Anglican Schism on Gay Bishop and SSM

75 posts / 0 new
Last post
James
Anglican Schism on Gay Bishop and SSM

 

James

Its difficult to sort my thoughts on [url=http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=529983]this development,[/url] though it has been long coming. I was raised in the anglican communion (back at least a dozen generations) and at one time was very heavily involved. Though my faith has been sorely tested in recent years, a significant part of what remains was encouraged by the knowlege that I could go anywhere in the world and find fellowship in the same communion and tradition.

quote:

If the U.S. and Canadian churches agree to the request it could be seen as the first step toward a threatened break up of the united Anglican Church after 450 years.

"We as a body continue to address the situations which have arisen in North America with the utmost seriousness," the Church said in a communique released late on Thursday at the end of a meeting of the world's Anglican leaders in Northern Ireland.

"We request that the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC)."


Traditionalist?, yes, but nonetheless very powerful.

Now this. I have no doubt as to the "rightness" of the North American branches, and I think the Church of England is not far behind. Yet we have the African and Asian branched so vehemently opposed, and I do lament the loss of the world-wide fellowship.

One of the most confusing aspects of this: one of the things that has driven me away from the Anglican Church of canada in recent years is the increasing "fundamentalism" of many parishes. Go figure.

[ 25 February 2005: Message edited by: James ]

Gir Draxon

I know which side of the schism I'd be on if I were an Anglican...

Hephaestion

[i]Schism shmism![/i] (I was *dying* to write that! [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] )

If the North American and British churches are concerned with actual [i]morals[/i] and doing the right thing, they will tell the African and Asian churches to go fly a kite.

Mind you, it's neither here nor there to me — I haven't darkened the door of an Anglican church since it was made plain to me that my "lifestyle" was "not acceptable" to them. I've gone my own way since, and found I haven't missed the ACC (Almost Catholic Church) since. So they can do as they wish, as far as I'm concerned. Unlike some Catholics on this board (no offense intended) I found it to be a clean break from my church, and no longer identify myself as an Anglican at all, "lapsed" or otherwise.

It's nice to see them modernizing, for the sake of people still in the church, but I bear no loyalties or allegances at all to the institution.

*dusting off hands*

[ 25 February 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Well, before getting too far ahead of ourselves, here's a more optimistic view, given by the New York Times article at [url=http://tinyurl.com/6xuwv]http://tinyurl.com/6xuwv[/url] :

"Leaders of the global Anglican communion have asked the Episcopal Church U.S.A. and the Anglican Church of Canada to withdraw their
representatives temporarily from a key governing body of the denomination, in an unprecedented move to avoid a schism over the American church's consecration of an openly gay man as a bishop and both churches' blessing of same-sex unions."

- snip -

"But in general he said he thought the communiquй carved out a sound position that reduced the threat of a split in the church. "I think it is a well-articulated, nuanced communiquй that generally expresses the desire of Anglicans the world over to remain in communion," Dr. Douglas said. "There is clearly more that holds us together than divides us."

CMOT Dibbler

As my sister so succinctly put it: [heavy sarcasm font] this means that all the bigots and self-righteous hypocrites won't be coming to church any more. What a shame. [/heavy sarcasm font]

[ 25 February 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

Wellington

As a practising Anglican, I think that we're not at a "schism" [i]yet[/i]...but it is certainly more possible now than before.

Here's what my parish had to say on the issue about a year ago: [url=http://www.sjwt.ca/text_ministry.htm#ministry_GLBT]St. John’s Endorses Same-Sex Blessings[/url]

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

1. Canada's Anglican Primate is reported by CBC tonight to have conceded there is a possibility in the long term of a definite split.

2. Some statements by the Archbishop of Canterbury at a news conference today:

- "We still face the possibility of division, of course we do," Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said after a crisis meeting of 35 leaders of Anglican national churches."

- "That's not going to go away. Any lasting solution, I think, will require people to say somewhere along the line, `Yes, we were wrong.'

- Williams said people who had acted in good faith might later realize "'I hadn't counted the cost.' And that applies in a number of different contexts here."

Wellington

Interesting comment from the diocese of New Westminster (which is the Canadian diocese that currently allows same-sex blessings):

[url=http://www.vancouver.anglican.ca/Portal/Default.aspx?tabid=1&mode=Story&... by Michael Ingham, Bishop of New Westminster[/url]

"Reports that the Communion has gone into schism over the issue of homosexuality are seriously wrong...The Primates’ call for the Canadian and American churches “to consider voluntary withdrawal” from the next three meetings from the ACC [Anglican Consultative Council] is carefully worded, and intended to appease the angriest voices in the Communion, but it should be firmly resisted by both churches...To place the Canadian and American delegations in the position of explaining to the ACC why homosexual Christians should receive equal treatment in the church is invidious and unsatisfactory."

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Here's a link to what Canada's Anglican Primate said on CBC last week: [url=http://makeashorterlink.com/?S6512149A]http://makeashorterlink.com/?S651...

"But Hutchison conceded that a permanent schism with the global church, which is made up of 38 national churches and 77 million members, is now
a more likely possibility.

"This may simply be delaying what is going to be a negative outcome in the long run."

Papal Bull

Well, it'll probably be for the better if it means a liberalization of the Anglican church.

James

I see a broader issue than that, P.B. The Church of Ebgland and it's offshoots is the only christian communion that can currently (legitimately) claim legitimate annointed episcopal sucession from Peter. The RC Church has acknowledged that in the report of many Reconcilliation Conferences. * they have has many manes over the past four decades)

If "reconcilliation" ever happens, it will mean that the Roman church will have to acknowlege women priests, and women Bishop's. Now, because there is an openly gay bishop, they would have to accept that as well. You know, my take is thay we were well on the way to achieving the former two. There is definitely such a thing as trying to move too fast.

Papal Bull

Should this oft-spoke of reconcilliation occur, I don't think that it will cause too much reverberation throughout NA and Europe, as these regions have advanced beyond neadrenthalic (for the most part) forceable oppression of women. I imagine that people will come to accept it, the early Catholic Church didn't have rabid doctrine persecuting women...It should drop it (and the Benedictine crap) and return to serving Christ's mission on earth (as a Catholic, it always feels weird acknowledging what is true).

Regardless, the issue is gigantic, enormous and other words. The next Great Schism is occuring in our life. Not just in Anglicanism and the Church of England, but to Catholicism too. And I feel that it is going to be a break of the old world and North America from Asia, Africa and the Central-South Americas.

If you want to get into providence, this is all God's scheme, and it better work out.

James

quote:


Originally posted by Papal_Bull:
[b]If you want to get into providence, this is all God's scheme, and it better work out.[/b]

If I am going to be "part of God's scheme", it will not be a result of temporal eccliasiastical politics. I have pretty much made my peace, and it has prescious little to do with how one or another archbishop may vote.

But, worldly religions do still have a powerful effect on world affairs. I have children, and potentially grandchildren who will bear the brunt of whatever this world becomes. I had seen a unified and liberally thinking church as a powerful influence in making that a better outcome. This development diminishes that hope.

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: James ]

Papal Bull

I don't see this as a negative issue. Further splintering of the Christian faith will mean that there could be a strong liberal church rising from the framework that Jesus built. I think that if anything, this could act as a positive catalyst for change.

Mandos

A ubified and liberallt church was very unlikely to have occured in the first place. Most of the developments that are causing the schism happened [i]here[/i] and are relevant to [i]here[/i] not [i]there[/i]. The church changed where it had to change.

Coyote

I am holding out on my church attendance until I find a church that is socially progressive and takes liturgy very seriously - the United Church has gutted the form of Christian faith, something I find wholly unnecessary and unappealing. Perhaps a union of progressive Anglican and Catholic (and even some Lutherans and hell, why not Orthodox thrown in), with a traditional liturgy that is open and affirming. A guy can dream.

globetrotter

I attend a very progressive Anglican church on a regular basis. In fact, the rector did some volunteer work with the NDP at the same time I did. Being pro same-sex marriage and pro-choice, I can find no discrimination or intolerance in what is said or implied.

I am amazed by the differences between individual Anglican parishes. I would have no problem with a permanent split from these backward-thinking churches. They don't represent my values in any way.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I enjoy the Anlican church. There's Anglican churches that fit just about every niche I can think of - high (anglo-catholic), broad (middle of the rad, almost United Church), and low (evangelical). I'm most comfortable with Anglican broad church; socially progessive, liturgically experimental.

Coyote

See, and I don't want an "experimental" liturgy, if I'm understanding how you mean it. The United Church's "Creator, Word, and Spirit" leaves me just . . . numb. My favourite services are Orthodox or Uniate Catholic, with all the sense of tradition and [b]awe[/b] they entail, generation after generation performing the same rites - a living example of "communion". Of course, I am not a believer per se, so my wishes are worth practically nil in the discourse. Just a dude who takes ritual seriously.

swallow

quote:


The next Great Schism is occuring in our life. Not just in Anglicanism and the Church of England, but to Catholicism too. And I feel that it is going to be a break of the old world and North America from Asia, Africa and the Central-South Americas.

I'm curious as to why you place the geographical lines there, PB. If there's a schism coming in the Catholic Church as well, i can't think of anything worse than being cut off from communion with the majority world and ghettoized into a "progressive" church representing only the wealthy countries -- the sad fate that may await many Anglicans, if this schism-in-the-making continues.

It seems to me that there are more than a few extreme conservatives in Europe and North America. The Pole and the German who run the church are hardly paragons of progressive thinking (nor are the Cardinals from Canada, for that matter). The Episcopal Church USA is already heading towards schism as dioceses in Texas and elsewhere choose the path of hatred and exclusion in defiance of their own church. The same in the New Westminster diocese, where parishes have already split from the diocese over their refusal to accept gay people as fully equal human beings. On the other hand, you'll find plenty of progressive thinkers in the Catholic Church in the global south, even despite the decline in liberation theology. If there's a global schism coming, i don't see it comign on geographical lines, but doctrinal ones that cross borders.

On schisms: there is already one progressive church with the full richness of liturgy of Catholicism and high church Anglicanism: the [url=http://www.oldcatholic.ca/who.html]Old Catholic Church[/url] split in the 19th C over the doctrine of Papal infallibility. Its pretty much Catholic in most ways, with the exception of having no rules against what people do with their own bodies. Rather charmingly, it traces its apostolic succession through the Roman Catholic Bishop of Condom. Seriously.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

There was a time when tradition was everything to me, but my eyes were opened when I attended a series of parishes in the days leading up to the new Book of Alternative Services (BAS) which was introduced in 1985 I think it was. Also, my understanding of God: traditional ways didn't always work for me. I've been part of a group that questioned what we know about God, and are there other ways of thinking about God? As a very young child God was sort of a good buddy in the sky somewhere. Then the more traditional concept of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But now I'm curious (not sold on) about a different idea: does God have consciousness as we understand it? God is spirit, but does spirit have consciousness? Or are we really referring to a life force? These questions are never asked in traditional or evangelical parishes in my experience, but sometimes erupt in parishes more open to experimental liturgies, for example. By the way, I love the new prayers in the Book of Alternative Services, especially the more far-out Eucharistic Prayer. Groovy, man! [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

Coyote

Boom Boom, I understand your perspective, and I do think those discussions are important; I just don't believe they have to impact the liturgy as such. For example: I would dearly love the Orthodox Church to change its perspective on, well, every social issue. But I want them to keep the liturgy as is - with some possible omissions, but not replacements, of the text. I think there's room for that kind of church. Liturgically orthodox but socially progressive.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

But Anglicanism encompasses all that. The Anglo-Catholics are very traditional in liturgy, and some (not all) are socially progressive. Broad Church Anglicans (like me) are more experimental in liturgy and socially progressive. Then there's the Evangelical Anglicans, nice people, all, but probably not too progressive.

Coyote

And I suppose, Boom Boom, that I'm asking for a Church with that explicit mission. What, is this agnostic/atheist with a liturgy fetish asking too much? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] I mean, I'd even tithe!

Coyote

Just a note: I really like writing [b]Boom Boom[/b].

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

The Anglican Church of Canada has an outstanding mission effort called the "Primate's World Relief and Development Fund" - actually part of a world-wide effort I think. I can provide links if interested. PWRDF responds to immediate, critical, and long term needs. The ACC has other mission fields as well. So does every other church I know; but my religious knowledge is mostly limited to Anglican christianity.

swallow

quote:


Originally posted by Coyote:
And I suppose, Boom Boom, that I'm asking for a Church with that explicit mission. What, is this agnostic/atheist with a liturgy fetish asking too much? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] I mean, I'd even tithe!

Really, check out the Old Catholic Church. Tastes great, less killing! [/missionary punning]

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Postscript: I used to have an interest in ecumenism, but I'm now in an isolated part of the country now, retired, and just trying to survive an especially harsh environment. If I was back in the city I'd likely join some ecumenical foundation.

James

quote:


an outstanding mission effort called the "Primate's World Relief and Development Fund"

HA! I recall as a youngster sitting bored stiff one Sunday morning, listening to the "announcements". A plea was made for donations to the Primate's World Relief Fund. The evening before, I had read a National Geographics story on the plight of the gorillas. I doubled by usual quarter for the collection plate that Sunday. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

The PWRDF is better orgainised these days, with many parishes actually having a PWRDF rep. that reports at the annual meeting of vestry. Our diocese (Quebec) has a diocesan PWRDF co-ordinator that really does an outstanding job of keeping s informed of outreach work and opportunities. I get an online PWRDF newsletter that keeps me up to date. I, too, remember the dismal old days - but in my opinion it's changed for the better. YMMV.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Here's a couple of lines from eucharistic prayer #4 in the BAS, which I enjoy hearing:

- At your command all things came to be: the vast expanse of interstellar space, galaxies, suns, the planets in their courses, and this fragile earth, our island home; by your will they were created and have their being.

- From the primal elements you brought forth the human race, and blessed us with memory, reason, and skill; you made us the stewards of creation.

I dunno, when I hear this stuff, I think of myself mellowing out at the film "2001" or listening to "Also Spach Zarathustra". Far out, groovy, man. [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

globetrotter

Haha, we call number four "the Star Wars one". [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Loretta

As someone who has a long history with the Anglican church, I am glad to see the Canadian and American churches moving in the direction of inclusiveness for all. I have been attending a United Church for years because of my difficulty in participating where my son and my brother, both of whom are gay, would be excluded from full participation.

I really miss the liturgy, truth be told. And, I know that I'm not alone in seeking a progressive place to connect with others in a journey of faith. So, there is already a schism that's manifesting itself somewhat more quietly.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Sarah:
[b]Haha, we call number four "the Star Wars one". [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]

LOL!!!! That's the funniest thing I've read today! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Loretta, I have experience with each. I was baptised in the United Church of Canada, where I remained until age 25. I then dated the daughter of an Anglican priest, and her father insisted I get confirmed in an Anglican church before marrying his daughter. Got confirmed by an Anglican bishop, much later she and I broke up. I've been Anglican every since. I've come to really like Anglican liturgy, especially from the BAS. The old BCP dates back 500 years or so. In 1990 I moved north to the James Bay frontier to Hearst, Ontario, and attended a joint Anglican/United Church congregation. I was active in both Anglican and United Church social justice ministries while there, mostly helping at the community soup kitchen, but also involved in immigration issues. We brought clergy north from El Salvador to share with us the conditions in their countries and to act as sponsors for El Salvadorans who wanted to emigrate to Canada for various reasons. I must say I gained admiration for social justice ministries in both Anglican and United Churches as a result of this involvement. If I lived in the city, I'd be involved in something, but here I just enjoy the wild outdoors.

Question: would there be any interest in my posting photos from the bog (swamp) here? The summer plants are gorgeous and I have some good photos. [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img]

Coyote

I'll look at 'em! Maybe that should go in Out and About?

Hephaestion

quote:


Originally posted by swallow:[b]
On schisms: there is already one progressive church with the full richness of liturgy of Catholicism and high church Anglicanism: the [url=http://www.oldcatholic.ca/who.html]Old Catholic Church[/url] split in the 19th C over the doctrine of Papal infallibility.[/b]

Interesting you should mention these folks, Swallow. Did you also know they have no problems with gay priests/bishops, etc.? I have become acquainted with Archbishop Bruce Simpson (or "Archie", as I call him) from the O.C. church over at the 365 Forum. He [i]gets[/i] a little "archy" over my rather flippant 'sacrilig-isms' sometimes, but he's still an okay guy (and he's openly gay and in a long-term relationship.)

voice of the damned

Swallow wrote:

quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next Great Schism is occuring in our life. Not just in Anglicanism and the Church of England, but to Catholicism too. And I feel that it is going to be a break of the old world and North America from Asia, Africa and the Central-South Americas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm curious as to why you place the geographical lines there, PB. If there's a schism coming in the Catholic Church as well, i can't think of anything worse than being cut off from communion with the majority world and ghettoized into a "progressive" church representing only the wealthy countries -- the sad fate that may await many Anglicans, if this schism-in-the-making continues.

It seems to me that there are more than a few extreme conservatives in Europe and North America. The Pole and the German who run the church are hardly paragons of progressive thinking (nor are the Cardinals from Canada, for that matter). The Episcopal Church USA is already heading towards schism as dioceses in Texas and elsewhere choose the path of hatred and exclusion in defiance of their own church. The same in the New Westminster diocese, where parishes have already split from the diocese over their refusal to accept gay people as fully equal human beings. On the other hand, you'll find plenty of progressive thinkers in the Catholic Church in the global south, even despite the decline in liberation theology. If there's a global schism coming, i don't see it comign on geographical lines, but doctrinal ones that cross borders.

On schisms: there is already one progressive church with the full richness of liturgy of Catholicism and high church Anglicanism: the Old Catholic Church split in the 19th C over the doctrine of Papal infallibility. Its pretty much Catholic in most ways, with the exception of having no rules against what people do with their own bodies. Rather charmingly, it traces its apostolic succession through the Roman Catholic Bishop of Condom. Seriously.


Yes, John Paul and Ratzinger aren't the most enlightened guys in the world. And sure there are reactionaries in North America, and progresives in the third world. However, everything I've read about these issues in the past ten years or so leads me to the conclusion that, in general, liberal attitudes toward social issues are far more prevalent among parishoners and clergymen in the industrialized nations than they are in the third world. In most reports I've read about conferences etc where gay ordination(for example) is discussed, it basically breaks down, albeit unoffically, along industrialzied/third world lines.

All this puts liberals in a bit of a bind, because they're the ones who usually claim to be the most sympathetic to the sensitivites of the developing world. But on issues like gay ordination etc, the third world church is basically saying to them: "if you're so bloody opposed to cultural imperialism, why the hell are you trying to shove your sinful lifestyles down our throat?" I personally don't agree with these sentiments, but that's neither here nor there.

You're correct, of course, that many local churches and parishes in the west take a reactionary position on social issues. But consider: let's assume that half the Anglicans in the white English-speaking world are reactionaries, and the other half are progressives. Or 60% reactionary and 40% progresive if you think that's more accurate. The point is that it's more-or-less an even match, and the progrssives would at least have a fighting chance if the debate were confined to the west. The scales become considerably more lopsided in favour of the reactionaries, however, when you take into account the worldwide Anglican church as a whole. And I'm pretty sure that the western reactionaries are quite happy to ride the coattails of the third world to victory on these issues.

There was an hilarious moment at the 1998 Lambeth conference when John Shelby Spong, the former Episcopalian bishop of Newark and a leading liberal, said in regards to the social conservativism of African churches: "they've moved out of animism into a very superstitious kind of Christianity". Suffice to say I don't think the Africans took it too well.

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

James

Interestingly enough, I awakened tonight just as CBC, in it's nightly "round the world" traverse played Radio Australia.

Interviewed each of the Australian Archbishhops. Wow, talk of profound internal disagreement couched in careful, diplomatic language. The U.N. has nothing to match.

Unionist

An Ontario judge has ruled awarded exclusive use of two Anglican churches to the total homophobe faction, rejecting the bid of the partial-homophobe faction (the ones who "bless" same-sex "unions" but won't perform them) to share the churches until final determinations are made as to who owns them:

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080229.waglican0229... Anglicans make gains[/url]

A "Church" that can't achieve unity over a fundamental question of morality and human rights is definitely heading for the toilet faster than the others.

RosaL

quote:


Originally posted by Hephaestion:
[b]

Interesting you should mention these folks, Swallow. Did you also know they have no problems with gay priests/bishops, etc.? [/b]


What about women priests/bishops etc.?

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by RosaL:
[b]

What about women priests/bishops etc.?[/b]


RosaL, I'm sorry I re-opened an old thread, but I was trying to be thrifty. You're responding to a post by Heph which will be three years old tomorrow, and Heph hasn't posted here for almost two years. My fault.

Anyway, any comment on the latest chapter in who owns the Anglican churches in Canada?

RosaL

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

RosaL, I'm sorry I re-opened an old thread, but I was trying to be thrifty. You're responding to a post by Heph which will be three years old tomorrow, and Heph hasn't posted here for almost two years. My fault.

Anyway, any comment on the latest chapter in who owns the Anglican churches in Canada?[/b]


No problem. I was just making a really obvious point [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] and it was off-topic, too, so - my apologies.

About the real topic: it's uncomfortable to find the rich and powerful part of the world on the right side of this issue and (apparently, and with notable exceptions) the poor and powerless on the other side, though the churches of the global South are being pushed and supported here by some people who are anything but poor and powerless, and not from the global South either.

Nope, that still wasn't the real topic! As far as the real topic, I have to admit ignorance. I don't know enough about how the Anglican church works to have an opinion. I know where my sympathies lie, of course ....

What frustrates me is this: These people whose consciences are obliging them to leave have managed to live with all kinds of diversity in the church, all kinds of things which, surely, some of them must have disagreed with. But "same sex blessings" - they'll leave over that. They keep saying it's "the last straw". Well, it looks suspicious to me. Another obvious point [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 01 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Elsewhere, I have posted a link to the story of how far-right American interests have been financing the present Anglican "crisis." (Unionist, there was a less outdated thread you could have re-opened.)

One of the frequent questions raised by moderate and progressive Anglicans is how this phony wedge issue is a line in the sand while the "conservatives" are prepared to wink at all sorts of internal contradictions over other issues such as remarriage and divorce, the ordination of women, usury &c.

The "conservatives" understand that the ordination of women is not a wedge that works for them, so they are pretty quiet on it. Yet they were caught out a couple of months ago when the head North American bishop tied to the Primate of Nigeria was asked about women's ordination and essentially had to answer that there was no assurance to be had for ordained women.

Finally, there is a very disturbing Atlantic article about Christian - Muslim relations in Nigeria which includes some highly disturbing statements attributed to the Primate of Nigeria.

[url=http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/nigeria]http://www.theatlantic.com...

Unionist

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081030.wchurch30/BN...
Same-sex blessings split Anglicans;
Ottawa and Montreal bishops take steps toward allowing the practice[/url]

Not marrying them, mind you - just "blessing" their union. Marriage is still too avant-garde for this church.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

The General Synod did set the stage for a discussion at the next session (2010) to discuss authorizing clergy to perform marriages for anyone "legally qualified" to marry.

Rome wasn't dismantled in a day.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b][url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081030.wchurch30/BN...
Same-sex blessings split Anglicans;
Ottawa and Montreal bishops take steps toward allowing the practice[/url]

Not marrying them, mind you - just "blessing" their union. Marriage is still too avant-garde for this church.[/b]


Then again, Henry VIII didn't let anybody ELSE get a divorce, so they've always had issues with marriage one way or another.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Technically, Henry sought and obtained annulments, not divorces.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Malcolm:
[b]Rome wasn't dismantled in a day.[/b]

True enough. I just hope that in the Synod's case, all roads don't lead to Rome and they don't end up doing as the Romans do.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Malcolm:
[b]Technically, Henry sought and obtained annulments, not divorces.[/b]

He wouldn't let anybody else have THOSE, either.

Pages