Monday, July 03, 2006

The Present ECUSA Dissenters: What Say You?

Our friend Fr. Michael had this to say:
There's a whole world of difference between the 1976-78 Continuers and the present crop of bishops who are upset. The 1976ers really knew the Faith and knew that (in western catholic terms) the orders of the Anglicans had been irrevocably compromised by the "ordination" of the first deaconettes. Simply by remaining in communion with those who carried out such "ordinations" the others who refused to do them, nevertheless participated in the nullification of their own ordinations.
Conversely, I know many who chose to stay in ECUSA to "fight" for their denomination. They claimed they would not "abandon" the church and let the liberals "win." As the last three decades showed the irreligious making steady gains, they went from dreams of vanquishing the heretics and atheists in their leadership to proudly standing as hold-outs. They would take irrational pride in saying, "They can't force their ways on me."

The issue of remaining in communion with those who ordain women is contentious. By no means did all who oppose female ordination leave ECUSA in the '70s. Many felt as long as it did not affect their (diocese/state/parish), they would be safe. (The beginnings of the hold-out mentality.)

The implications of remaining in communion with those who did not share their faith usually did not register. It certainly should have -- and should for all who would remain today in whatever branch of the Anglican Communion. Ultimately, they're all in communion with Bishopess Jefferts Schori and Vicky Gene. By remaining in communion (whether full or "associate"), they give their assent and manifest their belief that, in the end, they all share the same faith. That reality, too, must sink in.

Are those just now ready to leave ECUSA liberals not quite as far Left as Schori/Robinson/Griswold/Spong; or are they traditionalists who have just been mugged by reality? I suspect there are both, and there are still many who find comfort in the orthodoxy of the Eastern Church -- and more appreciative yet of the fact that Her Western Rite allows them to preserve the best of Western liturgy and hymnody with which they've become familiar. However, not everyone leaving ECUSA is by any means a catholic Christian; as always, the preaching of the Word will divide this lot, as it does joint-from-marrow.

May God lead us all into His heavenly kingdom.


Blogger Father Mike said...

The fallacy in this logic, according to the Fathers teachings and Ecumenical Council edict, is that when your bishops do the heresy dance you are "mandated" to leave and form under an orthodox bishop. Further it is said that it is they who create schism not the ones who leave. One does not stay and fight in a heretical church.

I was one of the "76-78 Continuers" and the vast majority who left were not catholic they were 1928 BCP prayer book idolaters. Every congregation brought along a piece and feasted on the corpse of old ECUSA and eventually it corrupted every continuing body and continues to do so today.

2:43 PM  
Blogger Jean-Michel said...

still real Faith in 1976 while out of Orthodoxy? This looks really romantic.

As far as I know, if the big Schism started in England a few years later than on the Continent, with 1066 as absolute year of end of all, and very fast, and this is history, the replacement of all major clerks by heretics, and even while it took a few more decades to have the whole Faith rotten by heresies of Church of Vatican, speaking of Faith so late...
Even non-jurors have NOT been acknowledged as Orthodox by the Orthodox Church. I know the opinion runs in WRO of Anglican origin that "even if not accepted, it was politic, not a problem of Faith", nope, that's untrue, because politic problems have always found a solution. Not Faith. Does it not match that of the Church, the Unam Sanctam, then it's not Faith, but beliefs. Some very close, indeed. But not Faith.

IMHO :-)


1:26 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home