As conservatives in Canada move toward discussion on the possible formation of a breakaway Anglican body this week, one diocesan bishop says the Canadian church is now facing "a full-blown schism."
Traditionalist members of the Anglican Network in Canada are expected to present the option of forming a separate Anglican body to those who want to remain "biblically faithful" in the global Anglican family but are in "serious theological dispute" with the national church. Details will be outlined at the network's national conference, which opens Thursday.
“This is a full-blown schism now within the Canadian church and it is a direct attack upon the catholicity of the church and the gospel of Jesus Christ,” said Bishop Michael Ingham of New Westminster in a recent interview with Anglican Journal, the church’s editorially independent newspaper. “It is one thing to hold differing opinions as many Anglicans obviously do on matters of sexual ethics. It’s quite another thing to establish alternative ecclesial bodies, which is schism.”
Divisions have deepened over what conservatives contend is the Anglican Church of Canada's liberal direction on homosexuality and scriptural authority.
Last week, the southern Ontario Diocese of Niagara became the third diocese in the national church to approve blessings for same-sex couples. The dioceses of Ottawa and Montreal recently passed similar motions and their bishops said they will consult widely before deciding whether to implement the decisions.
The Rt. Rev. Donald Harvey, retired bishop of Eastern Labrador, announced last week that he was relinquishing his ties to the Anglican Church of Canada and would affiliate with the orthodox Province of the Southern Cone, the Anglican church in South America.
Harvey, moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada, said he will be resuming full-time Episcopal ministry on behalf of "biblically faithful Canadian Anglicans who are distressed and feel they no longer have a home in the Anglican Church."
“The network says the church has already crossed the line in the sand, and they either repent and reverse some of the decisions they’ve made or we will find it difficult to be able to follow them where they seem to be leading," he told The Telegram newspaper.
“If [that] means separating from the Anglican Church of Canada, we will go with the communion of the world.”
Although the homosexuality debate has drawn the most attention, Harvey noted that even if that issue was resolved in the Anglican Communion, there would still be conflict.
"I do not like what some of the leaders … are now doing to [the church]. They are diluting that faith, and doing their best to make it acceptable to a society, that, in the long run, won’t appreciate it anyway," he said.
Harvey’s departure comes as Ingham, whose New Westminster diocese was the first Anglican jurisdiction to formally authorize the blessing of same-sex unions, warned clergy in his diocese that he would discipline those who take part in ordinations planned by Harvey next month. Ingham asserted that only the bishop of the diocese or another bishop to whom the bishop has delegated authority may ordain priests or deacons.
The Council of General Synod further stated that Harvey's secession was unnecessary to provide pastoral care to parishes and that such actions are "not a valid expression of Anglicanism."
"Interventions in the life of our church, such as ordinations or other episcopal acts by any other jurisdictions are inappropriate and unwelcome,” council members said on Saturday. “In particular, we cannot recognize the legitimacy of recent actions by the Province of the Southern Cone in purporting to extend its jurisdiction beyond its own borders.”
The Nov. 22-23 conference of the Anglican Network in Canada will unveil what Harvey calls its "lifeboat" on Thursday, according to The Telegram. Details have not been given but Harvey suggested it could be a historic moment.
Comments
i noticed that stuff in the movie. to me it was merely "white noise". i.e. taking "artistic freedom" in showing might have possibly happen. Although it is false, because the Catholics don't take jewish traditions and beliefs into consideration. it is merely conjecture. and to me, it just made the movie more dramatic, at best. I will say this...Mel did a very accurate account of Jesus being whipped. I'm glad he decided not to water that down. Other than that, it was just the same as any other passion movie I've seen...even from non-catholics.
I saw the movie "The Passion of The Christ" by Mel Gibson. I own it. And I think it's the height of pride to say that it is a "Catholic version". I watched it, and was shown the way it reads in my Bible. It is the Biblical version. So, now Catholic claim to own the crucifixion of Christ.
Hahahaa...now I know for sure how smart you are. the 14 stations of the cross and the five sorrowful mysteries of the rosary. Every mystery and every station is there, in order — including one event drawn entirely from tradition, St. Veronica wiping the Lord's face.
The film highlights Catholic eucharistic sensibilities by presenting the Last Supper, not chronologically before the Garden of Gethsemane, but in flashback intercut with the Crucifixion itself. This juxtaposition of the Crucifixion and the Last Supper reflects the Catholic dogma that the Mass, along with the cross, is a true sacrifice, and the sacrifice of the altar and of the cross are one.
Another key scene with eucharistic overtones occurs after the scourging at the pillar, as the two Marys, Jesus' mother and the Magdalene, get down on their knees and begin mopping his spilled blood off the flagstones. This image is bound to leave more than a few Protestants scratching their heads. Only in light of the Catholic sensibility regarding the precious blood of Christ in the Eucharist does it begin to make sense.
I could go on and on about the Catholic converts during the making of the film, Caviezel currently studying Catholic theology at Notre Dame, Mel Gibson....but it would just be way too easy. I needed a comment for sure that proved to me that you didn't know what you were talking about and this is it. Take care and keep watching the movie :)
I know this guy I quoted isn't a leader. I wasn't refering to him. I was just asking what you said about the Protestant leaders opinions on the Pope.
And you say that many great Protestant leaders say that the Pope is great man of God?
continued...
"John 14:6 says, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Nowhere does it say that Peter, Pope Benedict XVI or anyone else can supplant Jesus as the leader of the church.
It is these kinds of missives by Pope Benedict XVI that do nothing to support or build the community of faith. All it does is divide.
Protestant leaders: Don't buy into the foolishness. Let Pope Benedict XVI keep running off at the mouth and making pointless declarations. If you keep bringing good news to the poor, setting the captives free and assisting those who seek to know Jesus, then you'll make more headway in doing the work of Jesus than any 16-page document will."
continued...
"This is nothing but a naked attempt by Pope Benedict XVI to "own" Jesus by virtue of the Catholic Church considering the apostle Peter as its leader. He refuses to acknowledge the reality that Jesus didn't consider a church to be most important. What was? The Great Commission.
The Bible records in Matthew 28:16 that Jesus called his 11 disciples (the other, Judas, hung himself after betraying Jesus) to Mount Galilee and decreed, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age" (New International Version).
It doesn't matter what Pope Benedict XVI has to say, or for that matter, any other religious leader. A Christian believes in Jesus Christ and what He had to say, not what a man of God has to say. This is not an attempt to completely dismiss religious leaders, but is further evidence of what happens when ego is more important than the work of Christ."
continued...
"And the reality is that we were never really encouraged to study the Scriptures. The standard practice was for all of us to read the same pamphlets passed out by the church, recite the readings from the New and Old Testaments, listen to the Scripture chosen for us in the Gospel and hear a normally bland homily.
That isn't always the case at some Catholic churches. If you visit St. Sabina in Chicago, Father Michael Pfleger will surely have your soul jumping with his strong sermons and willingness to engage the community to get involved in direct action.
Yet as I reflect on my years as a Catholic, it pretty much was a wasted experience, as there was more identification with the church, and not with Christ.
And that's why Pope Benedict XVI is meaningless, along with his decision to re-state the primacy of the Catholic Church. This week, the pope released a document correcting interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, which some say modernized the church. But for hardliners like Pope Benedict XVI, the liberals went too far in some of their declarations.
But what ticked folks off was his assertion in the 16-page document by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that the only denominations that can call themselves true churches are ones that can trace their roots back to Jesus Christ's original apostles.
He even suggested they suffer from defects."
http://www.creators.com/opinion/roland-martin/supremacy-of-catholic-church-and-pope-irrelevant-to-other-christians.html
"Non-Catholics who are up in arms of the proclamation by Pope Benedict XVI that the only true church in the world is that of Catholicism shouldn't even bother getting upset. Just chalk it up to an old man trying to get a little attention.
For him to even suggest that only the Catholic Church can provide true salvation to believers in Christ shows that he is wholly ignorant of the Scriptures that I have known all my life.
Sorry, let me take that back. I've really only known the Bible for the last 13 of my 38 years. That's because those first 25 years were spent as a die-hard Catholic.
That's right, I was born and raised in the Catholic Church. One of the first meetings to build the church I was raised in — Our Lady Star of the Sea in Houston — took place in my grandparent's living room. Many of my Saturdays and Sundays were spent serving as an altar boy, Catholic Youth Organization leader, dedicated student of Catechism, and constantly reciting the Holy Rosary."
I saw the movie "The Passion of The Christ" by Mel Gibson. I own it. And I think it's the height of pride to say that it is a "Catholic version". I watched it, and was shown the way it reads in my Bible. It is the Biblical version. So, now Catholic claim to own the crucifixion of Christ. And so now you have a mega-church, and everyone must think that it's right because everyone else is doing it...and they walk right into a web of false teachings. Big doesn't mean right. And longevity doesn't either. There are many other religions that boast even being around longer than Catholicism...does that make them right?
And it's nice to know that I am saved and gong to heaven without the Blessed Church or His Holiness.
Where are the Galatian Catholics? And the Corinthian Catholics? As I recall...Paul wrote to many churches in different countries. So using that knowlege, it is presumptuous to assume that Rome is it. And as far as your speak on The Church goes...I kinda agree with you on that. That's why I'm glad I'm part of the Church. But going to church, or "being a member" of a church or even "THE CATHOLIC Church" doesn't make you saved anymore than sitting in a garage makes you a car. Salvation comes only one way.
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12
"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:30-31
I dont see anything about a church (or Church) there. I could quote more if you want.
Christians hold true to the Word of God. We don't follow the dictates of a church that teaches things contrary to the Word of God. And you keep going off on how you are so special that you have a link. So? You're not the only one. So what does that prove?
And yes, it is the Catholic Church that put the Bible together...and has fallen from the Truth since. If you are pinning The Church's holiness on something it didn centuries ago, well, that's just sad. "We put the Bible together, so we are sooo holy...AND the only way to salvation." God could have pick a bunch of monkey to do it. After all, He did make a donkey speak.
Please spare me some quip about not having our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ at the center of our faith. Has over 2,000 years proven nothing? Yes, there have had to be some changes made along the way - indulgences being one of the most obvious, but this is a Church that is 2,000 years old. I guess you are surprised that in 2,000 years some things have changed? The Church has and will stand the test of time.
Here's a good book for you:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0761529241/lewrockwell/
Or if you would prefer to watch a good movie to understand Catholicism then I recommend you rent the mission with Robert DeNiro or The Passion of the Christ.
A personal favorite is the Lord of The Rings. Tolkien always said the Lord of the Rings was Catholic and I like to think of the end battle as the enemies of the Church attacking the Vatican. In the end good always triumph over evil :)
What I'm telling you isn't new and that's why an incredibly large number of protestant theologians have a deep respect for the Catholic Church. Even this website we are chatting on has a Catholic link. The Holy Roman Catholic is not some new religious group that is looking for respectability. It is the Church that put the bible together, it is the Church that was around from day one. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is the world's largest, and Christianity's oldest, religious body. The Church comprises almost one-fifth of the total human population. She is far and away the most popular religious concept the world has ever known. Deal with it.
No one would have access to Christ's salvation if the Church were not in the world. In that sense the Church is necessary. But Christ's salvation is not limited to the boundaries of formal membership in the Church. In other words, we know from Christ's teaching in the Bible that the Church is necessary, but the Church holds out hope for those outside the Church that they too may be saved.
Acts 4:12 says that salvation is found in no one other than Christ, "for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." This verse and many others make it abundantly clear that Christ is the only Savior of the world. That is precisely why the Church says that its existence in the world is necessary for salvation: because we would not know of Christ had it not been for the Church. In Acts 4:12, Peter is pointing to Christ as the Savior, but he does so as an authoritative witness to Christ, as his chosen apostle. The people to whom Peter was preaching would not know of Christ except through his witness as the leader of the Church. So we can say that the proclamation of Christ by the Church is necessary for salvation. Outside of Christ there is no salvation and, by implication, outside the Church there is no salvation.
Thus, we don't know what God will do for those outside the Church, so it's best not to presume to judge. We can only hope and pray that God will have mercy on them.
You want to go straight from Christ's crucifixion to St. Paul to Luther and just pretend that the 1500 years that people were following the Catholic Church means nothing. You already stated that we put the bible together, and Paul was in direct communication with the Church in Rome because that was/is the Church. What separates your interpretation from the bible from the church down the street? Which is right the southern baptist interpretation of the bible or the northern baptist interpretation of the bible? on what authority is that based?
The Catholic dogma is indeed that outside the Church there is no salvation, but your interpretation of what this dogma means is flawed. The Church does not presume to know who will be in heaven with God. It makes no judgments in this matter whatsoever. The ancient phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus (literally, "outside the Church no salvation") has been a widely accepted principle since the earliest days of Christianity. Since the Church has no authority to deny long-established principles, it cannot simply throw out time-honored truths to suit the current fads of thinking.
And its interesting that most (if not all) protestants teachings is that Jesus is the only way to heaven, and yet the Blessed Church claims that IT is the only true way. The Pope didn't die for me and my sins. And he is just as much a sinner as I am. Just a much more powerful one, at that.