African Anglicans Are Not Interested in Union with Rome
November 4, 2009
Frost Illustrated has a short news article which points out that leading Anglican Bishops in Africa are not interested in moving from communion with Canterbury to communion with Rome. As is expected, theological differences are some of the reasons why they say they will not be crossing over.
But the other point they make is quite interesting. They just do not see the need to be a part of a large ecclesial community. They think they can do well enough on their own, in a smaller, more localized communion.
That reaction shows what happens when subsidiarity is left unbalanced by other (universal) principles in ecclesiology. The desire for Christian unity is lost and seen as unnecessary.
Advertisement
7 Comments
Comments are closed.
Wow. That is really shocking. Have they simply protestantized the “one” qualification in the creed? I know some groups treat that as a heavenly condition so to speak. I don’t know the Anglicans well enough to speak intelligently on this though.
Is the principle of subsidiarity in ecclesiology the same as the principle of subsidiarity in Catholic Social Thought?
Is the principle of subsidiarity in ecclesiology the same as the principle of subsidiarity in Catholic Social Thought?
Officially, no. Although Catholic ecclesiologists, bishops, etc. have been arguing for something like ecclesial subsidiarity for decades, and indeed point to evidence that this is in fact what Vatican II was moving toward, Rome insists that the principle of subsidiarity does not apply intraecclesially, only extraecclesially. Kind of like its view on justice for women. ;)
That said, the Roman Catholic Church does maintain, at least in theory, a tension between the local church and the universal church. It’s just that some ecclesiologists want to describe this relationship in terms of subsidiarity, while Rome seems nervous about such moves.
African Anglicans tend to be in the Evangelical (low church) rather than Anglo-Catholic 9high church) wing of the Communion.
Henry,
You say above: “The desire for Christian unity is lost and seen as unnecessary.”
Though I am not sure I follow your commentary on subsidiarity, I am curious about your sense of Christian Unity.
Is this “bridge” as some have called it really about Christian unity? It seems to me to be a move which implicitly undermines Ecumenical Dialog. In essence its a kind action which assumes a superior position- ie come to our Church and be united.
Of course they are not interested. People like the detestable Archbishop Akinola, despite being a bishop, are at the extreme Protestant end of the Anglican spectrum — or rather they are further than this extreme, being violent fundamentalists such as Anglicanism has never known. It is astonishing that these benighted folk are being offered First Tier status in the proposed new Covenant which the Episcopalians are relegated to Second Tier. The proposed tightening of anti-gay laws in Uganda, which introduces capital punishment, and three years imprisonment for parents or pastors who fail to report homosexual behavior, has the approval of Anglican bishops in that country, though they balk at the capital punishment clause. Akinola greeted the papal initiative as follows: We are glad that the Pope shares our biblical view of sexuality, but we continue to regard Rome as the fountain of error (I paraphrase). The only people who warmly embrace the Roman offer are the TAC, a breakaway group. The traditional English Anglo-Catholics are threatened by it.
Its funny they sound very much like the so called church of England about 300 and 200 years ago.
I would love to see what their so called communion will look like in about a hundred years.
All protestant “churches” are under the Newman egg timer. None can go pass 500 years without having to morph in to something else.