I agree about the current occupant but I don't think you can replace it simply because of the current occupant. The Anglican Communion could agree to make another primate the primate of honour of the Anglican churches. At some point in the future the occupant of that see could be less than desirable. I would be surprised if a Lambeth Conference would even try to change the Communion's primatial see. If it were to happen I think that is where the initiative would have to come from or, at least, be finally approved.
A loss of faith is also a schism away from the church. And a loss of faith happens before installation of a rival bishop. So if Welby has lost the faith, then he is no longer the Archbishop of Canterbury in God's eyes, only in people's eyes, which don't matter.
That’s a circular argument. It also contradicts the 39 Articles: Whether Archbishop Welby has “lost faith” is something only God knows, and is in any case irrelevant to whether he lawfully occupies his See. We’re not Revivalists; we rely on external forms and ceremonies to confirm that grace has been legitimately bestowed. Until he dies, retires, or is lawfully removed from his See, he is its legitimate occupant. For all the puritanical rhetoric that gets thrown around here, I can’t believe I’m having to point out something so basic. But it does anecdotally confirm what I’ve been saying all along about the ACNA promoting an inherently schismatic mentality, including regarding the purpose of GAFCON.
Stalwart, to whom I was responding, wasn't talking about usurping Justin Welby from the See of Canterbury or any other bishop. He was discussing whether it would be appropriate for another see in the Anglican Communion to become the primatial see of the entire Communion instead of Canterbury.
Unworthiness of ministers refers to their moral unworthiness. In the Latin version of the Articles, that is clear. It is clearly a restatement of the traditional opposition to Donatism, a heresy which required moral virtue in the ministers as a condition of valid ministry. The traditional position enunciated in St. Augustine and echoed in the articles is that no, moral shorcomings in the ministers do not disqualify the ministry of the Church. It doesn't mean that all cases of unworthiness are irrelevant. For example if the minister is just a layman dressed up in vestments, then that kind of 'unworthiness' is absolutely an disqualification of their church ministry. And similarly, if it's a heretic, ie. someone who's not a Christian, someone who doesn't have the faith, then they're not a priest, or a bishop, and certainly not an Archbishop fo Canterbury. Are you saying that someone who lost the faith could be an Archbishop of Canterbury?
I do agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. We do not depend on the strength of faith or worthiness of any minister for the efficacy of his ministry. For example, when one is baptised one receives all the graces of baptism even if the rector who is baptising is a terrible sinner. Indeed, we would be in a very poor state if we were dependent on our ministers being perfect.
I do not think the second example is one of unworthiness. It is an example of one being disqualified for that office. For example, Biden was elected as the current president of the USA because he met the requirements for being elected to that office. He may as a person be unworthy which would be a judgement for the electroate to make. If Biden hadn't been able to fulfil all the requirements for standing as a presidential candidate he would have been disqualified for the office but may still have been a worthy person to be president. While it may be ideal that someone like the Archbishop of Canterbury has a strong faith I don't think it automatically precludes him from staying in office if he starts to doubt or lack his faith. Of course, I believe it would be right and proper for him to resign his see if he found he had completely lost his Chritstian faith. It is very difficult for us to judge another's faith and I'm sure Justin Welby would say his faith is strong. He would probably argue that your idea of faith and his were different.
How would the church fathers settle it? They would want to see outward works of your faith. They wouldn't just take someone's pleadings and protestations about it. If you say you're a Christian, but you are an adulterer and a profaner, then you're not a a Christian. If you taint the offices of the Church, and enable the growth of antichristian forces, then you appear not to be a Christian. So if you are actively doing things to harm the Church, then the other Patriarchs and Metropolitans (ie. not you and I, but someone authorized) have every right and authority to definitively decide that the current occupant of the See of Canterbury has lost the apostolic faith (no matter what he claims; what matters is what he does). And if someone doesn't have the faith, then the See of Canterbury is empty, and they can consecrate a new patriarch to occupy that office. Alternatively they can just decide that the See of Jerusalem is the new point of unity, and Canterbury can continue to be empty for a time. It would just become a regional/local matter at that point.
To clarify, the portion I was responding to was the following statement: Since GAFCON can't forcibly remove Archbishop Welby, I took the first alternative to mean that GAFCON should appoint another bishop to the same See (which is tantamount to Schism). If GAFCON members merely recognize a different See as primate - the second alternative proposed - since one communion can't have two primates, this also is tantamount to Schism. So, whether it's "change the bishop" (by setting up a rival) or "change the See", either directly or indirectly it amounts to Schism.
In my area, the RC churches offer private confession for an hour on Saturday afternoon, or by appointment. I have no idea how many confessions are heard by appointment. I've always gone Saturday afternoon, and there are usually 5-10 people waiting. I'm rethinking my perception of the RCC guilt trip. Catholics are required to go to confession once a year, or if they commit a mortal sin. There's a general absolution of sins during Mass, but it's for venial sins. So it really comes down to knowing when something is a sin (it's usually more about intention, rather than the raw act itself) and exercising your discretion about when to go to confession. If in doubt, it's fine to go to confession just to be sure. If the sin isn't a mortal sin, the priest will (or at least should) tell you so, counsel you about any concerns about the behavior in question, and forgive you for whatever sin there is. After all, it's fine to go to confession for venial sins too if you'd like. A lot of Catholics don't bother with confession anymore, because they don't believe that confessing to a priest is necessary. They feel that asking God directly for forgiveness is fine. I've heard Catholic priests comment on how few people are at confession, compared to pretty much the entire congregation receiving Holy Communion. Hence the expression "cafeteria Catholic." I still have concerns about the RCC, but not so much about confession these days.
I think that perhaps the sisters of today's active communities have a lot more freedoms than we did. I was in a cloistered Carmelite convent that was very conservative and there was very little freedom at all - nowadays I see it as more of a 'cult' because of its rigidity in most matters. As for the priests, we usually had the same one for a long time and they just did whatever 'Mother' asked of them. If a nun didn't go to confession, they weren't punished but there was the 'silent judginess' of the others. Seeing as my situation was quite unusual, I probably shouldn't have mentioned it at all. But I still think the RC church has way too much focus on sin and guilt and shame.
Nothing wrong at all in mentioning it. It may not be the experience of all but it's part of your lived experience. It will, of course, therefroe, reflect how you feel and the choices you made. As someone very interesetd in the religious life I found it interesting to read about.
it's interesting to see some traveling from Thames to the Tiber, and others from Tiber to the Thames... fascinating to see the reasons why people take the leap I personally do not see how one can remain a traditional orthodox roman catholic, in the era of pope Francis the First
I fully agree. I simply cannot fathom what that man is trying to do to the Roman Catholic Church. Mind you a Peronist or a Jesuit alone is bad enough but when the two are mixed in one character what can happen? Well, I think we're seeing what can happen. I've occasionally thought of swimming the Tiber. However, at the moment I think I'd probably rather be marooned on a sandbank between the Thames and Tiber holding up a large placard saying "go away and leave me be".
not that I ever seriously considered the Tiber, but there was a time when I wasn't sure if Rome didn't have some sort of a divine protection from error (forgive me! it was early in my spiritual journey, before I knew anything) I honestly gave them a chance, to see and learn And then so many errors happened one after the other... communion for adulterers, banishment of capital punishment, pagan worship.... And then I remembered, of course: transubstantiation, the Papacy, those were previous cases of the same errant church
Leave me alone with God as much as may be. As the tide draws the waters close in upon the shore, Make me an island, set apart, alone with you, God, holy to you. Then with the turning of the tide prepare me to carry your presence to the busy world beyond, the world that rushes in on me till the waters come again and fold me back to you. Aidan of Lindisfarne
It's interesting to me that some of the reasons that Anglican here don't want to become RC are the same ones that made me want to leave RC and become an Anglican. It is a lovely and diverse world!