|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
From: Audrey (adsl-64-169-92-228.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
In Reply to: Correct me if I'm wrong but.... posted by LG on November 23, 2003 at 6:25 am:
...it depends on the Anglican. Different branches of the communion tend to differ on the question of divorce. Virtually all consider it a grave wrong, and will work to keep a couple together if at all possible. That's also why pre-marriage counseling is required to get married in any Anglican church (including ECUSA). The main difference (and this is in ECUSA in particular...not in the Anglican Communion as a whole) is that, in the end, the question is left up to the conscience of the individual (this is more akin to the Eastern Orthodox approach). In actuality, the understanding of both "High Church" Anglo-Catholics (such as Werp and myself) and "Low Church" Evangelicals is more akin to the Roman Catholic...essentially, what God has joined together, no decree of man may put asunder. It's mainly among the "Broad Church" membership that divorce finds acceptance. It certainly isn't a stumbling block for Werp and me in particular. We both believe the vows of marriage to be permanent and binding. The really interesting thing is, it HASN'T been a stumbling block as far as reunification is concerned. The major stumbling blocks from the Catholic point of view have been the ordination of women (in 1979 in ECUSA) and this most recent consecration of a practicing homosexual as the Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire. From the Anglican point of view, the biggest concern has been papal infallibility (with some concern about such doctrines as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary...both, as nearly as I can see, based on a misunderstanding of those doctrines rather than on an actual objection to them). I think all of the potential Anglican concerns could be addressed in a way that most Anglicans would find acceptable. Bottom line, there really isn't much to keep an Anglo-Catholic from happily becoming a Roman Catholic. It's interesting that you should bring up divorce, because I've found that it's the one thing that most Catholics really do misunderstand about Anglicanism. The general assumption is that Anglicanism was based on Henry VIII's desire for a "divorce" (actually an annulment based on infertility) from Catherine of Aragon, and thus Anglicans must be in favor of divorce. The reality is, the Anglican schism occurred over the question of papal authority. Prior to 1066, the English Church had been organized more along the Orthodox/Celtic lines of allegiance to a local patriarch, and there was always a "push" to go back to that model. Henry's desire for an annulment (to which he was actually entitled under canon law at the time) provided the impetus, but would never have succeeded in separating the English Church from Rome had the strong movement toward the traditional Celtic forms not been present. The English Church has never been supportive of divorce, and to this day, does not allow it. In an interesting twist on all this, Prince Charles of England recently said that the reason he lives with his "lover" -- Camilla Parker-Bowles -- without the benefit of marriage is that the Anglican Church prohibits divorce. What he's deliberately "missing," however, is the fact that the Anglican Church also prohibits fornication! He's also missing the fact that, because his wife is deceased, he is, actually, free to remarry. I would be very surprised if whoever is Archbishop of Canterbury at the time Queen Elizabeth dies is willing to crown Charles. But, back on topic...the things that divide the Anglo-Catholic branch of the Anglican Communion from the Roman Catholic Church are relatively minor and mostly based on misunderstanding (and I include papal infallibility in that category). It would be very easy for someone who is truly knowledgeable of both traditions to explain things in a way that Anglo-Catholics would find acceptable. Audrey
|
