Anglicanism: the continuing crisis

Would Roman Catholicism cease to be Roman or Catholic because the Bishop of Rome was no longer in Rome? It would of course be a terrible tragedy if the pope left Rome (it has happened before, though),

Rod, all that really matters for Catholicism is that the Pope be Bishop of Rome. As long as there is a Bishop of Rome, it doesn't fundamentally matter if he chooses not to live in Rome. Even though, as St. Catherine of Siena rightly pointed out, a Pope who doesn't physically live in Rome is the cause of scandal and an invitation to secular powers to interfere in the governance of the Church.

I think of that saying of Christ about the new wine and the old wine skins. What human culture isn't an old wine skin? None of them can contain the new wine of the Gospel. I find that thrilling whether it rocks liberals or conservatives or anyone weddd to an old wine skin.

Respectfully, is the Sexual Revolution what is tearing the C of E apart... or what founded it?

Chickens roost at home.

Since the collapse of English cultural self-confidence in the mid-late 20th century, Anglicanism has been exposed theologically and can't compete against more coherent expressions of the Christian tradition.

That's true intellectually, but, on the level of spirituality (of conversion to Christ), Anglicanism was still able to produce great Christian personalities, like Eric Mascall and CS Lewis, down to the middle of the 20th century. That indicates that it wasn't *all* about being a State church, with the cohesion that gave. It retained and preserved certain treasures, in its thinking and its prayer.

Rod -

in a number of religions place, or geography, is truly of central importance. Take Judaism, for example. You are half right with your comments above. While it may have worked (to some extent) in the state of diaspora, there was always a longing, a nagging "something" missing from Judaism that they felt compelled to return to. That's why making the state of Israel ANYWHERE other than Palestine didn't work for them. At one point, Russia even offered to give them similar territory (by size, and still in existence - Jewish Autonomous Oblast') and even let the Jewish people in Russia control it, and it failed. The Jews wouldn't take it, because they had to have Palestine. In a similar vein, Without Mecca and Medina, Islam would lose a huge part of its self. After all, you can't very well pray in the direction of Mecca or make the Hajj to Mecca if Mecca doesn't exist. Ditto if the Kabba were to be taken someplace else.

Land was also sacred to the Native Americans, and look at the state of their religions now (though, to be fair, it's not just that they don't have access to the land that was sacred to them, it's other factors as well).

Would Shinto exist outside of its sacred land of Japan? There have been a few, ultimately futile attempts to universalize it, but none have really worked. It is connected at the hip to Japan.

Even in Buddhism, we see strong connections to place. Tibet is a good example, most of the southeast Asian peninsula being another. Thai Buddhism is heavily tied to the traditions and culture of Thailand, as is Cambodian Buddhism to Cambodia (despite both being heavily Theravada). The Vietnamese Buddhist tradition, having a much stronger connection to China than to India, would be the exception. They got a northern-flavored Buddhism that is heavy on Zen and only marginally Theravada.

There are, truth be told, very few religions that are not attached to one place or another (Pagan/Wiccan worship being one that is pretty close). That is not a coincidence. Religion is very much connected to culture. The culture of a place usually has much more of an effect on religion than the religion has on the culture, despite religion informing culture.

But wasn't the whole point of Anglicanism an attempt to remain "catholic" without Rome?

In America, after the Revolution, the first Bishop of PECUSA was ordained, not in England, but in Scotland, by the schismatic non-juror Bishops...

Seems like this sort of thinking is not w/o precedent...

The whole idea of what Cantebury means in Anglicanism has always been something of an open question... Seems to me that you could make a better argument that the sense of what it means to #really# be Anglican is lost when an oath of loyalty to the crown is dropped... since the monarch is the head of the Church. (Funny... it was an oath of loyalty to a monarch that caused the non-juring schism.)

Christopher Mohr: I don't think most religions are as closely connected to place as you claim.

Judaism and Islam - I take your point. Suppose someone really did "H-bomb Mecca" - would Islam cease to exist??

Earth-based religions obviously are tied to place. Good examples are Shinto and Native American religions. As you say, most modern neopaganism isn't tied to place at all, which is really what is silly about it - the more serious neopagan movements, like Romuva and neo-Hellenism, tie themselves closely to specific locations.

Different forms of Christianity and Buddhism are tied to culture, but that's not the same as being tied to place. Within Orthodoxy - remember the doctrine of the third Rome - the shift from Asia Minor to Russia. Protestantism seems capable of being taken up and put down anywhere.

A key consideration is that, like the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, the churches of the Anglican Communion emphasise Apostolic succession. The Church in England pre-dates the Great Schism by many centuries and its bishops claim uninterrupted succession from the Apostles. The member churches of the Anglican communion abroad also share this sense of being part of One Apostolic Church with a direct lineage to the apostles.

Should our churches in Asia and Africa break away from the Anglican communion, they will have the awkward task of justifying to their congregations that they are still part of one true catholic and apostolic church. Possibly they will be accused by their congregations of being just another schismatic Protestant sect, maintaining that unbroken episcopy is unnecessary for ordination.

Terribly sad all round.

"In America, after the Revolution, the first Bishop of PECUSA was ordained, not in England, but in Scotland, by the schismatic non-juror Bishops..."

I don't think it's exactly right to term the Scottish Episcopalians schismatic, as they were in communion with Canterbury. The non-juror issue was over recognition of the non-Jacobite claimants to the throne. In 1688, when James II was slung out, a number of bishops in England, and the entire hierarchy in Scotland, refused to accept William and Mary as monarchs. In England, the non-juring bishops were sporadically persecuted, and set up their own shadow hierarchy, whereas in Scotland the Presbyterians became the established Kirk (they were far more numerous than Epioscopalians), and Episcopalianism became non-juring as a whole, as, in a sense, it still is. In England, the non-jurors dwindled in numbers, and most of them finally accepted the Hanoverians in the 1780s, when Bonnie Prince Charlie died. The last few dozen, however, converted to Greek Orthodoxy in the mid-19th century, which might interest Rod.

That snippet of information aside, I think the whole argument about Anglicanism is ridiculous, and would cease to matter if England grew up and had separation of church and state.

It's difficult to compare religions, or religious sects. They are asdifferent from each other as are individual human beings, or discrete cultures. They are more like cultures that individuals in that the dividing line between them is often blurry.

In a very basic sense, Christianity is not as much a "place-based" religion as its sisters Judaism and Islam. Islam could continue without the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, but it would be very traumatic for the faith, whose central tenets demand pilgrimage and prayer facing these two cities. However, Judaism continued in spite of the sacking of Jerusalem. It experienced a little death, it is not, many would argue, what it SHOULD be. But it is still strong and vibrant and viable, after all these centuries. It thrives now far beyond the borders of what would have been possible had things turned out differently.

The Catholic Church is not reliant on the physical location of Rome in the same way. One can easily picture the Pope in exile in Switzerland, or Portugal, or somewhere like that, standing in a large square and proclaiming the beginning of the years of the Pilgrim Church of Rome, with very easy references to scriptural passages which declare that we are all of us, human beings, strangers in a strange land. Christians doubly so, since the Son of Man had no place lay his head. There'd be some statement of solidarity with all stateless and powerless migrant and refugee people everywhere. And the Roman Catholic Church would go on, probably more inspired than it had been in some time.

Anglicanism, too, can survive, but I think it IS tied a little more closely to a place, and more importantly schism would cause difficulties with the succession of Bishops (though I am aware that the succession is rather difficult as it is historically.) Also, you'd have several rival groups claiming THEY were the true inheritors of the Truth. This universally leads to bitterness.

I think the traditions and prayers and the whole concept of a middle way can continue, though, regardless. Perhaps the new heart of Anglicanism will be in Lagos, instead of Canterbury. If this steam of Christianity continues the faith and furthers the Kingdom of God, what does it matter? Jesus' teaching were always about the hidden power available to the underdog, a power reliant not on political posturing or sheer authoritarianism, but on God. It would be cosmic justice (since Karmic justice seems a bit of a mixed metaphor here) if Africa became the head of a Church whose founders colonized so much of that continent.

"For we have this treasure in earthen vessels to show that this power is not from us but from God."

A couple of nights ago I was watching a wonderful film version of Jane Austen's Persuasion and afterwards was overcome with a deep sense of sadness that the culture described in the film is almost entirely gone. Yes of course there was a great deal wrong with it and no one was more aware of its deficiencies than Austen but it was also so humane and so beautiful. And what exactly is it that the current inhabitants of the United Kingdom are proposing to put in its place? I shudder to think. Personally, I think Anglicanism has less to do with Canterbury than with the Prayer Book. It was the only thing that held the communion together, the only thing that all of them shared in common, since there is no magisterium or binding confessional statement. Since the abandonment of the Prayer Book, all you have had is a communion of churches that used to be Anglican, and that share a common memory of what it was once like to be Anglican. That is hardly enough to keep it together indefinitely.

As to Catholicism and Rome--the word "Roman Catholic" is a relatively recent description. It was used in the Age of Reformation as a epithet(curse words, more or less).(The appellation should be Latin Rite, or Roman church, since the mystical body of Christ also included the Armenian Church, the Coptic, the Orthodox, and yea even St. Augustine of Canterbury’s Anglican Rite--thanks to King Henry VIII, and his daughter, Elizabeth).
There were originally five pillars of the church, Jerusalem (under St. James), Antioch (set up by Peter and Paul), Alexandria (by Mark), Rome, ad finally Constantinople.
So the Bishop of Rome does not have to be in Rome to be prelate over his charge.
As a matter of fact, several times the Latin Rite pope was NOT IN ROME. St. Theresa of Avila (if memory serves) had to convince one Pope to return there, from Avignon, France.
We believe Napoleon ha taken one pontiff from the city, as did various
Barbarians forced the Pontiff's evacuation.