Anglican Mission in America

[Wigglesworth]

About the Anglican Mission in America, their website states that they are "connected to the worldwide Anglican Communion through the leadership in Rwanda and South East Asia." However, I read in another thread that they are not members of the Anglican Communion. Can some of you shed some light on the connection for me?

 

[benedictine]

To the best of my ability, this is what I think:
The Anglican Mission in America is simply an offshoot of the Anglican churches in Africa and Asia, in an attempt to spread the gospel. True, there already is an Anglican church here, so they might be overstepping their bounds just a bit, but the anglican churches in Africa and Asia are part of the Anglican Communion.

This is similar to what happened in Los Angeles a couple of weeks ago. Two Anglican churches decided to split with the ECUSA over Gene Robinson adn other issues, so they joined the Anglican Church of Rawanda.
~~~Pax Christi

 

[benedictine]

Allow me to make an addendum.
The Mission is specifically endorsed by the Bishops of the Province of Rawanda. The Province of Rawanda is in full communion with Catnebury, therefore it is "fully anglican".
~~~Pax

 

[Polycarp1]

AMiA is comprised of a group of parishes and priests which split with the Episcopal Church in 1979 and shortly thereafter over the issues of Prayer Book revision and women's ordination.

The former rector of one of their churches, who was a leader in the schism, was consecrated as bishop by two Rwandan bishops and the Archbishop of Singapore.

The situation is somewhat similar to the OCA/ROCOR problem in Orthodoxy -- the AMiA is schismatic from the U.S.A. national member of the Anglican Communion, but is in communion with two churches which are themselves in communion with Canterbury.

Is he a validly consecrated bishop? Yes. Was that consecration licit? Not on your tintype -- it was intentionally done with the purpose of furthering a schism, on his part and I believe on the parts of the consecrators.

Is AMiA part of the Anglican Communion itself? Only if you consider that "Joe's Holy Catholic Church and Bible College, Inc." is a part of the Apostolic Succession because it can claim some tenuous line through Fr./Bp. Villatte and some of the guys that he ordained or consecrated.

 

[benedictine]

I take it Polycarp1, that you don't approove?

 

[Polycarp1]

How did you ever guess?

 

[RobNJ]

I take it Polycarp1, that you don't approove?

Ya think???

 

[PaladinValer]

The problem is this: you have an invading bishopric. This is, according to Holy Tradition, not acceptable. This is what the AMiA, added to the fact that many have, at best, a low regard for the ECUSA as it is.

 

[tyeutter]

The consecration of Bishops for the AMiA may be irregular but that does not make them invalid.
Who isthe EPCUSA to call the AMiA schismatic? Did they not cause the schism by ordaining and then consecrating a divorced woman as a bishop? Those who consecrate a practicing homosexual have schismed from the Church Catholic.

 

[PaladinValer]

1. There isn't a schism.
2. The AMiA is an invading bishopric where there is already a National Church. This is completely contrary to Holy Tradition.

 

[Polycarp1]

The consecration of Bishops for the AMiA may be irregular but that does not make them invalid.
Who isthe EPCUSA to call the AMiA schismatic? Did they not cause the schism by ordaining and then consecrating a divorced woman as a bishop? Those who consecrate a practicing homosexual have schismed from the Church Catholic.

I did not call them invalid, nor, I think, did anyone else. But on the schism question, I find this sort of argument to be the sort of sniping that is counterproductive, but I do feel that I have to say my piece.

It may well be that from the POV of the "Continuing Anglicans," ECUSA (and I'll accept PECUSA if someone feels it necessary to use it, but EPCUSA is wrong, and sounds like a patent medicine to boot! ) -- ECUSA may have strayed from traditional Anglican custom, though most of us feel that we are remaining true to what the Church has always stood for. However, the whole idea of them accusing us of being schismatic is flat-out ridiculous.

Suppose, for an analogy, that Erwin makes a policy decision here that I am vehemently in disagreement with -- so much so that not only do I quit this board, but go out and buy some VBB software and set up a board in competition with him and call it Christianity Forums or something of the sort. And I adopt his rules before the policy change for it. So far, nothing weird about this, except for my drasticness of action.

But if I then claim that my board is the real Christian Forums that preserves the historic way CF does things, while Erwin split off from my board -- well, that's crazy.

And that's precisely what AMiA and such groups are saying. In their shoes, believing as they do, I'd be proud to be called schismatic -- I'd admit that I split off in order to preserve orthodox doctrine when others were out to change it to something heterodox. But I wouldn't claim that they caused the split -- it was my choice not to remain a part of the church under those circumstances, and I'm the one who took my bat and ball and left.

ECUSA did what it felt morally proper, in ordaining women, in revising the Prayer Book, and in consecrating Bishop Robinson (by the way, have you read anything by him? Have you heard him preach? Do you know anything about him besides what the newspapers say?). That some people felt that this was so contrary to Christian doctrine that they needed to leave, I can understand. But we did not cause the schism -- YOU (meaning the Continuing Anglicans) were the ones who left. By your lights, you may have had excellent reasons to do so -- but it was your decision to do so. Taking the "You liberals created the schism" attitude is akin to a kid saying "He started it when he hit me back!"