News article- "Francis Urges ‘Visible Unity’ With Anglicans"

I'll readily agree that LDS is much further along the spectrum of cultism. But in both instances, members who become true born-again Christians are more likely to become so despite (rather than because of) their respective denomination's teaching. At least, that was my experience and observation when I was in the RCC.

 

That is true, but no one particular group has undisputed authority to determine what goes on the side of the box for all the other groups that claim the brand.

As a matter of mere taxonomy, there’s enough overlap for us to say that Mormonism belongs within the broad family of Christian religions (plural). That doesn’t mean to-be-Christian-within-Mormonism is the same thing as to-be-Christian-within-Anglicanism. It’s a family resemblance concept rather than an essential concept.

 

I sometimes wonder how Pope Francis' brain works. I really am not sure how there can be unity between Anglicans and Catholics.

Catholics still officially hold the view Anglican orders are invalid. Now most parts of the Anglican Church ordain women and Pope Francis has confirmed Catholic teaching that only men can be ordained they must have an even lower view of our orders.

Anglicanism generally, it seems to me anyway, accepts abortion, contraception and diviorce. Things that are anathema to Catholics.

Anglicanism is gradually going down the road of accepting homosexuality as normal, permitting same-sex marriage, conforming to the transgender agenda, etc. Although Pope Francis is skirting around these issues I believe that official Catholic teaching is opposed to all these.

There are many areas of Catholicism that Evangelical Anglicans will simply not accept, e.g. devotion to Mary, praying to the saints, etc.

Plus, of course, whereas all it would take is Pope Francis' agreement from the Catholic side, it would need the agreement of the 46 churches in the Anglican Communion to agree on the Anglican side. Even then that ignores the views of the Continuing Anglicans. I think from this perspective alone Anglican and Catholic unity would be as challenging as Catholic and Orthodox unity.

IMHO I think Anglicans and Catholics are further apart on many issues than when ARCIC was being set-up in the late 60s.

 

Besides WO, which I am against, it does seem that with the OO or EO Anglicans are much closer to them and have a better chance of actually having some unity

 

I have no idea where you're getting these ideas PDL. Maybe you're just blackpilled about Anglicanism because you live in England, where the worst of it is going on right now. But the rest of the Anglican world has already gotten over the hump. The slide to progressivism was the worst from 2003 to around 2015. Now there's an entirely contrary traditional Anglican standpoint on the world stage, meaning that Canterbury and the Episcopal Church have seen an end to their influence. We in the US do not accept divorce, are starting to clean up on women's ordination, and will rather die than accept gay marriage. Most of the Anglican world is exactly this; or STRONGER than us (some Anglican primates haven't been opposed to capital punishment for sodomy). That's not what we see as right, but it is out there in the world. Don't let the gloom in England get to you. Take a missionary trip to Nigeria, or Southeast Asia (or to us!), and you'll come back renewed and encouraged about the actual state of Anglicanism in the world. England is NOT the center of Anglicanism anymore. And thank God for that -- it means you can be encouraged now that all of the heresy you see going on makes no difference to the world anymore. There are missionaries actively working in England right now, to build a counterbalance to Canterbury.

Meanwhile let's talk about Rome. You have an incredibly rose-tinted picture of what's actually going there. Let's look at the facts: Pope Francis has brought in all of the pro-LGBT prelates into the Vatican. Pope Francis has blessed the #1 abortionist in Italy. There are gay blessings already going on in various parts of the RC world. Pope Francis is also pushing for women's deacons in the current Synod at Rome. The incessant changing of doctrines, like the anti-Christian abolition of the death penalty. And of course communion for divorced & remarried, which is the end to the RC's opposition to divorce.

You need to get your head out of the propaganda pocket, probably surrounded by RC friends that fill your head with tales, hoping that you don't read the actual news going in the world.

Under no conditions can we join with Rome, or our return to orthodoxy will be curtailed by the modernist Vatican.

 

Well, yes, but who is in the photo? And which part of the Anglican world does he represent? The overtures don't involve GAFCON Anglicans, the ones who've "gotten over the hump."

 

This is sheer delusion. First of all, who's "we"? The Anglican Church in the U.S. is the Episcopal Church, which despite growing demographic challenges dwarfs the schismatic ACNA, where WO is growing, not shrinking.

The cultural changes that have roiled Anglicans in the Anglophone world will eventually do the same to the schismatic offshoots, assuming they don't succumb first to the same demographic trends that are affecting canonical Anglicanism, and Christianity more generally. The offshoots have the exact same issues of contested identity as the parent churches, and no more ability to hermetically seal themselves off from cultural influences than any other religious group. The insistence on "purity" is atomizing in practice and only creates further weakness in Christianity as a whole.

Anglicanism as a distinct form of Christianity is in serious trouble. Much of African Anglicanism frankly looks a lot more like charismatic Pentecostalism than anything historically identifiable as "Anglican", and that trend is intensifying. It saddens me to say it, but it seems unlikely to me that Anglicanism as an identifiable variant of Christianity will still exist 100 years from now.

 

I think it is laughable to say that any church is ok with divorce and remarriage. They just deal with it in different ways. In the ACNA it varies by diocese with only maybe the REC still abiding by the fictitious and unhistorical "annulments" (another Roman invention). Most practice the Eastern Orthodox practice, which is the historical practice and you can even see this in some of Origens writings and St. Basil the Great makes it clear and the EO eventually adopted St. Basil guidelines in the 600's, that the bishop can allow a second marriage after a divorce with penance attached and they will recognize a second marriage after divorce when someone converts of moves into the denomination. You can go to local synods in Rome from the 700 or 800's I would have to look up the exact year again and they allowed divorce and remarriage under certain circumstances but no one ever has been ok with it. It was seen as a sin and it was a concession to allow the second marriage or to accept it with a convert into the denomination. Annulments was another one of its made up things.

 

Practicing Anglicans get to define what Anglicanism is. England's churches have emptied at an astonishing rate, to the point that the so-called "Church of England" really has no constituency any more -- it's basically a ceremonial relic ministering to a fast-aging remainder. The CofE will be extinct in a decade or two. Church of Canada: same. The Episcopal Church in America (TEC): same. Africa's churches in contrast are vibrant and growing, so they by definition will decide what Anglicanism is in the coming decades. The future belongs to those who show up for it.

ACNA has problems, no doubt. The WO issue continues to fester, but in the last few years Abp. Beach and most of the Bishops seem to have reached an internal consensus on it (though it's not been officially shared). They have rebuked a few African dioceses that have ordained women bishops, and there is a distinct groundswell of lay opposition to the practice of WO in America. We may seem some statement coming out of the Kigali conference later this year regarding WO -- I expect it to reaffirm the canon that no women will be ordained as Bishops in the provinces until a larger consensus on WO can be achieved. I think the issue of WO is going to be more important going forward once the issue of homosexual unions and admitting homosexuals to the clergy has been laid to rest.

That being said, I don't think the issue is going to be as divisive as some think. Women who want to be Episcopal priests or bishops are likely going to join TEC, not ACNA. Orthodox Anglican women will go to the ACNA. There is a "sorting" going on right now, not just among Anglicans but among all the Protestant denominations. Progressives will go their own way, while the orthodox go theirs. WO will in time cease to be a major issue for the orthodox churches, in my opinion, because it's unlikely that liberal women will enter an orthodox church to begin with.

One of the projects the ACNA is engaged in right now is to provide greater opportunity for laypeople of either gender. I advocate for this wholeheartedly. I think if women feel as though they are being given a voice in the congregation, and are allowed to use their gifts for the furtherance of God's kingdom (which is surely praiseworthy and should be encouraged), then the push for WO will subside. There are many ways to serve; wearing a collar is only one of them.

 

Have you ever been to an African province? When, and where (approximately)? If not, please retract your slander against our brothers in the faith.

 

What does 'visible unity' mean? I believe that is one of the many prevalent and popular phrases that is virtually meaningless. I would be more interested in the discussion if he spoke of organizational unity, full communion, or altar fellowship.

Visible unity already exists whenever Catholics and Anglicans serve at a food pantry, a homeless shelter, a civic service, or a host of other projects that take place away from the pulpit and the altar. Full communion has been available with the Romans and the Orthodox for some time: just always on their terms.

 

I wouldn't like to comment on the OO. I simply know too little about them.

I've read in various places that it's often Anglicans who think we have this closeness to the EO than they do. They see us as a schism/breakaway group from Roman Catholicism. They view us as Western Christians and believe we have more in common with Roman Catholicism than either have with Eastern Orthodoxy. It is not just women's ordination. We have the Nicene Creed with the Filioque, to which the EO object. Our views on original sin are quite different. I don't think they recognise our orders as valid; therefore, they won't recognise our Eucharist a valid. To the EO the Church is wherever there is the bishop with his presbyterium, people and the Eucharist. As they view us as lacking most of those things I don't think they see us as Church.

 

At times we have had good relations with them. In America in the early 1900's they were told to go to Episcopal Churches if an EO church was not near by. There were some Bishops who issued good rulings on our orders. Things only really started to go south with the ordination of Women and the liberalization that came with it.

 

There seems to be a view by some, that people are flocking to the ACNA and deserting the TEC because of women's ordination. This "anti-women" attitude of the ACNA reminds me of Irenaeus who got really annoyed that women weren't buying his Christian (Paul) version of truth and were joining the Gnostics instead.

I would be interested if anyone has the male/female ratios for the ACNA and TEC churches.

 

Wut

anti womenpriests, not anti women, we love and cherish femininity unlike TEC (and the wider culture) that seeks to turn women into men

 

We do not “seek to turn women into men”. That’s ridiculous. Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

That's why I put anti women in speech marks. Some people could consider it anti women to prohibit them from; being priests, speaking in Church or not wearing hats in church.

 

Yes, some people overreact and exaggerate the truth.

 

People think all kinds of things
Especially if they think with the mindset of the belly and not the mindset of God and heavenly things