Apostolic succession?
The fact that authoritarian followers are traditionalist and unlikely to go to a splinter organization? Hard to be "progressive" when you're in the business of leading authoritarians...
The fact that the schismatics have no claim to the assets of the old organization? En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
Anders Wejryd triggered outrage from a Lutheran church in Africa when he ordained an openly lesbian woman as bishop of Stockholm on 8 November
Free republic - but it is a source
And as we all know the swedish church is in apostolic succession as well.
No, there is no real theological argument just misogynistic, prejudiced ridden interpretation of unfortunate ambiguous texts and traditions.
Pope Leo XIII, in his 1896 bull Apostolicae Curae, ruled that the Church of England had lost its apostolic succession due to the changes in the rite of episcopal consecration which invalidated the sacrament. However, since the 1930s Old Catholic bishops (whom Rome recognizes as valid) have acted as co-consecrators in the ordination of Anglican bishops. By 1969, all Anglican bishops had acquired Old Catholic lines of apostolic succession fully recognized by Rome, according to Timothy Dufort.[25] Nevertheless, the ordination of women and active homosexuals to the Anglican priesthood and episcopacy have often been seen as evidence by some Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians that Anglican orders are invalid, on the basis that such actions allegedly constitute a break with apostolic tradition and this allegedly nullifies ordinations taking place in such an ecclesial communion.[citation needed]
The materials you cite are RC apologia. Dufort never met a piece of ecclesiastical history he didn't try to rewrite for the sake of ecumenism. He was papering over a "dispute" that on the Anglican side of the aisle had been forgotten by one and all except for perhaps a half-dozen in the bowels of the Canterbury archives. When the bull was issued, it was met with a collective yawn over here, but some in England actually got their knickers in a twist until they finally figured out that Leo had merely taken a very sad pot-shot at what was already a 350-year-old dispute. That the Anglicans treated the sacraments differently than the Romans was not exactly news, whether it was the rejection of transubstantiation, offering both the host and the wine at eucharist, or the rejection of salvation by works.
Eva Brunne was the first openly gay priest in the Swedish church and became bishop last November. She lives in the legislated state of registered partnership with Gunilla Lindén who is also a priest. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Free republic is apparently right on something.
Surely a sign that the Stars Are Right and the End Times are coming. Are you among those who will be eaten first?
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
A lot of people - well, not that many proportionally, or historically, but a good few tens or even hundreds of thousands numerically - feel at home in it.
Leaving isn't an option, because it's where all your friends and colleagues are. So an attack of the schisms is unlikely to happen outside of communities that are insular enough to replace that sense of tribal participation.
The CoE controls no narrative spaces today, AFAIK. All they have is a tribe of people imprinted 30 years ago or more. And these congregations will eventually die off, not to be replaced. I can't see the core values dying off any time soon, since they are shared by many of the world's religions. What goes is the ritualistic behaviour. What remains is moral values of a certain limited kind, a sincere belief that there is something bigger than us (Well there probably is, but it is in no way anthropomorphic), and that 'life' doesn't stop when it dies. You can't be me, I'm taken
Why do people want to stick to organisations
It isn't really the foamers at the mouth I find hard to understand. It's the ordinary, apparently decent, largely rational people who live ordinary, apparently decent, largely rational lives. Anglicans with gay friends, Catholics who choose the size of their families.
Why do they finance bigotry, the suffering and subjugation of women denied contraception, the mass murder via disinformation about HIV? Why do they pay to have the vulnerable savaged by zealots whose values they cheerfully ignore when it comes to their own lives? Why didn't they turn away in disgust at the cover up of child abuse?
That's what I don't understand.
it's a 'flight to safety', in economic terms.
governments that can't deliver quality to their citizens, can't offer an easier afterlife.
their promises, equally improbable, involve material things like chickens in pots.
strange as it may seem to this crowd at ET, many apparently rational people are concerned about their souls, and cannot blithely deny them with the facility given to those who have delineated their belief syatems in other, more worldly ways.
people have been that way for ever, it will be interesting to see if secularism, an easier choice in times of plenty, continues to provide the 'womb-to-tomb' social contract in times of woe.
if it doesn't, and as predicated it seems unlikely, expect a plethora of faiths to continue to mushroom, to try and cope with reality.
it's a pressure valve, we can only hope we don't revert to theocracy, the cruelest form of government.
seen in that light, the disestablishment of the c of e is surely a good thing, its obsolescence is almost a given, the real point is what, if anything, will take its place?
humanism?
disclaimer, i am a believer, but will happily co-exist in an atheist world, as long as i am allowed the freedom to believe as i see fit, the same right i see as fair for any belief system one does not resonate with, from atheism all the way to the FSM.
humanism would work fine as a social framework, and i am extremely leery of meshing religious institutionalism with government, the power of the state, history is quite clear on where that takes us. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
