G
GKC
Guest
Sure. That resides in the rest of the sentence. They were given form, and established by Our Lord (Dominus), in the Gospels. Hence, Dominical.
GKC
- Status
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
No, he’s from another Anglican jurisdiction, totally separate from, and not a part of, the Church of England, whose ordinands are the ones theoretically bound to the Articles. So Spong is not . As is the case with all the other 36 Anglican jurisidictions which make up the official Anglican Communion; totally separate and independent, all. ECUSA (and they) is not bound, not being an Erastian Church, by the law that makes the articles (theoretically) binding on the Ordinands of the Church of England.Uh huh, yeah. Y’all are united under one God, until one of ye does something embarrassing - then it’s, “Oh, he’s a different religion than us.”
Though, come to think of it, the Spongster is perhaps a diferent religion, at that.
GKC
posterus traditus Anglicanus
C
chris_molter
Guest
Gahhh…
How awful. At least I had a pretty solid Bishop when I was a Piskie. I can’t imagine having an agnostic blowhard like Spongbob Squarehead.heeey now, we all have folks in our communions we’re not so proud of… McBrien and Chittister come to mind. Of course, we don’t usually put them in charge of anything important, and they do their best to avoid certain dioceses led by Bishops named Bruskewitz or Burke
Ok, so it’s NOT the same… but still, we can’t hold the good eggs accountable for the bad ones in the basket
G
GKC
Guest
True, true. But my point, in my rebuttal, is that Spong is in another basket from the one I was talking of, re: the Articles; i.e. the Church of England.Gahhh…
heeey now, we all have folks in our communions we’re not so proud of… McBrien and Chittister come to mind. Of course, we don’t usually put them in charge of anything important, and they do their best to avoid certain dioceses led by Bishops named Bruskewitz or Burke
Ok, so it’s NOT the same… but still, we can’t hold the good eggs accountable for the bad ones in the basket
GKC
C
Contarini
Guest
That is actually a moderate position. GKC’s position is the hardline Anglo-Catholic one, agreeing with the official Catholic view that the ordination of women is ontologically possible (though I do wish GKC would stop referring to “hairspray”–it’s the only occasion on which I’ve found him to be either silly or rude, but this particular joke is both). Had I been an Episcopalian back before women were ordained, I would have agreed with you. Since the ordination of women is a fait accompli, and since I cannot see much merit in the theological arguments against it, I have no problem with it. But it was presumptuous of us to charge ahead, particularly since now most Episcopalians regard it as one of our sacred dogmas!
Edwin
M
mercygate
Guest
I deliberately took the moderate position, although I did then hold the Catholic and Orthodox position. There was so much feminist swarming that the “hard” position was unmentionable in public.
S
slyboots
Guest
Haing been in ECUSA for 20 years as an adult and wading the Tiber 14 years ago, I have my own humble opinions on the Anglicans.
They are protestants unless they are Catholics. They either got their start directly with Jesus Christ handing the Church’s care to St Peter or they got their start from King Henry viii who lost his faith when he started thinking with the glands rather than his heart and soul.
My inlaws are Anglicans of one of the diocese which have broken with ECUSA. They would tell you rather emphatically that they are protestants NOT CATHOLICS as would their priest. Their non-geographical diocese would riot if they were called Catholic.
They seem to believe that the “gates of hell” HAVE prevailed against the “Roman” Church in spite of scripture.
They do not ordain women or homosexuals. But the Pope is anathema to them as is celibacy for priests, adoration, our love for the Mother of God and many other issues. They are 1928 BCP people, a beautiful book of prayers.
They believe they have “real presence”. And they seem to believe we Catholics are wrong as we can be.
So here’s my suggestion. If you believe in the Catholic beliefs don’t stop until you truly come home. All other stops are just detours.
P.S. I love my inlaws. I enjoy their company. I enjoy my friends who have chosen to remain in the various Episcopal/Anglican churches. I pray that their hearts will be turned to their true resting place, The Roman Catholic Church.
They are protestants unless they are Catholics. They either got their start directly with Jesus Christ handing the Church’s care to St Peter or they got their start from King Henry viii who lost his faith when he started thinking with the glands rather than his heart and soul.
My inlaws are Anglicans of one of the diocese which have broken with ECUSA. They would tell you rather emphatically that they are protestants NOT CATHOLICS as would their priest. Their non-geographical diocese would riot if they were called Catholic.
They seem to believe that the “gates of hell” HAVE prevailed against the “Roman” Church in spite of scripture.
They do not ordain women or homosexuals. But the Pope is anathema to them as is celibacy for priests, adoration, our love for the Mother of God and many other issues. They are 1928 BCP people, a beautiful book of prayers.
They believe they have “real presence”. And they seem to believe we Catholics are wrong as we can be.
So here’s my suggestion. If you believe in the Catholic beliefs don’t stop until you truly come home. All other stops are just detours.
P.S. I love my inlaws. I enjoy their company. I enjoy my friends who have chosen to remain in the various Episcopal/Anglican churches. I pray that their hearts will be turned to their true resting place, The Roman Catholic Church.
N
nsper7
Guest
Many Anglicans (and I used to be like this when I first started having come from a Protestant/Non-Denom/‘Funda-gelical’ background) do see themselves as purely Protestants. Others see themselves as primarily ‘Catholic’. As I have grown in my faith, I am what might be termed ‘Broad Church’ (meaning I guess I see the good in both the Reformed churches and the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Church).
Although King Henry VIII may have had less than pious reasons for his actions, remember that it was under Queen Elizabeth that true Anglican theology was put forward (the Elizabethan Settlement). Also, who is to say God could not work through Henry (we are all sinners, yet God works through us…Moses, David, Solomon, the Prophets, the Apostles…they were all sinners too, yet God worked through them).
My view of the Roman Catholic Church is…complicated, but fairly positive. On the one hand, there are certain facets of RC theology that I disagree with, yet I also believe and hope that Roman Catholics are a part of that ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ of the Nicene Creed. I respect the Pope and believe that he is the valid Bishop of Rome and I believe Roman Catholic Holy Orders are valid and that they do have the Real Presence. In terms of celibacy of the priesthood, I view that as a valid choice/discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, but not a requirement from God Himself. Since Roman Catholics believe in transubstantiations, I suppose Eucharistic adoration follows logically from it and, since you truly believe that God is present in such a substantial manner, I do not see it as idolatrous per se. Having read the defense of Marian veneration and the view of her as ‘Mother of God’ and Mediatrix, I do not, again, per se find it idolatrous, although I have some trouble fully comprehending the doctrines.
I sometimes think that if Anglicanism were destroyed (i.e. losing its legitimacy, its Apostolic Succession, its Real Presence and its foundational theology and spirituality), I might well become Roman Catholic, since I do believe you guys have a good history (maybe not as good as the Church of England’s: founded by Pope Gregory I and St. Augustine of Canterbury and the fact that +Cantuar sits upon the Chair of St. Augustine), AS and RP. The one hitch is those several theological disagreements.
C
Contarini
Guest
I know this is a joke, but it’s still weird. If the Church of England was founded by St. Augustine of Canterbury, the Church of Rome was founded by Sts. Peter and Paul, and it was a successor of those Apostles who sent out St. Augustine in the first place!
(Note the “if”–there were of course Christians in Rome before Peter or Paul arrived, but there were also Christians in South Britain before St. Augustine arrived!)
Edwin
N
nsper7
Guest
It is a joke, but it is also meant to get people to think as it were.
Also, technically, wouldn’t it have been Pope Gregory I who officially found that Province since he consecrated St. Augustine? What makes Anglican history, for me at least, so interesting is because, beyond just the Apostolic Succession, one could say that the Pope granted that ‘Chair of St. Augustine’ that is still used by the Archbishop today. So it is not just AS, but also a measure of authority.
The Chair of St. Augustine
Perhaps the historian in me loves the idea of being in a Church connected to, not just a Pope, but one of the most important Pope’s in early Christendom.
J
jmcrae
Guest
This is also why you won’t find that Church in the Anglican communion, but rather in the Catholic Churches that retained their connection with Rome.
N
nsper7
Guest
In a way, because of Apostolic Succession, the Anglican Communion is connected to Rome.This is also why you won’t find that Church in the Anglican communion, but rather in the Catholic Churches that retained their connection with Rome.
M
mercygate
Guest
I know where you’re coming from here but truly, the whole apostolic succession ticket got chewed up and spat out. I know GKC (or is it Contarini?) disagrees, but you really do mess up the validity when you mess up your intention in ordination.In a way, because of Apostolic Succession, the Anglican Communion is connected to Rome.
N
nsper7
Guest
Obviously, that is a major disagreement between Roman Catholicism and the Anglican Communion. We recognize our Holy Orders and Apostolic Succession (as well as that of the Roman Catholic Church), but you do not recognize ours.
J
jmcrae
Guest
For good reason. According to your 39 Articles, the Sacrament of Ordination is not a Dominical Sacrament (that is, you believe that it was not established by Christ, nor known to the Apostles - which kind of blows Apostolic Succession out of the water right there - how could the Apostles have passed on something they didn’t receive from Christ, nor know anything about?) - further, the Ordination ceremony itself does not include the intention to ordain priests as the Catholic Church ordains them.
C
chris_molter
Guest
Let’s hope a way forward can be found that would allow those Anglicans who’ve used a corrected formulary and Bishops consecrated in succession (PNCC, etc) to possibly have their orders recognized or validated somehow, without, obviously, negating Apostolicae Curae.
In other words, maybe we’ll find a way where some of the “Anglican” orders are not actually “Anglican” orders, but Catholic)
I don’t know enough about the whole mess to offer a response, but reading guys like Dr William Tighe (Catholic) and Fr Robert Hart (Anglican) gives me some hope that at least SOME sort of consensus might be reached.
N
nsper7
Guest
Well, Apostolic Succession is, strictly speaking, not necessary for a church to be part of that ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ since the Apostolic teachings are also key. From a historical standpoint, Apostolic Succession promotes legitimacy and a connection to the Early Church. After all, the Anglican Communion has ecumenical relations with churches that do not claim direct Apostolic Succession. Personally, I believe Apostolic Succession is very important, but not completely necessary.
Also, perhaps, instead of using the language of the XXXIX Articles (which use archaic wordings and linguistics), it might be better to talk of Greater and Lesser Sacraments.
The Greater Sacraments (Baptism and Holy Eucharist) are commanded of the Believer (as a Free Grace theologian, I do not believe that Baptism and Eucharist are strictly necessary for Salvation/justification, but they convey important sanctifying grace and Baptism kind of officially welcomes an individual into that One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and I would question why any Believer would, upon realizing that these things are commanded by Christ for the edification of the Believer and the Church, not want to be Baptized and partake in the Lord’s Supper).
The Lesser Sacraments (Confirmation, Holy Matrimony, Reconciliation of a Penitent, Holy Orders and Anointing of the Sick) are not commanded of the Believer, but they are made available for the further sanctification and edification of the Believer and as a connection to Tradition (the Lesser Sacraments, while not directly commanded by Christ, are extrapolated from other Apostolic writings [the New Testament sans Gospels] and Church Tradition). For example, Reconciliation of a Penitent, while not strictly necessary for the forgiveness of sins (I would argue that confession of sins directly to God is not necessary to be forgiven/‘remain Saved’; however, it is necessary to remain in ‘fellowship’ with God and to avoid certain temporal punishments and sufferings), it affirms that forgiveness from God and spiritual healing (James 5:16). Obviously, not all Believers are called to marriage (Holy Matrimony) and the priesthood (Holy Orders).
As a caveat, for those who are Baptized as infants, Confirmation is necessary (or at least highly recommended) so that the individual can vocally profess and personally affirm their faith and beliefs.
- Status