split the church or "seize power within it."

"These are unusual methods," the archbishop conceded, adding, "But we live in unusual times."

For the first time ever, the Jerusalem meeting challenged directly the authority of Williams as leader of the worldwide Anglican movement.

"While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition of the Archbishop of Canterbury," it said.

Williams, clearly forced to react to such a challenge, said he was concerned at the way "post-colonialism is being used as a smokescreen for an abuse of power and position, and at the ease with which his role and office had been so readily dismissed.

"It is ludicrous to say you do not recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury or the See of Canterbury. By doing away with the role and the place, these people are becoming a Protestant sect," his spokesman said.

Williams, meanwhile, who has won praise and criticism for his attempt at a balanced handling of the burning issue of homosexuality, warned the break-away bishops to "think carefully about the risks entailed" in their position.

Facing what is certain to be his most difficult, and divisive Lambeth Conference, he is clearly still hoping that moderation will prevail.

Deploying his biblical authority, Williams attempted to calm the storm by quoting from St Paul's letter to the Corinthians: "Wait for another."
User avatar
Bruce Everiss
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Fri 2 May 2008 7:54 am

Re: Anglican Schism

Postby Kaleb » Thu 22 Dec 2011 10:46 am

In response to the claim that Church officials ordered Henry to have an affair, it is reasonable to ask that credible documentation be provided to substantiate the claim. Lack of evidence not withstanding, Henry VIII was already having affairs by the time he became involved with Anne Boleyn. It is known, for example, that Henry had already had an affair with Anne’s sister Mary before turning his attention to Anne. Anne refused to have an affair with him. She was not interested in doing the right thing; she simply wanted Henry to marry her. (Had she been inclined to act rightly, she would have refused any involvement with a married man.) Even if it could be proven that Church officials told Henry to have an affair, that would have been a personal failing of theirs. It would not have justified Henry having an affair or going into schism when his request for an annulment was denied.

Although it is also the priest’s responsibility to prove his claim of unjust taxation, the question is also a non sequitur. Unjust taxation is not an excuse for schism from the Church founded by Jesus Christ. (But, as an aside, it is also noteworthy that Henry VIII was as notoriously lavish with money as his father, Henry VII, was frugal. In his lifetime he managed to work through the enormous treasury his father had hoarded.)

What all this boils down to is that the priest is resting his personal defense of the Anglican schism on the personal failings of fallible human beings. He should instead be asking himself which church is the Church that Christ founded. Perhaps he might find insight into that by reading the biography of Sir Thomas More, a contemporary of Henry VIII. Despite the personal failures of contemporary churchmen, More was willing to lay down his life for the Church rather than follow Henry VIII into schism.
Kaleb
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon 19 Dec 2011 3:33 pm


Return to Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

online poker
SuperSignupBonus

cron