Comments on: Schism threats come from Reform http://www.sevenwholedays.org/2010/02/08/schism-threats/ "Seven whole days, not one in seven, I will praise thee" -- George Herbert (1633) Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:05:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Chris H. http://www.sevenwholedays.org/2010/02/08/schism-threats/comment-page-1/#comment-3697 Chris H. Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:56:27 +0000 http://www.sevenwholedays.org/?p=2432#comment-3697 Father Smith, Your comment that Reformers can hardly be Anglicans shows that both sides are intolerant of the other. The "Big Tent" doesn't exist for either group. Reminds me of an argument between a young woman in our congregation and an elderly gentleman. She said that by not wanting a female or gay priest he wasn't living into his baptismal covenant and so wasn't a real Episcopalian. His reply was that her Episcopalianism was a new religion because nobody in the world baptized before 1979 could be a real Episcopalian because her "Baptismal Covenant" didn't exist before that BCP. Saying that all real Anglicans agree with current liberal beliefs is like saying that all real Episcopalians are living into their 1979 Baptismal Covenant. So, when the next BCP comes out, only those baptized under it will be "real"? Or is always changing to believe the latest and greatest what makes a "real" Anglican? Father Smith,
Your comment that Reformers can hardly be Anglicans shows that both sides are intolerant of the other. The “Big Tent” doesn’t exist for either group.
Reminds me of an argument between a young woman in our congregation and an elderly gentleman. She said that by not wanting a female or gay priest he wasn’t living into his baptismal covenant and so wasn’t a real Episcopalian. His reply was that her Episcopalianism was a new religion because nobody in the world baptized before 1979 could be a real Episcopalian because her “Baptismal Covenant” didn’t exist before that BCP.
Saying that all real Anglicans agree with current liberal beliefs is like saying that all real Episcopalians are living into their 1979 Baptismal Covenant. So, when the next BCP comes out, only those baptized under it will be “real”? Or is always changing to believe the latest and greatest what makes a “real” Anglican?

]]> By: Scott Gunn http://www.sevenwholedays.org/2010/02/08/schism-threats/comment-page-1/#comment-3694 Scott Gunn Tue, 09 Feb 2010 05:37:58 +0000 http://www.sevenwholedays.org/?p=2432#comment-3694 Chris, as I've written elsewhere, I can tell you the arrangement that has worked in Rhode Island since 1996, when Bishop Geralyn Wolf became the ordinary. Two parishes did (and still do not) not accept women as priests or bishops. The bishop ensured that the rectors of both parishes would acknowledge her temporal authority and her authority to be responsible for discipline in those parishes (I'm simplifying somewhat). She has not prevented the parishes from calling rectors who do not accept women as priests & bishops. She made visitations at both parishes, attending the evening office at first. Since then, she has presided at the Eucharist in one of them (I think only one), though some people may not have received Eucharist. She made arrangements with both rectors to have other (male) bishops visit for confirmation and other Episcopal functions. Most recently, Frank Griswold came to one of them for an ordination. My point is that she was able to delegate pastoral functions and episcopal sacraments to other bishops, by mutual arrangement. Yet she retains the authority as the ordinary. I believe everyone involved would say the arrangement works pretty well. This could be a model for others. It works without a formal code of practice or legislation. It works based on mutual trust and respect. I wrote a bit about this here: http://www.sevenwholedays.org/2010/02/07/signs-of-sanity/ Peace, Scott Chris, as I’ve written elsewhere, I can tell you the arrangement that has worked in Rhode Island since 1996, when Bishop Geralyn Wolf became the ordinary. Two parishes did (and still do not) not accept women as priests or bishops. The bishop ensured that the rectors of both parishes would acknowledge her temporal authority and her authority to be responsible for discipline in those parishes (I’m simplifying somewhat). She has not prevented the parishes from calling rectors who do not accept women as priests & bishops.

She made visitations at both parishes, attending the evening office at first. Since then, she has presided at the Eucharist in one of them (I think only one), though some people may not have received Eucharist.

She made arrangements with both rectors to have other (male) bishops visit for confirmation and other Episcopal functions. Most recently, Frank Griswold came to one of them for an ordination.

My point is that she was able to delegate pastoral functions and episcopal sacraments to other bishops, by mutual arrangement. Yet she retains the authority as the ordinary. I believe everyone involved would say the arrangement works pretty well. This could be a model for others. It works without a formal code of practice or legislation. It works based on mutual trust and respect.

I wrote a bit about this here:
http://www.sevenwholedays.org/2010/02/07/signs-of-sanity/

Peace,
Scott

]]> By: Chris H. http://www.sevenwholedays.org/2010/02/08/schism-threats/comment-page-1/#comment-3693 Chris H. Tue, 09 Feb 2010 05:21:58 +0000 http://www.sevenwholedays.org/?p=2432#comment-3693 You mention "graceful accomodation" above? What kind of accomodation do you see working in this situation? You mention “graceful accomodation” above? What kind of accomodation do you see working in this situation?

]]> By: Father Ron Smith http://www.sevenwholedays.org/2010/02/08/schism-threats/comment-page-1/#comment-3686 Father Ron Smith Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:08:30 +0000 http://www.sevenwholedays.org/?p=2432#comment-3686 "Since we cannot take an oath of canonical obedience to a female bishop, we are unlikely to be appointed to future incumbencies. We see nothing but difficulty facing us." - Reform - Surely these 'Reform' people can hardly be known as Anglicans. They sound very much like the old-fashioned 'Congregationalists', whose polity and ethics are far removed from the episcopally-governed Church of England and Churches of the Anglican Communion. Their inability to affirm the ministry of women seems to equate more with the Roman Catholic ethos - but I doubt these people would be happy with any sort of 'Magisterium'. Perhaps they need to form their very own 'Church of the Pure and Simple' “Since we cannot take an oath of canonical obedience to a female bishop, we are unlikely to be appointed to future incumbencies. We see nothing but difficulty facing us.” – Reform -

Surely these ‘Reform’ people can hardly be known as Anglicans. They sound very much like the old-fashioned ‘Congregationalists’, whose polity and ethics are far removed from the episcopally-governed Church of England and Churches of the Anglican Communion. Their inability to affirm the ministry of women seems to equate more with the Roman Catholic ethos – but I doubt these people would be happy with any sort of ‘Magisterium’.
Perhaps they need to form their very own ‘Church of the Pure and Simple’

]]>