Your reasons are practical, based upon the great difficulties posed by the papacy of the late Francis. I can't disagree.
May I recommend to you an excellent book by Gerald, McDermott, "Deep Anglicanism, A Brief Guide." He gives, citing twentieth-century theologian E. L. Mascall, an ecclesiological criticism of the modern papacy (pp. 328-329):
"The Church Militant on earth is joined to the Church Triumphant in heaven. This is what Augustine called totus Christus ... So the Church is a sacramental reality through which the Triune God saves us....But this is not what we see in the Roman rule that all Christians must submit to the bishop of Rome. This is a juridical role that is not about sacramental realities. ...His assertion of jurisdiction of all Christians is restricted to the Church Militant, which tends to identify the Church in Protestant fashion with what can be seen instead of totus Christus who transcends time and space. One might expect this truncated view if the Church were an organization where the administrative dimension is most important. But the Church is an organism spanning heaven and earth, and its unity as a sacrament cannot be replaced by an earthly government."
The whole book is very good. McDermott includes an excellent chapter on the traditional male-only ordained ministry and why we should keep that tradition.
Yes, I was making the practical point that error and/or oppression that comes from Rome is much harder to resist than error from Canterbury or Constantinople because authority is structured very differently.
Pope Benedict made the idea of joining Rome attractive to catholic-minded Anglicans. And then Francis happened. As you say, it is not yet clear if Pope Leo will rescind Francis's errors and the damage they cause. I am sad for Anglicans who converted and now find themselves in great disagreement with the Vatican. I am sad for lifelong Catholics who see their church in distress. I am sad for the Church universal. If there were ever a time when an increase of faith is desperately needed, it's now.
I agree—the Pope’s role and the papacy’s influence are gravely misunderstood, skewed to an extreme. As you said, Francis’ tenure proves it. Moreover, history bears this out, not least through an American Catholic Church only now reckoning with Vatican II’s lingering damage.
But is Anglicanism the answer? Does fracturing into countless sub denominations whenever a dispute—valid or trivial—arises truly solve anything? Or worse, going with the flow of godless culture, like the Church of England, until the church is subsumed by it?
We sinners are the root of it. Our heresies and scandals rip through Anglicanism, as they do every church, parish, or denomination. So scandal won't stop, as depressing as that sounds.
This relentless splintering whittles Anglicanism—and Protestantism with it—down to a mere speck of a rock, a tiny atoll in a vast archipelago, swallowed by the surrounding sea. So while your concerns resonate deeply (similar ones kept me from embracing Catholicism until midlife) I see no future in Anglicanism as an independent denomination.
I say this with absolutely zero glee. I loved being Anglican and, in many ways, preferred it to being Catholic, if only I felt much more "at home" there than I do in the Catholic Church, at least in the parish I current attend. I felt more respected there and at peace--until I realized there was never going to be rest because every denomination eventually fails and splits. I was ACNA, by the way.
Just because Anglicans aren’t in communion with Rome doesn’t mean their orders are invalid. Just because they hold the Augustinian view of the sacraments doesn’t mean they don’t have the Eucharist.
For every errant pastor in the Anglican tradition Rome has a Jesuit or a short-haired, plainclothes nun doing about the same thing.
I don't see how anyone can think that the Roman church has more stability and credibility than any other organized branch, denomination, or church within Christianity. The ACNA isn't any different, which I am currently in. As long as the church is made up of broken, dysfunctional sinners (even though saved by grace), I don't see how this reality will change without a global spiritual revolution that transforms broken people. It would be great to see happen, but I don't think it is likely to happen until Jesus returns.
It's here over two thousand years on, the Church that Christ institutes. And that's the only reason it survives. The ACNA is decades old? Other noms 50, 75 or 5? They will all splinter and/or die bc that's the way of things.
Your reasons are practical, based upon the great difficulties posed by the papacy of the late Francis. I can't disagree.
May I recommend to you an excellent book by Gerald, McDermott, "Deep Anglicanism, A Brief Guide." He gives, citing twentieth-century theologian E. L. Mascall, an ecclesiological criticism of the modern papacy (pp. 328-329):
"The Church Militant on earth is joined to the Church Triumphant in heaven. This is what Augustine called totus Christus ... So the Church is a sacramental reality through which the Triune God saves us....But this is not what we see in the Roman rule that all Christians must submit to the bishop of Rome. This is a juridical role that is not about sacramental realities. ...His assertion of jurisdiction of all Christians is restricted to the Church Militant, which tends to identify the Church in Protestant fashion with what can be seen instead of totus Christus who transcends time and space. One might expect this truncated view if the Church were an organization where the administrative dimension is most important. But the Church is an organism spanning heaven and earth, and its unity as a sacrament cannot be replaced by an earthly government."
The whole book is very good. McDermott includes an excellent chapter on the traditional male-only ordained ministry and why we should keep that tradition.
I've read that. A good book and a good man!
Yes, I was making the practical point that error and/or oppression that comes from Rome is much harder to resist than error from Canterbury or Constantinople because authority is structured very differently.
Pope Benedict made the idea of joining Rome attractive to catholic-minded Anglicans. And then Francis happened. As you say, it is not yet clear if Pope Leo will rescind Francis's errors and the damage they cause. I am sad for Anglicans who converted and now find themselves in great disagreement with the Vatican. I am sad for lifelong Catholics who see their church in distress. I am sad for the Church universal. If there were ever a time when an increase of faith is desperately needed, it's now.
I agree—the Pope’s role and the papacy’s influence are gravely misunderstood, skewed to an extreme. As you said, Francis’ tenure proves it. Moreover, history bears this out, not least through an American Catholic Church only now reckoning with Vatican II’s lingering damage.
But is Anglicanism the answer? Does fracturing into countless sub denominations whenever a dispute—valid or trivial—arises truly solve anything? Or worse, going with the flow of godless culture, like the Church of England, until the church is subsumed by it?
We sinners are the root of it. Our heresies and scandals rip through Anglicanism, as they do every church, parish, or denomination. So scandal won't stop, as depressing as that sounds.
This relentless splintering whittles Anglicanism—and Protestantism with it—down to a mere speck of a rock, a tiny atoll in a vast archipelago, swallowed by the surrounding sea. So while your concerns resonate deeply (similar ones kept me from embracing Catholicism until midlife) I see no future in Anglicanism as an independent denomination.
I say this with absolutely zero glee. I loved being Anglican and, in many ways, preferred it to being Catholic, if only I felt much more "at home" there than I do in the Catholic Church, at least in the parish I current attend. I felt more respected there and at peace--until I realized there was never going to be rest because every denomination eventually fails and splits. I was ACNA, by the way.
During a time of apostasy, being small and even fragmented can have its advantages. I might post on that one day.
Eventually one picture emerges: every person is their own pope with their own liturgy and no Eucharist.
Sounds like Hell to me.
Just because Anglicans aren’t in communion with Rome doesn’t mean their orders are invalid. Just because they hold the Augustinian view of the sacraments doesn’t mean they don’t have the Eucharist.
For every errant pastor in the Anglican tradition Rome has a Jesuit or a short-haired, plainclothes nun doing about the same thing.
Truth isn’t decided by counting noses.
You've hit upon the key issue.
I don't see how anyone can think that the Roman church has more stability and credibility than any other organized branch, denomination, or church within Christianity. The ACNA isn't any different, which I am currently in. As long as the church is made up of broken, dysfunctional sinners (even though saved by grace), I don't see how this reality will change without a global spiritual revolution that transforms broken people. It would be great to see happen, but I don't think it is likely to happen until Jesus returns.
It's here over two thousand years on, the Church that Christ institutes. And that's the only reason it survives. The ACNA is decades old? Other noms 50, 75 or 5? They will all splinter and/or die bc that's the way of things.