There was a question over at https://forums.anglican.net/threads...he-continuing-churches.2750/page-4#post-45560: The Southern Baptist Convention in the 1970s is one example. It was one of the more progressive groups all through the 1950s and 60s, until the young Al Mohler became president of the Seminary, fired all of the even-slightly liberal staff, and spent the next 30 years transforming the SBC into a conservative powerhouse. (What happened last week is another story). Another example is some Lutheran churches over in Eastern Europe that were ravaged by the Soviet Union, had liberalism, women’s ordination, everything. After the Soviet Union collapsed the 1990s, there are stories where the new Lutheran bishops restored the theology, all of the women ministers were put on retirement, the all-powerful liberal seminaries were isolated and new ones were built. Over time, an all male-clergy, in brand-new orthodox seminaries, turned the page. In 2016, after 13 patient years, their synod finally passed the updated canons on ordination: https://pastoralmeanderings.blogspot.com/2016/06/a-hopeful-restoration.html
I was a bit young for that, but I came up through the SBC and I remember the fallout in the 1980's. Mohler did indeed make the Baptists more conservative, but he didn't necessarily make them more doctrinaire. A lot of Mohler's critics contended that he sacrificed theology on the altar of moral-majority "conservatism". I don't agree with that critique entirely, but there is more than a bit of truth to it. You can compare it to a guy who streamlines and focuses a failing business to make it successful, but neglects quality-control in the drive for more efficient operation. The SBC became a socio-political powerhouse, but in terms of theology it was (and remains) truncated.
The Seminex controversy in LCMS is an interesting study. I don't know if it's more fair to call that a turn back from liberalization or an excision of the infected tissue of the body. Whatever the case, most of those people ended up in ELCA and continued down a very troublesome road. The LCMS had a second bout of liberalization under the presidency of Gerald Kieschnick (2001-2010). In his second election, the powerful and 'confessional' stalwart Preus family was toppled from the highest offices in that church and the Conservatives were quite grumpy. They got one more term of Kieschnick (LCMS presidents serve 3 year terms) before they managed to rally the troops enough to get Matthew Harrison into the office. The fallout and the after effects are still being worked through and felt. After all, for a Kieschnick to be elected there had to exist a significant voting block who wanted the synod to move in the direction he envisioned.
One more example I have to add to this list, is actually Rome, under the pontificate of the previous pope Benedict XVI. That was when I was coming up and discerning Christianity, and under his reign I saw an incredibly robust and confident RC traditionalism. Not just conservatism as under John Paul II, but old latin-mass traditionalism. Young people were learning Latin; Thomas Aquinas was cool, Bellarmine was cool, the liberals were old and wack. The liberals were terrified of showing themselves; all kinds of strident memes were flying about the glories of the Roman tradition, Roman theological schools, Roman spiritual masters. New Thomist podcasts and blogs were popping up like mushrooms. In comparison to other churches, the sight of Rome being a beacon of anti-modernism almost gave truth to their theology of the Papacy being protected by God. The confident millennials in their tweed jackets, were making endless snarky memes against liberals, against atheism; everyone was marrying young, having lots of kids, pious devotions; their online communities were full of talk about how 'the Prots' were losing (and indeed destined to lose); how everyone should convert to Rome for safety. And in fact everyone did convert to Rome: that's when the Ordinariate was established, and tons of good Anglicans were seduced by this mirage into converting (only to be bitterly disappointed). The Queen's own chaplain Gavin Ashenden was a victim of this. Now of course everyone is fleeing from Rome with just the clothes they have on their backs; but under Benedict XVI it was an epic edifice of colossal traditionalism that seemed insurmountable, protected by the Holy Ghost, and guaranteed in victory.
Unfortunately, Benedict had neither the foresight nor the strength to remain in office for just a few more years. If he had the poor RC Church may not have had Francis thrust on them. The liberal group that got him elected, known as the St Gallen Group, were all quite close to the age (80) when they could not have participated in a conclave. The same group nearly got Jorge Borgoglio elected in 2005. That is why I cannot understand why Benedict was so blind to their ability to get Borgoglio elected as his successor.
As I understand it, he wasn't blind to it. He met with Francis (then Borgoglio) before resigning to give him notice, and advice on how to be a good Pope.
No way to be sure, but some theorize that Benedict was told to resign or else become like John Paul I (who died prematurely and, some say, under questionable circumstances).
How could Pope benedict do this. He could not know for certain francis would be elected. Therefore, I find it strange he would do this to a particular cardinal. I have read he wanted a conservative like himself to succeed him, namely Angelo Card. Scola and directed the then Secretary of State of the Holy See, Tarcisio Card. Bertone, to ensure this happened. Cardinal bertone did not want Scola as pope so ignored Benedict.
I do not believe Benedict XVI was forced to resign. I simply think he found he was no longer capable of being the pope, both mentally and physically. The Curia has grown so powerful, especially the Secretariat of State, that the pope's wishes are often not carried out or they're obstructed. I think Benedict felt he neither had the strength nor the ability to deal with this. Like most conspiracy theories I give the alleged murder of Pope John Paul I a very wide berth. From what I have read on the subject matter I believe there is no evidence for this.
Perhaps it's a made up event, but that's what it says in their dual biography. I just assumed it was a foregone conclusion, but if there was an actual contest it wouldn't have been appropriate.
True, but haven't you ever heard of the outcome of a contest being "fixed"? (Ever watch WWE wrestling matches? LOL)
Now you hurt my feelings. I still like wrestling after all these years. I thought about enrolling at Jimmy Valiant's wrestling school a couple of years ago. Jimmy is about to turn 80 and close down the school.
So PDL is a poet and he didn't know it. He talks in rhyme all the time. I'ld say that was hard to do wouldn't you? (blatantly plagiarised from the Two Ronnies)