The problem, however, is not homosexual clergy. The problem is ecclesiology. The much vaunted "via media" that Anglicans pride themselves on has hit a fork in the road. If it had not been the issue of homosexuality it would have been another issue. They need to make a decision that is binding on the whole church, but they have no mechanism for doing so. They need a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as it were, but they very idea seems so un-British. Or, they need to decide that the Baptists and Congregationalists were right all these years, that the local church alone should guide its own destiny and that thoughts of a universal communion are delusional.Read it all here.
The statements coming from the Episcopal Church’s General Convention were purposely not inflammatory, but they did pass a resolution that dug in on their position. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to the other Primates of the Anglican Communion, assuring them that the new resolution affirming gays was no news at all. But for conservatives the Rubicon was already crossed. They want a guarantee of orthodoxy and the Anglican church, as a whole, cannot provide it.
Hat tip to T-19 (they are still having major problems with their main website)
Obviously I don't see an imperative need for a CDF or the Pope. But Anglicanism has a major problem. They claim to be a "branch" of the church catholic spoken of in the creeds. And yet they have repudiated the methods employed by the Church to keep order and prevent schism/heresy. Can anyone imagine Rowan Williams calling for an OEcumenical Council to deal with this mess?
The Anglican Communion is alas just a loose confederation of Protestant churches with the exception of the Episcopal Church. That once mighty mainline church has been reduced to being a liberal social club whose theology (to the extent there is any) could best be described as liturgical Unitarianism.
Someone please explain to me very slowly so I can understand it... why are we still accepting Episcopalian baptisms as "close enough" for the purposes of economia among converts?