Why do we call them traditionalists?

The Rev. Dr. Ian T. Douglas, Angus Dun Professor of Mission and World Christianity at Episcopal Divinity School and member of the last Lambeth Conference Design Team:

"This radical innovation in church polity by Bob Duncan and his followers not only contravenes the ancient Christian councils of Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), and Chalcedon (451), but also goes against Lambeth Conference encyclical letters of 1878 and 1888, as well as Lambeth Conference resolutions 1897:24, 1908:22, 1988:72, 1998:V.13, III.2. In addition Paragraph 154 of The Windsor Report clearly states: 'Whilst there are instances in the polity of Anglican churches that more than one jurisdiction exists in one place, this is something to be discouraged rather than propagated. We do not therefore favour the establishment of parallel jurisdictions.' Seems to me that those who claim to be traditionalist have a very selective view of what the traditions of the Church are."

Comments (5)

They are often called "traditionalists" because they are traditional in certain aspects of theology. They are NOT traditionalists as far as ecclesiology goes. The irony is that it is TEC who is traditional in ecclesiology and willing to use legal means to enforce that tradition.

They are often called "traditionalists" because they are traditional in certain aspects of theology.

But what theology, Tom? Compared to whom? ["Traditionally" Christian, compared to the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, maybe. Not compared w/ the Creedal faith of TEC though!]

JC Fisher

They are "traditionalists" because they seek to live out the tradition has it has been handed to them. They are opposed to the innovations to the faith that leaders (and General Convention) in TECUSA have propogated. For example, saying that Jesus is not the only way to to God and that he is a "vehicle to the divine" rather than divine himself. Other innovations include changes in sexual morality - starting with the defacto changes in divorce and remarriage in the 70s.

Is the ecclesiology "traditionalist?" They would say that it is, relying on the councils of the church that urge people to leave heretical bishops and on the example of Saint Athanasius who commonly crossed borders of Arian bishops to celebrate, baptize, confirm, and ordain.

One of the problems that we run into is that the HoB is not willing or not able to discipline itself for theological error or heresy and there is no mechanism at the communion level for discipling a province that will not discipline itself. Thus, we have no discipline. So, the "traditionalists" are taking a play from the progressives' play book. They are creating "facts on the ground" at the communion level and daring the communion as a whole to either accept it or kick out those in the communion who do accept it.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Can't wait to see if these "traditionalists," as their first order of business, ban divorce....

For example, saying that Jesus is not the only way to to God and that he is a "vehicle to the divine" rather than divine himself.

If the Presiding Bishop

1) Banned LGBTs from holy orders (and blessings of unions), and

2) Had a penis

You'd be RUSHING, Phil, to explain how the PB's comments (accurately quoted) square PERFECTLY w/ the orthodoxy of "the Faith Once Delivered."

I know you don't WANT to believe this is just about sex (because sexual-obsession looks so???), but I'm just not buying your apologetics as anything else.

JC Fisher

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space