![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Episcopal Church has been hit with an ultimatum from the assembled Primates (national bishops) of the Anglican Communion, who met at Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania last month. Essentially, the document which that meeting produced orders the Episcopal Church to stop ordaining gay men and lesbians, stop blessing same-sex unions, and accept the oversight of foreign bishops when requested by individual churches who disagree with the ordination of women and other such matters.
The House of Bishops has written a response to this ultimatum, stating that to accede to this demand would be injurious to the Episcopal Church, not only because it violates its church law and founding principles, but most importantly because it is spiritually unsound, in that it encourages the Western tendency to break relationships.
Of course, the crowning irony is that all this is happening in a church that was created because the Pope wouldn't grant Henry VIII a divorce. Nevertheless, the House of Bishops have a point: if the whole reason for the Anglican Communion's existence is rejection of the authority of the Pope, of what benefit to the Anglican Communion as a whole is a re-imposition of a rigid hierarchy, only this time invested in the Archbishop of Canterbury or the reigning monarch?
No, I really think the Anglican Communion is better served by agreeing to disagree on some matters. And as a lapsed Catholic who has at several times considered being received into the Episcopal Church instead, I think turning the Anglican Communion into a parallel to the Roman Church benefits no one.
The House of Bishops has written a response to this ultimatum, stating that to accede to this demand would be injurious to the Episcopal Church, not only because it violates its church law and founding principles, but most importantly because it is spiritually unsound, in that it encourages the Western tendency to break relationships.
Of course, the crowning irony is that all this is happening in a church that was created because the Pope wouldn't grant Henry VIII a divorce. Nevertheless, the House of Bishops have a point: if the whole reason for the Anglican Communion's existence is rejection of the authority of the Pope, of what benefit to the Anglican Communion as a whole is a re-imposition of a rigid hierarchy, only this time invested in the Archbishop of Canterbury or the reigning monarch?
No, I really think the Anglican Communion is better served by agreeing to disagree on some matters. And as a lapsed Catholic who has at several times considered being received into the Episcopal Church instead, I think turning the Anglican Communion into a parallel to the Roman Church benefits no one.
