Anglican church splits: conservatives form Australian breakaway

[JustAnAustralian]

https://www.smh.com.au/national/anglican-church-splits-conservatives-form-australian-breakaway-20220816-p5bact.html

A few key paragraphs

Quote

Australia’s Anglican church has split, and conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage have launched a breakaway movement led by former Sydney archbishop Glenn Davies aiming to lure Anglicans who are unhappy with progressive bishops.

...

The Diocese of the Southern Cross was formally launched in Canberra on Sunday. The first service was led by a rebel minister who resigned from the liberal Brisbane Archdiocese because he “cannot go along with same-sex blessings”.

...

Its social and theological conservatism - especially that marriage is only between a man and a woman - aligns with the views held by Sydney Anglicans, who are often described as the most theologically and socially conservative in the English-speaking world.

But other dioceses, such as Brisbane, Gippsland and Perth, hold different views. They ordain women and are open to blessing same-sex marriages. Most defections to the Diocese of the Southern Cross are likely to come from dioceses with progressive bishops.

...

It will not be “in communion” with the archbishop of Canterbury, but will instead be aligned with the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), a group of conservative churches dominated by those from Africa.

...

Matthew Anstey, a progressive Anglican theology academic from South Australia who argued in favour of blessing same-sex marriage at the synod, described the breakaway church as corrosive.

“They’re basically saying, ‘maybe your bishop is not a true Christian, you shouldn’t trust him or her, we’ve got the truth, we’re right’,” he said.

“They’re strongly implying that a lot of the rest of us aren’t even Christians. That’s what we find offensive.

“This is fundamentalism writ large. This is a split. How big it becomes, what shape it takes, how many join, we don’t know.”

...

When asked whether the new organisation would ordain women, a spokesman for Davies said, “those ministers who join will already have been in holy orders, so there will be no need for ordinations until after the first Synod of the diocese.”

The article points out that similar splits have occurred in North America, Brazil and New Zealand. It will be interesting to see how this goes and where the new diocese will end up placing itself as far as ongoing ordination of women.

 

[Saint Bonaventure]

There's also this:

Anglicans recognize Pope as ‘father of the Church in the West,’ says archbishop of Canterbury – Catholic World Report

 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

There's also this:

Anglicans recognize Pope as ‘father of the Church in the West,’ says archbishop of Canterbury – Catholic World Report

 

Not surprising. The Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, as far as I am aware, accept as valid each others' baptisms. The CoE and RCC even trade clergymen from time to time. Their doctrines, so far as I am aware, correlate very closely, except for the idea of the Pope being supreme, and of course clergy are permitted to marry in the CoE.

[Saint Bonaventure]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Not surprising. The Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, as far as I am aware, accept as valid each others' baptisms. The CoE and RCC even trade clergymen from time to time. Their doctrines, so far as I am aware, correlate very closely, except for the idea of the Pope being supreme, and of course clergy are permitted to marry in the CoE.

Maybe I can clarify the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion. The Catholic Church recognizes as valid any baptism that uses water, invokes the Trinity, and is performed with the same intent as the Catholic Church. A Baptist baptism? Probably valid. Presbyterian? Again, probably valid. Maybe 20 years ago the Catholic Church considered the possibility of LDS baptisms being valid and decided against, probably on the grounds of the Trinity and same-intent requirements. Baptism by immersion would not have been a problem. I don't think the wording of an LDS baptism would be a problem either, just that the wording is not believed to refer to the same Trinity, and that therefore there is not same intent.

I politely disagree with the notion that the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion "trade clergymen." Theologically, traditional Anglicans are very close to, or even identical to, Catholics in key areas, so there is a simplified procedure for an Anglican Bishop who converts to the Catholic Church (and there have been some such conversions, especially since Vatican II). There's even a process for entire Anglican parishes--clergy and all--to convert as a group to the Catholic Church and retain their Anglican cultural trappings. I believe 100+ traditionally-oriented Episcopalian parishes in the U.S. have done this in the last decade or so. There's one of these Anglican-tradition Catholic Churches in my area. I understand it serves tea and biscuits after Mass instead of coffee and donuts.

The married clergy issue isn't that big of a deal. Outside of the Latin Rite, there are Catholic Churches with married clergy, and of course our Orthodox friends have married clergy. A married Anglican Bishop converting to the Catholic Church would have his marriage reviewed. It might be valid in a Catholic context. Then again, it might not.

The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury acknowledging the pope as the "father of the Western Church" is kind of a big deal. It would be more of a big deal if the Anglican Communion wasn't so divided. But then, you're in the U.K., so you know all about that.

Edited August 18, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Maybe I can clarify the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion. The Catholic Church recognizes as valid any baptism that uses water, invokes the Trinity, and is performed with the same intent as the Catholic Church. A Baptist baptism? Probably valid. Presbyterian? Again, probably valid. Maybe 20 years ago the Catholic Church considered the possibility of LDS baptisms being valid and decided against, probably on the grounds of the Trinity and same-intent requirements.

Well, we don't accept anyone else's baptisms, so fair's fair!  But not for the same reasons. We believe in the Trinity, no question, just not the Creedal Trinity. I am not sure what the intent has to do with it, though. I would say that Catholic baptism has the same intent as LDS baptism, which is (so far as I am aware) intended to enable the baptized person to enter into the sheepfold, and access the Atonement.

8 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Baptism by immersion would not have been a problem. I don't think the wording of an LDS baptism would be a problem either, just that the wording is not believed to refer to the same Trinity, and that therefore there is not same intent.

I challenge the idea that the Apostle Peter knew anything about the Trinity you speak of when John the Baptist baptized him. Yet his baptism was acceptable to God.

8 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I politely disagree with the notion that the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion "trade clergymen."

Well, maybe I'm using a bit of a humor to illustrate the occasional occurrences when an Anglican clergyman becomes a Catholic and is given holy orders, and the occasions when it has gone the other way. It's obviously not a "program" of either church.

Here: Up to one in 10 Catholic priests are former Church of England clergy, according to new figures.

On the Christianity StackExchange an Anglican priest claimed to have validly performed the wedding of a Catholic couple in Ibiza -- I guess they had him do it because the couple were English and no Catholic priest in Ibiza spoke English. Link here: Can a Catholic priest take Anglican services? See the last answer.

8 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Theologically, traditional Anglicans are very close to, or even identical to, Catholics in key areas, so there is a simplified procedure for an Anglican Bishop who converts to the Catholic Church (and there have been some such conversions, especially since Vatican II). There's even a process for entire Anglican parishes--clergy and all--to convert as a group to the Catholic Church and retain their Anglican cultural trappings. I believe 100+ traditionally-oriented Episcopalian parishes in the U.S. have done this in the last decade or so. There's one of these Anglican-tradition Catholic Churches in my area. I understand it serves tea and biscuits after Mass instead of coffee and donuts.

The married clergy issue isn't that big of a deal. Outside of the Latin Rite, there are Catholic Churches with married clergy, and of course our Orthodox friends have married clergy. A married Anglican Bishop converting to the Catholic Church would have his marriage reviewed. It might be valid in a Catholic context. Then again, it might not.

I've known about the married priest conversion thing, yes.

8 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury acknowledging the pope as the "father of the Western Church" is kind of a big deal. It would be more of a big deal if the Anglican Communion wasn't so divided. But then, you're in the U.K., so you know all about that.

Mostly, yes. I still have yet to attend a Church of England service! They have their services at the same time we do, and I have responsibilities, so it hasn't worked out so far. I do visit CoE churches occasionally though -- we have thousand year old churches here. Of course, they all started out Catholic.

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 8/18/2022 at 5:29 PM, Stargazer said:

Well, we don't accept anyone else's baptisms, so fair's fair!  But not for the same reasons. We believe in the Trinity, no question, just not the Creedal Trinity. I am not sure what the intent has to do with it, though. I would say that Catholic baptism has the same intent as LDS baptism, which is (so far as I am aware) intended to enable the baptized person to enter into the sheepfold, and access the Atonement.

I challenge the idea that the Apostle Peter knew anything about the Trinity you speak of when John the Baptist baptized him. Yet his baptism was acceptable to God.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Stargazer. I'll say just a little in response.

I'm not familiar with  a Trinity that isn't expressed in the Nicene Creed. I'm under the impression that Latter-day Saints consider the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be three separate beings, but I'm not aware of an official, LDS statement to that effect. I'm not aware of Latter-day Saints having a brief, precise, official statement about their belief in a non-Creedal Trinity. I may just be in the dark, which isn't uncommon for me. A while back I mentioned the LDS Articles of Faith and took from that discussion that those Articles aren't thought of as explicating belief so much as indicating some fundamental beliefs.

I think there's another misunderstanding here too. For one, Peter's "intent" isn't an issue, and "intent" isn't exactly the same as "knowing anything about the Trinity." There is no indication that those who were baptized by John the Baptist needed to be rebaptized. Apollos in Acts 19 is precisely this situation. However, Peter would have gone about baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit as per the Great Commission in Matthew 28, and as evidenced in the very early Christian document, the Didache.  

[Stargazer]

On 8/21/2022 at 10:47 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Stargazer. I'll say just a little in response.

I'm not familiar with  a Trinity that isn't expressed in the Nicene Creed. I'm under the impression that Latter-day Saints consider the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be three separate beings, but I'm not aware of an official, LDS statement to that effect. I'm not aware of Latter-day Saints having a brief, precise, official statement about their belief in a non-Creedal Trinity. I may just be in the dark, which isn't uncommon for me. A while back I mentioned the LDS Articles of Faith and took from that discussion that those Articles aren't thought of as explicating belief so much as indicating some fundamental beliefs.

I think there's another misunderstanding here too. For one, Peter's "intent" isn't an issue, and "intent" isn't exactly the same as "knowing anything about the Trinity." There is no indication that those who were baptized by John the Baptist needed to be rebaptized. Apollos in Acts 19 is precisely this situation. However, Peter would have gone about baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit as per the Great Commission in Matthew 28, and as evidenced in the very early Christian document, the Didache.  

There hasn't been a "a brief, precise, official statement about their belief in a non-Creedal [LDS] Trinity" so far as I have been able to discover. What is typically called "Trinity" everywhere else is usually called "the Godhead" among us -- probably to avoid giving anyone the idea that we subscribe to the "creedal" Trinity.

As for what might be called "official doctrine" there is A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, which was published in 1916. It doesn't actually deal with the Holy Ghost, and was originally intended to clear up questions about the Father and the Son amongst church members. It's a bit long, so rather than reproduce it here, I've provided a link to it. You might find it instructive. Or maybe not, who can say?

A more generic explanation of what we have in place of the creedal Trinity can be found here: Do Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Believe in the Trinity?

But what might be far more official in every respect is this scripture: DC 130:22. Which is short and to the point. It's not a revelation, per se, but is noted as one of "Items of instruction given by Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Ramus, Illinois, April 2, 1843." 

22. The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

Without getting into a huge pile of legalistic language, I think that verse expresses clearly what we mean by "the Godhead".

Going back to Peter and everyone who was baptized by John the Baptist, it seems that John's baptism was effectual, regardless of whether those being baptized had the Nicene Creed or any of its descendants in mind, because that came much later. Where the LDS differ from all other Christians on the baptism issue is our reliance upon the necessary authority passed down through the priesthood. And full immersion is important, as well as the words used. I guess that's three things: Authority; Immersion; and sense of the words (mainly that it is done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost). In modern times we use set wording. I imagine that John the Baptist spoke different words, but they conveyed the sense of what was revealed to that point.