1. tjmcmahon wrote:
Well, I see Living Church is on the liberal bandwagon to intentionally blur the distinctions between Anglo Catholicism and “affirming catholicism.” Forward in Faith is an Anglo Catholic group, the other, promoting WO and women bishops, is yet another manifestation of “affirming catholicism.” I suppose this latest group sees itself as more “conservative” than the previous affirming catholic group. But it is obviously committed to widening the breach between the CoE and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and redefining the sacrament of Holy Orders and the Apostolic Succession. And, of course, displacing and then eradicating real Anglo Catholicism within the CoE.
May 10, 7:17 pm | [comment link]
2. Jeremy Bonner wrote:
I presume the irony of criticizing a group for “promoting WO” when a significant section of ACNA (i.e. my former Diocese) also does so has not escaped you?
Mr. Guiliano does not say whether or not ACF intends to embrace other forms of innovation that put it outside the orthodox mainstream (perhaps because it is not yet clear), but ACNA does no better on the ‘fundamental’ Catholic issue.
May 11, 5:42 am | [comment link]
3. Adam 12 wrote:
Affirming Catholicism has been in the forefront of the drive to redefine the seven sacraments. As a result, in my view, it has moved in a decidedly Protestant direction while retaining the style and some of the outward appearance of traditional Anglo-Catholicism. Lead Kindly, Light.
May 11, 10:03 am | [comment link]
4. Don C wrote:
tj, while I’ve been dismayed at the Living Church’s ‘broadening’ in recent years, I don’t think they’re intentionally blurring distinctions here. Aside from the headline, the author spends much of the article delineating the differences between the two groups. If there was still any question about ACF after four paragraphs, he opines “it is hard not to recognize liberal Catholicism here in its classic form” and that “[e]veryone I spoke to said . . . that they saw the movement as ‘Affirming Catholicism under another name.’”
Any intentional blurring here is not on the Living Church’s part but rather on the part of Anglican Catholic Future.
May 11, 4:16 pm | [comment link]
5. Pageantmaster ن [Pray for +John Ellison] wrote:
Oh yes, Anglican Catholic Future is just a rebranding of the deadbeat Affirming Catholicism which ran out of steam with events being cancelled due to lack of interest. It was being set up just before Rowan Williams’ retirement [the Grand Poohbah and founder of Affirming Catholicism] using expensive Westminster lawyers used by Church House. New branding, same old hacks, same old rotton wineskins. Pull the other one, its got bells on.
May 11, 9:40 pm | [comment link]
6. tjmcmahon wrote:
While various members of the audience expressed the obvious- that ACF is merely the latest version of affirming catholicism. The author, and presumably Living Church, which determined the headline, see things quite differently:
“FiF has a stance which still seems fundamentally defensive: preserving Catholic faith and practice in a surprisingly hostile environment. ACF, on the other hand, is positioned more openly: the discovery of Catholic faith and practice, the arrival at a place we have not yet found. Yet the differences are liable to overstatement, and there were many similarities in evidence. Both outline a number of goals entirely congruous with each other, aimed at renewal and restatement of a universal faith, open to the witness of the Christian past, and centered on the expression of the Catholic faith in and as the Church of England has received it. There is a sense, I believe, among Anglo-Catholics in the Church of England that they are reaching a real turning point or settlement, with a need to renew or refocus efforts toward the broader life of the Church of England and its identity in Christ’s “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.”
Note, for instance, the phrase ” the arrival at a place we have not yet found” in which the author identifies himself (as part of first person plural) as one seeking this new unknown place where ACF is headed. ” There is a sense, I believe, among Anglo-Catholics in the Church of England that they are reaching a real turning point or settlement, with a need to renew or refocus efforts toward the broader life of the Church of England and its identity”- the author (and by extension, Living Church) again makes clear that he is aligned with ACF, and indeed they are the latest thing in “Anglo Catholicism.” That is, he is specifically telling everyone they can claim to be Anglo Catholics, and have WO and women bishops, too.
May 12, 12:20 pm | [comment link]
7. Adam 12 wrote:
In the United States the attempt to erect an orthodox “church within a church,” even with the encouragement of a former ABC, has left many out on the sidewalk looking the wrong way through stained glass windows. There was a lot of happy talk before that happened too. Orthodox Anglo-Catholics have a number of structures that need to be preserved, such as the Apostolic Succession and male priesthood. How that will be accommodated in England remains to be seen.
May 12, 6:41 pm | [comment link]
8. MichaelA wrote:
Jeremy Bonner wrote at #2,
“I presume the irony of criticizing a group for “promoting WO” when a significant section of ACNA (i.e. my former Diocese) also does so has not escaped you?”
There would only be “irony” if you take it as a given that tjmcmahon may not criticise his own church in any respect. But why would that be the case?
I don’t hesitate to criticise my own diocese (Sydney) if I believe it is wrong about something - why can’t tjmcmahon criticise anyone and everyone that he disagrees with on a particular point, whether in his church or out of it?
To look at it from another angle, my diocese is in in communion with a number of overeas provinces that ordain women to the priesthood (including e.g. ACNA, Kenya and Uganda) even though we do not. Mind you, the number of women priests in many provinces that “officially” ordain women is actually quite small, due to widespread disquiet about the practice. But the fact is that we are in communion with them, and I don’t see that as a bar to me speaking out against WO.
May 13, 12:13 am | [comment link]
9. Sarah1 wrote:
Jeremy, TJ seemed simply to be pointing out that one of the “Anglo-Catholic” groups is no such thing at all, though it certainly has its affectations.
Affirming “Catholics” are not “catholic” in the least, nor are they “AngloCatholic.” They are liberals who like to fancy themselves “anglocatholic” and wear fancy vestments.
All TJ said was: “Forward in Faith is an Anglo Catholic group, the other, promoting WO and women bishops, is yet another manifestation of “affirming catholicism.”
I’m pleased that all of us recognize the reality of the ACF’s old “affirming catholic” agenda, rather than falling for the ACF propaganda, mostly designed to confuse and muddle people about its intentions and goals.
It’s a bit like “Integrity” or “Claiming the Blessing” claiming that they’re “orthodox”—should be cause for laughter, public recognition that of course they’re not, and moving on.
May 13, 10:13 am | [comment link]
10. tjmcmahon wrote:
Just for the record, I am aware of any number of issues within ACNA- the indeterminate future of WO within ACNA being one of them. One should note that Anglo Catholics within ACNA have put forward a position on this, and that it is under discussion among the bishops.
But the topic under discussion is not ACNA, but the Living Church article, and the confusion being sown by the author and Living Church by proclaiming the ACF to be “Anglo Catholic” when it clearly is not. To my mind, I suspect this is driven by those editing Living Church who like to view themselves as the definition of orthodoxy, while at the same time adopting any number of innovations.
May 14, 9:47 am | [comment link]