I respect what you have to say Chaplain Kinsely but I question your understanding of Communion. I am myself a bit of a refugee from The Roman Church and love the Sacramental life their but it is the understanding of Communion that is incorrect. As a western branch of Christendom it is understandable that we look at Rome for our understanding but if Rome's ecclesiology is in err than ours would be too. Instead we need to look toward the East, to an ecclesiology that looks more like a family than like a monarchy. This structure is one that bears a strong resemblance to the Communion that exists in Anglicanism and one that is far more ancient than the top down Roman structure.

What gets forgotten here is that The Archbishop does not have any real authority so he’s trying to protect this Communion with smoke and mirrors. A politically polarized church plus a contingent from the Southern Cone that has no civil rights history mixed with a meddling (if not opportunistic) Pope has created a perfect storm. Right now the United States has chosen to move forward with what we see is the will of God, he has to do something so he stripped us of committees. Katherine is also in England just after it was decided that female Bishops will be given what amounts to alternative oversight, Rowan needs to look strong so that some Anglicans will not bolt to Rome.

The long and short of this is that the arguments between the two Bishops are political and not theological. Rowan is in a losing situation as is. He agrees with the theology of the American Church just not its execution and until things settle down expect this to continue. While this could lead to a breakup of the Anglican Communion it defiantly doesn’t necessarily mean so.

Chris Johnson

Precisely. This is the great irony, and the grand logical flaw, in ++Rowan's designs for converting "Communion" into "Church."

Discussion of the same can be found at http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Archbishop-of-Canterbury-hath-no-jurisdiction-in-this-Realm-/122318231136761?ref=ts.

Hi Chris - I guess you mean to respond to Lucas Mix, who's a chaplain at UofA.

I'm not sure who Chaplain Kinsely is, unless you mean me as the person who posted the article, but I'm not a actually a chaplain, nor the author of the ideas you're responding to. Grin.

"we need to look toward the East"

But would our Orthodox friends tolerate a situation where what is a serious sin in one church is considered a sacrament in another? They strike me as rather more adamently committed to unity of faith than that.

I am not one who is in favor of the international model. Nonetheless, I'm not sure I buy the argument that if the International Anglican Communion becomes the International Anglican Church that we will automatically become Roman and therefore the ABC is a layperson. It seems by this argument that the author is suggesting that the RCC is the only real and complete church, and here we are part of an incomplete church.

If we do adopt an international model, it would seem appropriate for the ABC (or whomever would be the head of said church) to be selected in a process that involves the entire communion. I do agree that the locally-appointed head of a single province with only historical authority does seem flimsy. On the other hand, we have all basically understood the ABC to have some primacy in the communion, so it's not that much of a stretch to think that his particular office could fill the role of head of the church.

Despite the argument presented here, if our communion does become a single, international church, then we would have to adopt a model that is unique to our own situation and catholicity. Just because a church is international & catholic does not mean this would somehow automatically make us Roman. They do not have to be the default for being an international church. They have their way of doing things, and we have ours. If we change to that model, we would have our own way of being international, with our own authority structure.

Matthew+, I don't read Chaplain Mix as being quite so literal as you read him. Of course an "International Anglican Church" could be set up that is in some ways distinct in polity from the RCC.

But that misses the core point, which is: all of Anglican separation from Rome in the first place, from which all Anglican distinctives flow, is rooted in the national autonomy claimed for itself by the Church of England beginning under Henry VIII. By the time of Elizabeth I and the 39 Articles, this gets summed up in Article XXXVII: "The Bishop of Rome hath no authority in this Realm of England."

Any "International Anglican Church" would gut this foundational principle of Anglicanism. And whether it's the ABC, or some primate chosen by the whole Communion, or some exercise of power collectively by the Primates' Meeting - a distinct pattern from the RCC, to be sure - it still guts and reverses that foundational principle and places foreign prelates in positions of power over the various national/regional provinces.

If that foundational principle gets gutted, then the very logic by which the Church of England was birthed as separate from the Church of Rome gets pulled out from under the Communion of national/regional churches that in turn were born out of the Church of England.

So sure, some newfangled polity that is neither the traditional Anglican autonomy nor the traditional Roman dominance could be crafted -- but the logic for the original separation from Rome will have been erased. It is in that sense that one must ask, well, if national autonomy is now to be abandoned, by what right did we depart from Rome in the first place, and by what right is ++Rowan not now simply replaced by a prelate appointed by the "Holy Father"? No one expects that to happen, but the very logic and legitimacy of the Anglican Communion's independence from Rome, rooted in the C of E's original declaration of independence from Rome, vanishes if one follows ++Rowan's designs to their *logical* end.

Matthew+, I don't read Chaplain Mix as being quite so literal as you read him. Of course an "International Anglican Church" could be set up that is in some ways distinct in polity from the RCC.

But that misses the core point, which is: all of Anglican separation from Rome in the first place, from which all Anglican distinctives flow, is rooted in the national autonomy claimed for itself by the Church of England beginning under Henry VIII. By the time of Elizabeth I and the 39 Articles, this gets summed up in Article XXXVII: "The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England."

Any "International Anglican Church" would gut this foundational principle of Anglicanism. And whether it's the ABC, or some primate chosen by the whole Communion, or some exercise of power collectively by the Primates' Meeting - a distinct pattern from the RCC, to be sure - it still guts and reverses that foundational principle and places foreign prelates in positions of power over the various national/regional provinces.

If that foundational principle gets gutted, then the very logic by which the Church of England was birthed as separate from the Church of Rome gets pulled out from under the Communion of national/regional churches that in turn were born out of the Church of England.

So sure, some newfangled polity that is neither the traditional Anglican autonomy nor the traditional Roman dominance could be crafted -- but the logic for the original separation from Rome will have been erased. It is in that sense that one must ask, well, if national autonomy is now to be abandoned, by what right did we depart from Rome in the first place, and by what right is ++Rowan not now simply replaced by a prelate appointed by the "Holy Father"?

No one expects that to happen, but the very logic and legitimacy of the Anglican Communion's independence from Rome, rooted in the C of E's original declaration of independence from Rome, vanishes if one follows ++Rowan's designs to their *logical* end.