"Competitive preachers"? That does sound intriguing. Do you mean you get 2, or perhaps more, preachers with known divergent views, and see what happens? Or is it that someone in the congregation can ask to counter the argument? It does sound rather exciting; thank you Jengie.
As far as I can gather they would get several preachers to preach a sermon in turn. Then each had their turn at preaching a sermon and then I think it was opened to the congregation for discussion and a decision on which was the best sermon.
I have done the Reformed walk once - on a clergyman who was dangerously close to, or actually, preaching Modalism. In my 'catholic phase' I also managed to do the Anglo-Catholic flounce, but that is a totally different thing altogether.
Surely one has to be reasonably tolerant of heresies relating to the trinity otherwise one would rarely get through a service on Trinity Sunday?
Generally I'll grit my teeth through more technical heresies, and only get really angry with hate being preached from the pulpit.
Our lovely priest informed us that the Trinity was three aspects of one person this last Trinity Sunday.
I think I was the only one who noticed,
Fair to say that theology wouldn't be his specialised subject in a quiz.
I have done the Reformed walk once - on a clergyman who was dangerously close to, or actually, preaching Modalism. In my 'catholic phase' I also managed to do the Anglo-Catholic flounce, but that is a totally different thing altogether.
Surely one has to be reasonably tolerant of heresies relating to the trinity otherwise one would rarely get through a service on Trinity Sunday?
Generally I'll grit my teeth through more technical heresies, and only get really angry with hate being preached from the pulpit.
Someone ranging close to monothelitism or one of the more difficult to spell - never mind define - heresies is one thing, but getting it screwed up enough to preach something as obviously heretical as Modalism was too much. Mind you, I have sat through or preached enough Trinity Sunday sermons to think that saying the Athanasian Creed minus the fun bits after the sermon on Trinity Sunday would probably be a good idea.
I have done the Reformed walk once - on a clergyman who was dangerously close to, or actually, preaching Modalism. In my 'catholic phase' I also managed to do the Anglo-Catholic flounce, but that is a totally different thing altogether.
Surely one has to be reasonably tolerant of heresies relating to the trinity otherwise one would rarely get through a service on Trinity Sunday?
Generally I'll grit my teeth through more technical heresies, and only get really angry with hate being preached from the pulpit.
Someone ranging close to monothelitism or one of the more difficult to spell - never mind define - heresies is one thing, but getting it screwed up enough to preach something as obviously heretical as Modalism was too much. Mind you, I have sat through or preached enough Trinity Sunday sermons to think that saying the Athanasian Creed minus the fun bits after the sermon on Trinity Sunday would probably be a good idea.
('the fun bits' are the damnatory clauses.)
Maybe on Trinity Sunday designated homilies should be read out loud, as used to happen long ago? I'd love to hear a real engagement with the doctrine of the Trinity.
Maybe on Trinity Sunday designated homilies should be read out loud, as used to happen long ago? I'd love to hear a real engagement with the doctrine of the Trinity.
Not a bad idea. The best Trinity Sunday sermons I've heard skip the temptation to start with a joke about how hard it is to preach on Trinity Sunday or funny ways clerics have escaped the task, and delve right into the readings (or creed, or other good sources) to make one important point about the Trinity that can be put into practice in our lives. There's no need to give the comprehensively perfect doctrinal exposition for all time.
Not a bad idea. The best Trinity Sunday sermons I've heard skip the temptation to start with a joke about how hard it is to preach on Trinity Sunday or funny ways clerics have escaped the task, and delve right into the readings (or creed, or other good sources) to make one important point about the Trinity that can be put into practice in our lives. There's no need to give the comprehensively perfect doctrinal exposition for all time.
That would be great. The whole "God is community" sermon is good, but I'd love to hear something a little more intellectually engaging and/or challenging than that.
The safest course for any preacher is to start by declaring that day is that on which we celebrate the Trinity, say in no more than 30 words what that doctrine is, and then preach on the OT reading for the day.
Sorry for any confusion - the cassock, stole and cope is usual for the A-C churches. MOTR and trad Sydney would vest in black cassock, surplice and scarf - often just a black scarf but quite a few would change for seasons. The Moore College ones would think a pair of shoes and a shirt tucked in very formal but AFAIK, none wears thongs (US flip-flops) for a service. Does that cover your query?
A few points. About 20 years ago there was a motion put to Sydney’s Synod to ban the wearing of all robes of any kind because “they cause confusion to members of the Church of Rome and Churches of Orthodoxy when they finally convert to Christianity.” It was not passed but it an example of the mentality of some members of the ruling junta.
Reference has made to the changes at St Albans Epping. I believe some members of the congregation have fled to churches like St Johns at Gordon which is high church by Sydney standards. The rector at St Johns has just been made Bishop of the Murray. Many shudder at the thought on who the diocese will inflict on St Johns.
I'd forgotten that motion - perhaps deliberately! In any event, it was put forward provocatively.
Some of those who left Epping went to Gordon, others to CCSL and still others to a breakaway group. Our friends there say that they and most others remain with the hope that the next recto will be back in the tradition of the parish. As to Gordon, they will have trouble, but, unlike Epping, ++Glenn may not not need to find a parish for a mate who wants to return to Sydney and have a parish pay the removalist's charges.
A few points. About 20 years ago there was a motion put to Sydney’s Synod to ban the wearing of all robes of any kind because “they cause confusion to members of the Church of Rome and Churches of Orthodoxy when they finally convert to Christianity.” It was not passed but it an example of the mentality of some members of the ruling junta.
Sadly the arrogance behind this view is not exclusively Antipodean. Some years ago I went for an interview at Stowe, a very evangelical public school in the UK. They pride themselves on the network of Bible Study groups that work throughout the school, and clearly do a great deal of good. However, when these has been raised for the sixth time, I ventured to ask about the non-Christian members of the establishment, and how they felt about all this. A puzzled look came over the speaker's face: "Well, we do have a few Roman Catholics, but they seem very happy".
A few points. About 20 years ago there was a motion put to Sydney’s Synod to ban the wearing of all robes of any kind because “they cause confusion to members of the Church of Rome and Churches of Orthodoxy when they finally convert to Christianity.” It was not passed but it an example of the mentality of some members of the ruling junta.
Sadly the arrogance behind this view is not exclusively Antipodean. Some years ago I went for an interview at Stowe, a very evangelical public school in the UK. They pride themselves on the network of Bible Study groups that work throughout the school, and clearly do a great deal of good. However, when these has been raised for the sixth time, I ventured to ask about the non-Christian members of the establishment, and how they felt about all this. A puzzled look came over the speaker's face: "Well, we do have a few Roman Catholics, but they seem very happy".
My Catholic wife was a member of an interdenominational bible study group. Among its members were people from one of those one man shows chapels - Calvinist to a man. They were most affronted when it became apparent that her knowledge of scripture matched theirs, but even more that she probed them as to why they chose to take certain passages (creation) literally but others (Last Supper words of institution) metaphorically. She also wondered on whose authority these distinctions were made and the rationale behind them.
I recently attempted to undertake a vacancy consultation/review for the almost GAFCON church in this diocese. It's a remnant church after about 60% split off to establish a new pad early this year. I expected the remnant to be amenable to the mandatory process. No. "This is bullshit," declared one not-so-gentleman and stormed from the room, slamming the door. I spent an hour attempting to get the process going over unceasing if less, er, poetic exclamations and interrogations from the floor. In the end i canned it, conducted a short ersatz review, and left. I am currently writing up the review.
I recently attempted to undertake a vacancy consultation/review for the almost GAFCON church in this diocese. It's a remnant church after about 60% split off to establish a new pad early this year. I expected the remnant to be amenable to the mandatory process. No. "This is bullshit," declared one not-so-gentleman and stormed from the room, slamming the door. I spent an hour attempting to get the process going over unceasing if less, er, poetic exclamations and interrogations from the floor. In the end i canned it, conducted a short ersatz review, and left. I am currently writing up the review.
Hope you're ok after dealing with that. Did they have specific objections or are they just congregationalists who chafe at any diocesan involvement?
A few points. About 20 years ago there was a motion put to Sydney’s Synod to ban the wearing of all robes of any kind because “they cause confusion to members of the Church of Rome and Churches of Orthodoxy when they finally convert to Christianity.” It was not passed but it an example of the mentality of some members of the ruling junta.
Sadly the arrogance behind this view is not exclusively Antipodean. Some years ago I went for an interview at Stowe, a very evangelical public school in the UK. They pride themselves on the network of Bible Study groups that work throughout the school, and clearly do a great deal of good. However, when these has been raised for the sixth time, I ventured to ask about the non-Christian members of the establishment, and how they felt about all this. A puzzled look came over the speaker's face: "Well, we do have a few Roman Catholics, but they seem very happy".
My Catholic wife was a member of an interdenominational bible study group. Among its members were people from one of those one man shows chapels - Calvinist to a man. They were most affronted when it became apparent that her knowledge of scripture matched theirs, but even more that she probed them as to why they chose to take certain passages (creation) literally but others (Last Supper words of institution) metaphorically. She also wondered on whose authority these distinctions were made and the rationale behind them.
I recently attempted to undertake a vacancy consultation/review for the almost GAFCON church in this diocese. It's a remnant church after about 60% split off to establish a new pad early this year. I expected the remnant to be amenable to the mandatory process. No. "This is bullshit," declared one not-so-gentleman and stormed from the room, slamming the door. I spent an hour attempting to get the process going over unceasing if less, er, poetic exclamations and interrogations from the floor. In the end i canned it, conducted a short ersatz review, and left. I am currently writing up the review.
Hope you're ok after dealing with that. Did they have specific objections or are they just congregationalists who chafe at any diocesan involvement?
The latter, I think. Finished my report last night! I don't think they'll like it, though I try to be fair.
A few points. About 20 years ago there was a motion put to Sydney’s Synod to ban the wearing of all robes of any kind because “they cause confusion to members of the Church of Rome and Churches of Orthodoxy when they finally convert to Christianity.” It was not passed but it an example of the mentality of some members of the ruling junta.
Sadly the arrogance behind this view is not exclusively Antipodean. Some years ago I went for an interview at Stowe, a very evangelical public school in the UK. They pride themselves on the network of Bible Study groups that work throughout the school, and clearly do a great deal of good. However, when these has been raised for the sixth time, I ventured to ask about the non-Christian members of the establishment, and how they felt about all this. A puzzled look came over the speaker's face: "Well, we do have a few Roman Catholics, but they seem very happy".
My Catholic wife was a member of an interdenominational bible study group. Among its members were people from one of those one man shows chapels - Calvinist to a man. They were most affronted when it became apparent that her knowledge of scripture matched theirs, but even more that she probed them as to why they chose to take certain passages (creation) literally but others (Last Supper words of institution) metaphorically. She also wondered on whose authority these distinctions were made and the rationale behind them.
It sounds like they are pretty terrible Calvinists to me, or at the very least, have not read Calvin on the Lord's Supper. The modern day guardians of Orthodox Calvinism (TM) would can Calvin for being too Catholic.
I don’t know that I’d say “most,” but he was definitely less Calvinistic than many of those who would claim to be his most faithful spiritual descendants. Not unlike those Catholics who are more Catholic than the pope.
A few points. About 20 years ago there was a motion put to Sydney’s Synod to ban the wearing of all robes of any kind because “they cause confusion to members of the Church of Rome and Churches of Orthodoxy when they finally convert to Christianity.” It was not passed but it an example of the mentality of some members of the ruling junta.
Sadly the arrogance behind this view is not exclusively Antipodean. Some years ago I went for an interview at Stowe, a very evangelical public school in the UK. They pride themselves on the network of Bible Study groups that work throughout the school, and clearly do a great deal of good. However, when these has been raised for the sixth time, I ventured to ask about the non-Christian members of the establishment, and how they felt about all this. A puzzled look came over the speaker's face: "Well, we do have a few Roman Catholics, but they seem very happy".
My Catholic wife was a member of an interdenominational bible study group. Among its members were people from one of those one man shows chapels - Calvinist to a man. They were most affronted when it became apparent that her knowledge of scripture matched theirs, but even more that she probed them as to why they chose to take certain passages (creation) literally but others (Last Supper words of institution) metaphorically. She also wondered on whose authority these distinctions were made and the rationale behind them.
And those self-proclaimed faithful Anglicans who are out of communion with Canterbury.
Their major problem tends to be the rather esoteric brand of Anglo-Catholicism that they profess. As a rule, the third generation of clergy are not really all that Anglican, and have not yet realized that the Church they most closely resemble is the Polish Natty Catties.
ACNA is a different problem - it is ECUSA three minutes before Barbara Harris' consecration - and therefore is trying to make a permanent resting place out of a transitional position. They have not yet worked that out, and as a result, they have to deal with a lot of internal tension of the 'not quite open conflict' variety as their HOB is all about collegiality.
Our lovely priest informed us that the Trinity was three aspects of one person this last Trinity Sunday.
I think I was the only one who noticed,
Fair to say that theology wouldn't be his specialised subject in a quiz.
Not a Trinity heresy, but I've heard about a Confirmation service featuring an informal quizzing of the confirmands by the Bishop (a Roman Catholic auxiliary bishop in a large diocese). He asked, "What is God's most perfect creation?" "Jesus!" "Correct!"
Call in Bishop Athanasius!
(N.B.: I guess that is a Trinity heresy, actually...)
And those self-proclaimed faithful Anglicans who are out of communion with Canterbury.
Their major problem tends to be the rather esoteric brand of Anglo-Catholicism that they profess. As a rule, the third generation of clergy are not really all that Anglican, and have not yet realized that the Church they most closely resemble is the Polish Natty Catties.
Actually a union of "continuing Anglicans" with the PNCC/ Union of Scranton is being seriously considered.
That said, I'm not sure if communion with Canterbury is really a sine qua non of Anglicanism.
@SirPalomides - Some of the "high heid yins" in the Continuing Church tried to get it together with the PNCC back in the 1980s but it did not go well partly because the bishop who spearheaded the effort was a chancer (and that is being polite,) and partly because the time was not yet ripe; i.e. not enough of the old Protestant Episcopalians had died off yet. Another effort of that period involved the Philippine Independent Catholic Church, and that seemed to have been birthed under an unlucky star as well.
I am not going to get too far into the whole 'communion with Canterbury' discussion as there are currently too many impaired relationships within Anglicanism to make the discussion meaningful.
Well if that is true, I cannot see how you can claim to be Reformed if you are not part of the World Communion of Reformed Churches or how you can claim to be Catholic and not in communion with Rome.
Please realise that there are two ways of identifying, you can identify as something because you have membership of a club (belonging) or you can also identify because of you meet specific criteria (characteristics). Anglicans love to when they do not actually have membership to decided on criteria and then identify on the basis of those criteria whether or not the club actually accepts this. The Reformed and the Catholic being the prime examples of how they do this. So when I see Anglicans getting upset when someone plays the characteristic identity as an Anglican card but who does not the belonging card with respect to Anglicanism that seems to me....
The cynical side of my personality tends to believe that the Canterbury thing became so important because Liberals are deeply adverse to there being any confessional basis, and the Anglo-Catholics and the Evangelicals would have great difficulty agreeing on anything beyond the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. BTW, it should be remembered that the CLQ was not originally intended to be a definition of Anglicanism, but of what Anglicans regarded as indispensable in any future ecumenical engagement.
The Anglican Covenant idea largely foundered on the anti-confessional rock. I don't pretend to understand the politics (though I do get the theology behind it) but it would seem to me that at the very least the GAFCON churches and Canterbury have a strained relationship.
It has always struck me as strange that a Protestant Church would substitute communion with a particular person/office for a confessional identity, but then odd is Anglicanism's middle name.
@Jengie Jon - I notice that there are some very familiar "Reformed" denominational names - at least to me - missing from the WCRC list including the Reformed Church, United States; the Presbyterian Church of America; and the Orthodoxy Presbyterian Church. I hope that is the point you were kind of making.
Their major problem tends to be the rather esoteric brand of Anglo-Catholicism that they profess. As a rule, the third generation of clergy are not really all that Anglican, and have not yet realized that the Church they most closely resemble is the Polish Natty Catties.
I was very involved in an Anglican Catholic Church parish some years ago before reverting back to ECUSA, and I generally found this to be the case.
Quite a few (but not all) of what younger clerics there were in the diocese seemed more like Old Catholics with a fondness for "Elizabethan" English than anything. Older clergyman could "speak Anglican" well enough to pacify some of the old-school Episcopalians who just wanted the 1928 prayer book but could put up with a missal mass. I don't think that's the case now, but of course the shibboleth of "1928" (despite the book never being used) also means less and less as the original Continuers die off.
My own former congregation was a Prayer Book Catholic sort of place that did a better than average job of engaging the community, and conducted the '28 liturgy in a reverent but accessible way. I hope it will stick around, even though I couldn't for reasons that are still further afield of Ecclesiantics than I've already gone.
Well if that is true, I cannot see how you can claim to be Reformed if you are not part of the World Communion of Reformed Churches or how you can claim to be Catholic and not in communion with Rome.
Please realise that there are two ways of identifying, you can identify as something because you have membership of a club (belonging) or you can also identify because of you meet specific criteria (characteristics). Anglicans love to when they do not actually have membership to decided on criteria and then identify on the basis of those criteria whether or not the club actually accepts this. The Reformed and the Catholic being the prime examples of how they do this. So when I see Anglicans getting upset when someone plays the characteristic identity as an Anglican card but who does not the belonging card with respect to Anglicanism that seems to me....
I can see why you might think that, but the identities of Reformed and Catholic both predate modern organisations associated with them ("This is the Catholic faith..."), and the words have specific meanings that go beyond the organisational. Anglican identity arose solely from association with the Church of England. You can be an Episcopalian outwith that association but calling yourself Anglican when you want nothing to do with Canterbury is a bit like leaving the Labour Party and trying to claim you're still a Labour MP.
Anglican identity arose solely from association with the Church of England.
Mightn’t the Scottish Episcopal Church take issue with this?
Some might, I suppose, though I'm struggling to see why - our identity as Episcopalians with a distinct heritage overlaps with and in the past has been in conflict with our links with Canterbury
Anglican identity arose solely from association with the Church of England.
Mightn’t the Scottish Episcopal Church take issue with this?
They might, but it would be a stretch in some respects given that the Historic Succession was reintroduced from England c.1610, though care was taken that the principle consecrator was someone other than the two archbishops. The process had to be repeated in 1660 as I believe only Bishop Sydserf of Orkney was active enough to participate in the consecration of new bishops for the vacant Scottish sees.
Comments
Our lovely priest informed us that the Trinity was three aspects of one person this last Trinity Sunday.
I think I was the only one who noticed,
Fair to say that theology wouldn't be his specialised subject in a quiz.
Someone ranging close to monothelitism or one of the more difficult to spell - never mind define - heresies is one thing, but getting it screwed up enough to preach something as obviously heretical as Modalism was too much. Mind you, I have sat through or preached enough Trinity Sunday sermons to think that saying the Athanasian Creed minus the fun bits after the sermon on Trinity Sunday would probably be a good idea.
('the fun bits' are the damnatory clauses.)
Maybe on Trinity Sunday designated homilies should be read out loud, as used to happen long ago? I'd love to hear a real engagement with the doctrine of the Trinity.
Not a bad idea. The best Trinity Sunday sermons I've heard skip the temptation to start with a joke about how hard it is to preach on Trinity Sunday or funny ways clerics have escaped the task, and delve right into the readings (or creed, or other good sources) to make one important point about the Trinity that can be put into practice in our lives. There's no need to give the comprehensively perfect doctrinal exposition for all time.
That would be great. The whole "God is community" sermon is good, but I'd love to hear something a little more intellectually engaging and/or challenging than that.
GeeD, I think you might mean alb, stole and cope?
Reference has made to the changes at St Albans Epping. I believe some members of the congregation have fled to churches like St Johns at Gordon which is high church by Sydney standards. The rector at St Johns has just been made Bishop of the Murray. Many shudder at the thought on who the diocese will inflict on St Johns.
Some of those who left Epping went to Gordon, others to CCSL and still others to a breakaway group. Our friends there say that they and most others remain with the hope that the next recto will be back in the tradition of the parish. As to Gordon, they will have trouble, but, unlike Epping, ++Glenn may not not need to find a parish for a mate who wants to return to Sydney and have a parish pay the removalist's charges.
Sadly the arrogance behind this view is not exclusively Antipodean. Some years ago I went for an interview at Stowe, a very evangelical public school in the UK. They pride themselves on the network of Bible Study groups that work throughout the school, and clearly do a great deal of good. However, when these has been raised for the sixth time, I ventured to ask about the non-Christian members of the establishment, and how they felt about all this. A puzzled look came over the speaker's face: "Well, we do have a few Roman Catholics, but they seem very happy".
My Catholic wife was a member of an interdenominational bible study group. Among its members were people from one of those one man shows chapels - Calvinist to a man. They were most affronted when it became apparent that her knowledge of scripture matched theirs, but even more that she probed them as to why they chose to take certain passages (creation) literally but others (Last Supper words of institution) metaphorically. She also wondered on whose authority these distinctions were made and the rationale behind them.
Hope you're ok after dealing with that. Did they have specific objections or are they just congregationalists who chafe at any diocesan involvement?
Mrs29 sounds like an impressive lady!
The latter, I think. Finished my report last night! I don't think they'll like it, though I try to be fair.
It sounds like they are pretty terrible Calvinists to me, or at the very least, have not read Calvin on the Lord's Supper. The modern day guardians of Orthodox Calvinism (TM) would can Calvin for being too Catholic.
Formidable is the word I would use.
Their major problem tends to be the rather esoteric brand of Anglo-Catholicism that they profess. As a rule, the third generation of clergy are not really all that Anglican, and have not yet realized that the Church they most closely resemble is the Polish Natty Catties.
ACNA is a different problem - it is ECUSA three minutes before Barbara Harris' consecration - and therefore is trying to make a permanent resting place out of a transitional position. They have not yet worked that out, and as a result, they have to deal with a lot of internal tension of the 'not quite open conflict' variety as their HOB is all about collegiality.
Not a Trinity heresy, but I've heard about a Confirmation service featuring an informal quizzing of the confirmands by the Bishop (a Roman Catholic auxiliary bishop in a large diocese). He asked, "What is God's most perfect creation?" "Jesus!" "Correct!"
Call in Bishop Athanasius!
(N.B.: I guess that is a Trinity heresy, actually...)
Actually a union of "continuing Anglicans" with the PNCC/ Union of Scranton is being seriously considered.
That said, I'm not sure if communion with Canterbury is really a sine qua non of Anglicanism.
I am not going to get too far into the whole 'communion with Canterbury' discussion as there are currently too many impaired relationships within Anglicanism to make the discussion meaningful.
Please realise that there are two ways of identifying, you can identify as something because you have membership of a club (belonging) or you can also identify because of you meet specific criteria (characteristics). Anglicans love to when they do not actually have membership to decided on criteria and then identify on the basis of those criteria whether or not the club actually accepts this. The Reformed and the Catholic being the prime examples of how they do this. So when I see Anglicans getting upset when someone plays the characteristic identity as an Anglican card but who does not the belonging card with respect to Anglicanism that seems to me....
The Anglican Covenant idea largely foundered on the anti-confessional rock. I don't pretend to understand the politics (though I do get the theology behind it) but it would seem to me that at the very least the GAFCON churches and Canterbury have a strained relationship.
It has always struck me as strange that a Protestant Church would substitute communion with a particular person/office for a confessional identity, but then odd is Anglicanism's middle name.
@Jengie Jon - I notice that there are some very familiar "Reformed" denominational names - at least to me - missing from the WCRC list including the Reformed Church, United States; the Presbyterian Church of America; and the Orthodoxy Presbyterian Church. I hope that is the point you were kind of making.
I was very involved in an Anglican Catholic Church parish some years ago before reverting back to ECUSA, and I generally found this to be the case.
Quite a few (but not all) of what younger clerics there were in the diocese seemed more like Old Catholics with a fondness for "Elizabethan" English than anything. Older clergyman could "speak Anglican" well enough to pacify some of the old-school Episcopalians who just wanted the 1928 prayer book but could put up with a missal mass. I don't think that's the case now, but of course the shibboleth of "1928" (despite the book never being used) also means less and less as the original Continuers die off.
My own former congregation was a Prayer Book Catholic sort of place that did a better than average job of engaging the community, and conducted the '28 liturgy in a reverent but accessible way. I hope it will stick around, even though I couldn't for reasons that are still further afield of Ecclesiantics than I've already gone.
I can see why you might think that, but the identities of Reformed and Catholic both predate modern organisations associated with them ("This is the Catholic faith..."), and the words have specific meanings that go beyond the organisational. Anglican identity arose solely from association with the Church of England. You can be an Episcopalian outwith that association but calling yourself Anglican when you want nothing to do with Canterbury is a bit like leaving the Labour Party and trying to claim you're still a Labour MP.
Some might, I suppose, though I'm struggling to see why - our identity as Episcopalians with a distinct heritage overlaps with and in the past has been in conflict with our links with Canterbury
They might, but it would be a stretch in some respects given that the Historic Succession was reintroduced from England c.1610, though care was taken that the principle consecrator was someone other than the two archbishops. The process had to be repeated in 1660 as I believe only Bishop Sydserf of Orkney was active enough to participate in the consecration of new bishops for the vacant Scottish sees.