Archbishop of Canterbury Shuts the Door of the Cathedral to Orthodox Anglicans

Article here.

I really don't know how you can read this appointment as anything other than a liberal thumb in the eye to the orthodox. It will -- and is likely meant to -- further alienate the orthodox Anglican remnant. Abp. Welby did this to send a signal, and the signal has been received by friend and foe alike.

This move is Welby's none-too-subtle invitation to the orthodox faithful to worship elsewhere, and I expect those few orthodox CofE'ers who remain will accept the invitation.

Those orthodox who have been patiently waiting for the CofE to come to its senses must accept that the church they remember doesn't exist any more.

Also, pay attention to this bit:

The African churches are making their move to establish themselves as the new Anglican center of gravity. The Kigali conference in 2023 is going to be (as the kids say) lit!

 

1Tim 3:1-5-- The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?


Titus 1:6-10-- if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers...

I don't see how "the Very Reverend" Dr David Monteith fits the job description!



Perhaps Abp. Welby has had the wool pulled over his eyes.

 

It's not an accident that this happened after Queen Elizabeth passed on. Abp. Welby has obviously sided with the liberals long since, and has been surrounding himself with fellow progressives for a long time now. The only thing staying his hand on this particular appointment was the traditionalist Queen Elizabeth, and now that she's gone, he felt that he had a free hand to go ahead. Charles has not been officially coronated yet, but I am certain he was consulted on the appointment before it was announced. Thus you may be assured that this appointment was not furtive or accomplished through bureaucratic chicanery -- this was an official (and officially-sanctioned) appointment. It is an expression of official CofE policy through selection of personnel, as in any bureaucracy a fundamental law is "personnel is policy".

As England has become a post-Christian nation, so the CofE has become a post-Christian church.

UPDATE:
There was a recent GAFCON Primates Meeting in Kigali. Here is a section relevant to the discussion:

Personnel is policy.

 

It seems the late Queen approved the nomination, according to an official press release.

 

Nice bit of research on your part. The fact of the matter is a surprise to me. I wonder if the queen was not fully informed, or if some other factor affected her judgment so near to her demise? Or if she truly was cognizant of what she was doing with her stamp of approval? We'll probably never know for certain.

 

My understanding is that the current convention is for the Monarch to approve what the Church advises. Perhaps our friends across the pond can shed more light on the subject.

 

I believe what you say is right Invictus. Of course the natural inferred concomitant of that statement would also be true on my part.
.

 

The CofE responds to the GAFCON letter.

This response represents a wilful institutional blindness that's almost comedic in its scope.

In fact, this part actually made me laugh out loud:

We'll just have to take their word for it, I guess.

 

In all fairness, this arrangement is precisely what the vast majority of Christians throughout history have believed regarding St. Joseph and the Virgin Mary, i.e., cohabitation without conjugation. The Church either holds that as an ideal or it doesn’t.

 

It doesn't (or shouldn't, at any rate). Jesus had brothers and sisters (Matthew 13:55-56), and there is no reason to believe that his brothers and sisters were anything other than the natural offspring of Joseph and Mary (they had to be younger than Jesus, since Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and married to Joseph thereafter). The precept of the eternal virginity of Mary is an unbiblical fallacy promoted out of the Roman church. It was revived by some in the Oxford movement, but most Anglicans reject this (along with other false Marian devotions).

As to the purpose of marriage, hear the words of our Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 19:4-6:

It is impossible even in principle for two people of the same sex to achieve this sort of union. As woman was created out of man (Genesis 2:20-24), the sexual union re-unites these two dissimilar human essences (temporarily) into one. A true marriage under God can only be between one man and one woman, by the command of our Lord Jesus Christ himself who was present at the creation of mankind.

UPDATE: Also look at the BCP wedding vows (p. 201 in the 2019 ACNA BCP):

 

If it is true that "the vast majority of Christians throughout history" have believed that Joseph and Mary never consummated their marriage, then the situation reflected the large number of unschooled, illiterate people who simply accepted what their priests told them. But I think it far more likely that the "vast majority of Christians" have lived (or are living) since the Reformation (due to burgeoning population numbers) and have some doubts about the matter (thanks in no small part to the upticks in literacy, sound Bible teaching, and individual Bible reading).

Besides, the current crop of ministers living in same-sex civil partnerships are by no means in the same camp as Mary and Joseph, either in fact or in the public's perception. For one thing, Joseph stayed by Mary in obedience to an explicit message from God and to protect Mary from an appearance of impropriety, whereas Monteith, Robinson and their ilk create an appearance of impropriety in the context of modern societal expectations by cohabiting. Decorum alone should dictate that they avoid the very appearance of evil; they disqualify themselves as church leaders by refusing to sacrifice their individual desires for the sake of the Gospel and proper edification of God's flock. But moreover, they are in direct disobedience to the word of God which says that church leaders should be the husband (i.e., a man) of (no more than) one wife (i.e., a woman).

 

I'm just imagining whether Welby would appoint as bishop a priest who is seen to visit whorehouses by himself twice per week, every week. Would he assume that the priest is visiting them only to minister to the poor, misled ladies? Would Welby dismiss the appearance of impropriety and presume that the priest is obediently abstaining from illicit sexual relationships, despite the visual evidence? This is analogous to the situation at hand.

 

Cramner, John Wesley, John Calvin, and Luther all held to the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Oxford movement did not have to revive anything. The strong argument in scripture to me for Jesus's brothers not being actual full brothers is his telling John while he was on the cross to look out for his mother.

I would also point out that the EO and the OO all believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. This is not some Roman creation

 

The point is that since the CoE’s (canonically correct) statement that its clergy are expected to live chastely irrespective of their civil partnership status is being lambasted, would the critics have been satisfied if they had instead declared the opposite? It’s a rather curious objection upon reflection.

 

The correct response would have been to defrock the priests for engaging in a homosexual relationship or at the very least prevent them from holding any kind of pastoral ministry.

 

Then Cranmer, Wesley, Calvin, and Luther were wrong on this issue.

Also, I'd argue that Calvin was undecided on the issue -- you can read his take on it here (paragraph 25).

It is still unbiblical and aberrant. There is no reason whatsoever -- none -- to think that the "brothers" and "sisters" referred to in Matthew 13:55-56 are anything other than Jesus' natural siblings by Joseph and Mary. The fact that they remained in Nazareth and did not follow Jesus during his ministry explains why Jesus felt it necessary to commend Mary into the care of John at the crucifixion (though James did return to the Lord afterward; tradition holds that this was James the Just, likely author of the Epistle of James).

 

If that’s what you think, then why not just say that instead of mocking the statement itself? It’s not the principle you’re objecting to; it’s the result (or at least, what you seem to think the result is).

Of course, I don’t think anyone would willingly submit to a form of governance whose forms of procedure include the presumption of guilt, so what you’re proposing would be likely to have the unintended consequence of either driving (suspected) behavior to which you object underground, or inhibiting recruitment of qualified candidates.

 

Then the vast majority of Christians throughout history who have believed this (including the Anglican Reformers) were “unbiblical and aberrant” as well. That’s not a statement I’m willing to make, for a whole host of reasons. With respect, I think you’re well outside what is typically considered the orthodox mainstream, on this issue at least.

 

If you can give me some orthodox mainstream Protestant arguments in favor of Mary's perpetual virginity and immaculate conception (for the former must follow from the latter), I'm eager to see them.

 

I think that in general, the Reformers and later Protestants who upheld Perpetual Virginity simply took for granted the traditional arguments for it. In other words, I’m not aware of any specifically Protestant argument for it, or what that would look like. The canonical Scriptures do not explicitly say one way or the other whether the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph ever consummated their marriage, and if so, whether their union was productive of children after the birth of Jesus. It therefore makes some sense that subsequent pious speculation attempted to fill in the gaps here, and it’s easy enough to see why such speculation went in the direction it did.