An editorial from the Dallas Morning News about the so called "New Province".My musing: At this point I put these folks in the same basket as the women who claim they're Catholic priests, Christians who say they are "Messianic Jews" and Mormons who say they are Christians.
(snip)
Which leads us to the Episcopalian/Anglican kafuffle. Anglican provinces are defined by the Anglican Communion of which they are a part. Until now, a province could no more declare itself to exist than I could declare myself to be a doctor. There are rules, standards, approvals. None of which has this new whatever-it-is gone through.
So what is it? Best I can see, it's a religious organization - a new American denomination - that seeks to be recognized as an Anglican province. News reports about how its leaders plan to seek that recognition are not specific. But until the Archbishop of Canterbury says it is, I can't see calling it "Anglican" without quotes.
All here-
http://blog.beliefnet.com/progressiverevival/2008/12/the-episcopal-split-a-battle-o.html
1 comment:
I guess I don't have a problem calling folks Anglicans if their orders of ministry derive from the English succession, if they worship in the tradition of the BCP, if they know how to point psalms for Anglican chant, if they adhere to the essential formularies, and if they understand about not wearing white shoes after Labor Day.
For a while we'll need to be saying, "some Anglicans are in the Anglican Communion, some aren't."
Post a Comment