Anglican bishop lays mitre, crozier at our lady?s feet as he leaves for ordinariate [ewtn]

[JesusforMadrid]

It is the hill to die on for ++ Duncan. He went into the founding of ACNA with the attitude that W.O. is a non-negotiable. +Iker went into the founding of ACNA firmly opposed to W.O. The two (and others) agreed to disagree on this idiotic philosophy because they wanted to caucus together to put up a united front against TEC and Schiori’s minions. They thought that WO was a minor point of disagreement but I think +Iker is starting to reconsider. Guys like Roseberry at Christ Church Plano is a pro-WO thinker and he’s not budging. There are signs of wear and fissures within ACNA and I don’t think it’ll last. I think Anglicanism is too prone to liberal thought because of all the years of patience without outrage, all the years of contamination, and all the years of putting up with nonsense. They’re too acquiescent. After a while the rigidness of Catholicism sounds appealing!

As you might know, I’m going through quite a spiritual crisis in my life; it’s like nothing I’ve ever felt before. It’s an overall crisis not of faith in Christ (no question there! ) but rather of Church polity, soteriology, theology, and the basic “where do I belong?” journey in the wildnerness. Quite frankly, it really stinks. It’s eating me up some days. So I went and spoke with my rector, Father James, about my situation. We had a great conversation but he’s pretty honest about the pitfalls and negatives about Anglicanism and ACNA. For one thing, he’s really honest that ACNA is pretty much an evangelical body. He’s also honest that it’s far far from perfect. He also knows how Catholic I am and that he knows I’ll always be unhappy to a certain degree as an Anglican because of a host of issues we discussed. Another issue that came up is the fact that +Bishop Schofield is retiring from our diocese. Father James said, “will our next bishop be in favor of WO?” and I told him, “that shouldn’t even be a fear AT ALL and it shouldn’t be on the radar in the slightest!” He said he thinks the Catholic Church will someday allow WO to which I replied without thinking much, “it’ll NEVER happen in the Catholic Church because the pope is protected by the Holy Spirit, etc.” and I realized how inside me there still is that belief in Matthew 16:18. At my core I believe in infallibility to a certain degree and hold the teaching dear. I am at heart pretty Catholic. My disagreements with the Catholic Church on certain issues might just be something I have to squash and silence and just accept the Church’s rulings and suck it up or else I’ll stay Anglican and squash my disagreements with them. Bottom line: there is no Church where you’ll be 100% happy.

The sad thing is, I LOVE my Anglican parish and my family is so very happy there. My wife loves it and can’t stand the local Catholic parish. The Catholic diocese here…I’m not a bit impressed!

I can empathise with your struggles. I don’t want to commune with my present chuch, and cannot with that with which I would.

Yet I think wrestling with these issues is important. Hopefully, I am not mad.

For now, in any case, I am a Continuing Anglican.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

It is the hill to die on for ++ Duncan. He went into the founding of ACNA with the attitude that W.O. is a non-negotiable. +Iker went into the founding of ACNA firmly opposed to W.O. The two (and others) agreed to disagree on this idiotic philosophy because they wanted to caucus together to put up a united front against TEC and Schiori’s minions. They thought that WO was a minor point of disagreement but I think +Iker is starting to reconsider. Guys like Roseberry at Christ Church Plano is a pro-WO thinker and he’s not budging. There are signs of wear and fissures within ACNA and I don’t think it’ll last. I think Anglicanism is too prone to liberal thought because of all the years of patience without outrage, all the years of contamination, and all the years of putting up with nonsense. They’re too acquiescent. After a while the rigidness of Catholicism sounds appealing!

As you might know, I’m going through quite a spiritual crisis in my life; it’s like nothing I’ve ever felt before. It’s an overall crisis not of faith in Christ (no question there! ) but rather of Church polity, soteriology, theology, and the basic “where do I belong?” journey in the wildnerness. Quite frankly, it really stinks. It’s eating me up some days. So I went and spoke with my rector, Father James, about my situation. We had a great conversation but he’s pretty honest about the pitfalls and negatives about Anglicanism and ACNA. For one thing, he’s really honest that ACNA is pretty much an evangelical body. He’s also honest that it’s far far from perfect. He also knows how Catholic I am and that he knows I’ll always be unhappy to a certain degree as an Anglican because of a host of issues we discussed. Another issue that came up is the fact that +Bishop Schofield is retiring from our diocese. Father James said, “will our next bishop be in favor of WO?” and I told him, “that shouldn’t even be a fear AT ALL and it shouldn’t be on the radar in the slightest!” He said he thinks the Catholic Church will someday allow WO to which I replied without thinking much, “it’ll NEVER happen in the Catholic Church because the pope is protected by the Holy Spirit, etc.” and I realized how inside me there still is that belief in Matthew 16:18. At my core I believe in infallibility to a certain degree and hold the teaching dear. I am at heart pretty Catholic. My disagreements with the Catholic Church on certain issues might just be something I have to squash and silence and just accept the Church’s rulings and suck it up or else I’ll stay Anglican and squash my disagreements with them. Bottom line: there is no Church where you’ll be 100% happy.

The sad thing is, I LOVE my Anglican parish and my family is so very happy there. My wife loves it and can’t stand the local Catholic parish. The Catholic diocese here…I’m not a bit impressed!

I can empathise with your struggles. I don’t want to commune with my present chuch, and cannot with that with which I would.

Yet I think wrestling with these issues is important. I spend perhaps too much time reading about theology. Hopefully, I am not mad.

For now, in any case, I am a Continuing Anglican.

My prayers also go to you.

 

[Bluegoat]

Rite II

Well, yes indeed, that is very much like the Catholic service.

But I would not really call it Anglican, except in the way that women’s ordination is Anglican. Those newer liturgies came out of the same kind of thinking that gave rise to all the other problematic theology we see today in Anglicanism.

I’m used to an Anglican service that continues to emphasize the daily office, that is sung, that involves the recitation of a goodly number of psalms in the office and the Mass, and that uses the old lectionary and old propers too. But even a low church that uses the old order is much more like the DL than like a modern Catholic Mass IMO. I was actually very surprised about that - I hadn’t expected it from what I had seen on Youtube and read - I thought it would be very foreign. Interestingly I heard a similar comment from an EO acquaintance recently who had only been to the more modern liturgies before, a fellow who had been pretty skeptical about Western liturgies

To be honest, the state of the Catholic mass is something that gave me real trouble when I was considering Catholicism.

 

[JohnnyReb]

It is the hill to die on for ++ Duncan. He went into the founding of ACNA with the attitude that W.O. is a non-negotiable. +Iker went into the founding of ACNA firmly opposed to W.O. The two (and others) agreed to disagree on this idiotic philosophy because they wanted to caucus together to put up a united front against TEC and Schiori’s minions. They thought that WO was a minor point of disagreement but I think +Iker is starting to reconsider. Guys like Roseberry at Christ Church Plano is a pro-WO thinker and he’s not budging. There are signs of wear and fissures within ACNA and I don’t think it’ll last. I think Anglicanism is too prone to liberal thought because of all the years of patience without outrage, all the years of contamination, and all the years of putting up with nonsense. They’re too acquiescent. After a while the rigidness of Catholicism sounds appealing! m

Yeah, I can see the appeal of “Rome has spoken, God has settled it”. I found that very appealing myself when considering Catholicism. I would hate to see WO being the undoing of ACNA. That is why I appeciate AMIA’s handling of the issue, even if you (or me, I am still figuring that out) would disagree with their position, at least they have reached sort of a happy medium and can put the matter to rest. They explicitly ordain women to the diaconate only.

In my previous Pentecostal denomination, there was division over WO, but the official position was that women could be ordained, but not ordained as bishops. Now they are debating that and its causing alot of ugliness. Yet the Pro-WO camp is far from liberal on other issues (ie homosexuality, the nature of miracles and the Bible, etc…)Yet both sides are remaining local to the Church of God. I do not want to see Anglicanism get into the ugliness of debating WO-it brings the worst out in many people.

As you might know, I’m going through quite a spiritual crisis in my life; it’s like nothing I’ve ever felt before. It’s an overall crisis not of faith in Christ (no question there! ) but rather of Church polity, soteriology, theology, and the basic “where do I belong?” journey in the wildnerness.

Oh do I feel your pain. For now I am settled I think but who knows. Its been a very long 4 years for me. You will be in my prayers. This is a time when perhaps we need to remember, be still and know that I am God. That is what got me through.

Quite frankly, it really stinks. It’s eating me up some days. So I went and spoke with my rector, Father James, about my situation. We had a great conversation but he’s pretty honest about the pitfalls and negatives about Anglicanism and ACNA. For one thing, he’s really honest that ACNA is pretty much an evangelical body. He’s also honest that it’s far far from perfect. He also knows how Catholic I am and that he knows I’ll always be unhappy to a certain degree as an Anglican because of a host of issues we discussed. Another issue that came up is the fact that +Bishop Schofield is retiring from our diocese. Father James said, “will our next bishop be in favor of WO?” and I told him, “that shouldn’t even be a fear AT ALL and it shouldn’t be on the radar in the slightest!” He said he thinks the Catholic Church will someday allow WO to which I replied without thinking much, “it’ll NEVER happen in the Catholic Church because the pope is protected by the Holy Spirit, etc.” and I realized how inside me there still is that belief in Matthew 16:18. At my core I believe in infallibility to a certain degree and hold the teaching dear. I am at heart pretty Catholic. My disagreements with the Catholic Church on certain issues might just be something I have to squash and silence and just accept the Church’s rulings and suck it up or else I’ll stay Anglican and squash my disagreements with them. Bottom line: there is no Church where you’ll be 100% happy.

You do seem pretty Catholic in your approach. I hope for the best for you in this journey. I guess what caused me to settle is I got the taste of the Evangelical feel of AMIA. It dawned on me that there was still an semi-charismatic, Evangelical influence just waiting to come out, yet I did not want to let go of the pre-reformation tradition of Catholicism entirely. I might be guilty of having my cake and eating it too.

Do you mind me asking, what else is problematic for you besides issues surrounding WO? I know that’s a big one, and it ought to be, it relates to the sacrament of Holy Orders.

One time a minister told me about dealing with our disagreements is like eating the chicken but spitting out the bones. Took me a long time to get that. Unfortunately there are flaws in Anglicanism too.

The sad thing is, I LOVE my Anglican parish and my family is so very happy there. My wife loves it and can’t stand the local Catholic parish. The Catholic diocese here…I’m not a bit impressed!

Well one thing that has me in love with my current parish is the idea of community. I do not feel like an anonymous nobody when I go there. I am welcomed. I connect with the people on a personal level. We worship together, and share the Eucharist together, and its more than a mechanical ritual. I come home spiritually renewed, motivated to pray, spend time in the sciptures, and listen for the Holy Spirits guidance for me.

In other words, truth is an important thing. But there is more to Christianity then having all the right doctine. Its more than the theology exam, as Kierkegaard put it. It is also learning how to be like Christ and live a Christian life in this world.

 

[Harpazo]

I am quietly storing up all this information for the day my parish finds itself in an impossible position in the Anglican Church of Canada… I feel like a bit of a double agent

May it be blessed!

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[JesusforMadrid]

I personally don’t think fasting for months on end is what Paul had in mind in his Epistles and just challenging the heck out of someone to give up things and fast and spend hours and hours doing devotions isn’t necessarily what I’m looking for. If you want challenging, Catholicism is PLENTY challenging.

I know Roman Catholicism can be challenging as well; my wife is a member of Opus Dei and attends mass daily. But from the beginning of Christianity, Christians fasted (Wednesdays and Fridays). They also gradually gave up the traditional Jewish Atonement Day fast in favour of a fast for Easter and Christmas. In the West, fasting has almost completely fallen into desuetude. But it was there, it is part of our Christian heritage; in England and other European countries, they still celebrate “Shrove Tuesday” or Pancake Day the day before Lent, when Christians used to eat up the last of their dairy products (like Cheesefare Week in Orthodoxy). Christians now hardly even remember why they did that. Yet, the more I read the Fathers, the Didache, etc., the more I think Christianity without fasting is like Christianity without prayer. Fasting is not about torture, but rather an authentic and essential spiritual discipline for becoming Christlike. Possible to do without fasting? Of course. But the Early Church would find it odd, and most of Christendom used to agree.

I think it also boils down to what one believes about Original Sin, Atonement, soteriology, liturgy, etc. when looking at choosing between the two. I laud Catholicism far more in their desire for reunion. They’re the ones, from what I see, making more overtures and effort. They are far more complimentary and kind to Orthodoxy than Orthodoxy is to Catholicism. I also hold to a more Augustinian understanding of the transmission of orders than the Cyprianic model that the Orthodox hold to. I’m an Augustinian kind of guy across the board really, not a good Orthodoxy candidate.

Here, you´ve lost me. You choose a Church based on which theologoumenon concerning the atonement is salient (Christus Victor versus Ransom Theory versus Substitutionary Atonement)? You can find Orthodox advocating all three. I also think whether the Orthodox believe in Original Sin, original guilt or that we suffer the consequences of a fallen world is in practice pretty irrelevant, except as it relates to the IC and there I feel more akin to the Orthodox position.

I agree that the Orthodox are a bit weak on emphasising some aspects of Augustinian soteriology, especially St. Paul’s emphasis on justification by faith. I suspect this is an over reaction to other developments in the West that the Orthodox disagree with, like Calvinism.

I understand the need for attractive liturgy. That is a matter of taste, but would you prefer the Roman Catholic NO to an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy or Western Orthodox Sarum Rite? I don’t think they can compare, although the RC Anglican Use is promising.

For me, it all boils down to theosis. Yes, “God became man so that man could become God” (i.e. Christlike). If my church isn’t helping me become by grace what God is by nature (and, if I am not helping my brothers and sisters in Christ do the same), I need to change churches.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Orthodoxy is definitely tough, but the Lord gives us His grace. We have to remember too that we do not do these things for their own sake. It’s so easy for us to get caught up with the beautiful services, the icons, the vestments, etc. They serve the purpose of directing us towards Christ.

What you illustrated is exactly why I converted to Orthodoxy. I saw that these people were very serious about preserving the Way Christ gave His apostles and becoming more like Him. St. Athanasios said in the 4th century (if I remember correctly) that “God became man so that man could become God.” Wow! What a concept. If that’s what it’s all about, no other sophistry, belief system or philosophy matters. Where can I go to get the tools to attain that? I firmly believe that Holy Orthodoxy offers that. I found modern Western Christianity (modern RCC and Protestantism) gravely lacking.

You mentioned Western Orthodoxy earlier. Have you seen this website by Christminster monastery? They have a great abundance of information on tradition Western Christian practice that is slowly being restored. I’m not sure where you’re located, but the ROCOR seems to be booming with Western Rite activity. There is also Hieromonk Aidan’s website which has a great amount of information on restoring Orthodoxy in its venerable Western forms before the schism. He recently translated and compiled Orthodox prayers from England before the schism which includes much of the Divine Services. I will definitely be purchasing it soon.

I’m not sure where you are located, but a few years back an Anglican bishop near me did much of the same thing as the one in the OP and entered into Orthodoxy. Fr. Alban Waggener of Lynchburg began a Western Rite mission with some of his former parishioners. I plan on visiting there over Christmas break at least once. Perhaps, some people where you are located might be interested in something similar?

I suppose I’m done rambling for now. Heavens knows I almost compose essays when I write about Orthodoxy.

In Christ,
Andrew

Thanks very much for your insights and links. I am somewhat familiar with Western Rite and have in fact been in contact with some Western Orthodox priests from the AWRV.

I think the Western Rites are promising, in spite of the feuds that the Orthodox seem to enjoy regarding which rite is the best. All Christians do that, so no surprises, but there are some rather strong opinions about whether the WR is really Orthodox. The number of WR parishes is growing rapidly in the US, so the Eastern Rite people will have to learn to get on.

I am familiar with the Sarum Rite and think a Pre-Reformation English rite like the Sarum rite could be more appealing for Anglo Catholics than the English Use RC rite, which will in a sense be a new, unhistorical rite, if I am not mistaken.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Natural family planning was the beginning of my wife and I truly questioning the wisdom of Catholicism. Despite what you hear in CAF, it doesn’t always work. My wife was very well-read in NFP, we were very cautious, and yet we had three kids in three years. I wouldn’t “return” my kids to sender for all the tea in China. My kids are the light of my life. But I cannot fathom having more. We’re strapped financially, in over our heads, and by now we’d be on child number six. I can get my wife pregnant just looking at her! NFP also put a strain on our intimacy that I cannot begin to describe. We thought more about sex under NFP than before! It was very mechanical, ineffective, and it is unnatural in our opinion in that when a woman is most “eager” to be intimate, that is when she CANNOT be intimate. We hated it deeply. I could tell you more in an IM.

Also, even though I would NEVER divorce my wife, I see couples that truly need a divorce (abuse, adultery, etc.) and the Church’s position on “annulments” seems silly IMO. Rather than calling a spade a spade like the Orthodox, they simply declare a valid marriage never existed in the first place. I don’t agree with their approach even though this issue doesn’t really pertain to me.

INDULGENCES—I hate this stuff. I cannot buy into it and it seems like innovative medievel corrupt nonsense

Treasury of Merit—Just can’t swallow it, it goes along with indulgences

And I’m also struggling with imputation vs. infusion of grace. The Romans and Galatians in me screams “imputation!” but infusion also makes a lot of sense.

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY—Honorius…'nuff said

Papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction—this doesn’t seem in line with historical pre-schism Christianity. Christianity was conciliar with the pope at the head of the table (when he actually showed up for a council )

Catholics are very, very scrupulous to a point that it disturbs me; I see so much overscrupulosity in CAF that it seems that Catholicism lends itself well to heavy doses of guilt (I was never so guilty in my heart as when I was Catholic) and over-analysis of one’s faults rather than trusting in God’s grace and mercy

Rote prayer vs. heartfelt prayer

Praying to saints

and many other issues…

Do you mind me asking, what else is problematic for you besides issues surrounding WO? I know that’s a big one, and it ought to be, it relates to the sacrament of Holy Orders.

One time a minister told me about dealing with our disagreements is like eating the chicken but spitting out the bones. Took me a long time to get that. Unfortunately there are flaws in Anglicanism too.

.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I have heard this argument a lot, that the Rite II 1979 service is somehow a huge departure from previous incarnations of the Anglican rite of worship. I just don’t see it. I think it contains all the necessary verbage, piety, prayer, and reverence that a good liturgy needs. I have heard countless times how the 1928 Prayer book is far superior. I’ve looked at the 28 edition. It’s lovely but IMO not that much better? I guess it’s just a matter of perspective. I’m perfectly happy with Rite II 79. And I think it’s far superior in piety and semantics to the Novus Ordo liturgy I’ve participated in a million times as a Catholic.

Well, yes indeed, that is very much like the Catholic service.

But I would not really call it Anglican, except in the way that women’s ordination is Anglican. Those newer liturgies came out of the same kind of thinking that gave rise to all the other problematic theology we see today in Anglicanism.

I’m used to an Anglican service that continues to emphasize the daily office, that is sung, that involves the recitation of a goodly number of psalms in the office and the Mass, and that uses the old lectionary and old propers too. But even a low church that uses the old order is much more like the DL than like a modern Catholic Mass IMO. I was actually very surprised about that - I hadn’t expected it from what I had seen on Youtube and read - I thought it would be very foreign. Interestingly I heard a similar comment from an EO acquaintance recently who had only been to the more modern liturgies before, a fellow who had been pretty skeptical about Western liturgies

To be honest, the state of the Catholic mass is something that gave me real trouble when I was considering Catholicism.

 

[Bluegoat]

I have heard this argument a lot, that the Rite II 1979 service is somehow a huge departure from previous incarnations of the Anglican rite of worship. I just don’t see it. I think it contains all the necessary verbage, piety, prayer, and reverence that a good liturgy needs. I have heard countless times how the 1928 Prayer book is far superior. I’ve looked at the 28 edition. It’s lovely but IMO not that much better? I guess it’s just a matter of perspective. I’m perfectly happy with Rite II 79. And I think it’s far superior in piety and semantics to the Novus Ordo liturgy I’ve participated in a million times as a Catholic.

There is a lot of literature available about it. But I think the most convincing thing I ever read was the introduction to the Canadian BAS, which outlines the thinking of the group that developed the Canadian version of the new liturgy. It’s enough to make your heart stop in places.

 

[Erich]

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY—Honorius…'nuff said

                      **Articles about Pope Honorius**

**THE TRUTH ABOUT POPE HONORIUS **
By Robert Spencer
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp

Guilty Only of Failure to Teach
The Case of Pope Honorius Doesn’t Disprove Papal Infallibility
By Steve O’Reilly
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010fea5.asp

White Is Wrong
Rebutting James White’s Rebuttal on Pope Honorius
By Steven O’Reilly
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104fea4.asp

So, the final documents of the Sixth Ecumenical Council were infallible, since Pope Leo II approved them, and Honorius was rebuked for negligence, not condemned for heresy; further, no questionable teaching by Honorius met the conditions for an infallible declaration.

Can you live with that?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’ve read most of this; Honorius was in favor of Monothelitism. He said as much to Sergius but moreover he sent his deacon, Gaius, as a legate to the Council of Cyprus and we are told in the biography of Maximus the Confessor that Emperor Heracleus agreed to the Monothelite position “and so with Honorius.” It is apparent that Honorius sent Gaius as a legate to fight for the heretical Monothelite position which, in my opinion, is teaching from the Chair.

Articles about Pope Honorius

**THE TRUTH ABOUT POPE HONORIUS **
By Robert Spencer
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp

Guilty Only of Failure to Teach
The Case of Pope Honorius Doesn’t Disprove Papal Infallibility
By Steve O’Reilly
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010fea5.asp

White Is Wrong
Rebutting James White’s Rebuttal on Pope Honorius
By Steven O’Reilly
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104fea4.asp

So, the final documents of the Sixth Ecumenical Council were infallible, since Pope Leo II approved them, and Honorius was rebuked for negligence, not condemned for heresy; further, no questionable teaching by Honorius met the conditions for an infallible declaration.

Can you live with that?

 

[JohnnyReb]

Natural family planning was the beginning of my wife and I truly questioning the wisdom of Catholicism. Despite what you hear in CAF, it doesn’t always work. My wife was very well-read in NFP, we were very cautious, and yet we had three kids in three years. I wouldn’t “return” my kids to sender for all the tea in China. My kids are the light of my life. But I cannot fathom having more. We’re strapped financially, in over our heads, and by now we’d be on child number six. I can get my wife pregnant just looking at her! NFP also put a strain on our intimacy that I cannot begin to describe. We thought more about sex under NFP than before! It was very mechanical, ineffective, and it is unnatural in our opinion in that when a woman is most “eager” to be intimate, that is when she CANNOT be intimate. We hated it deeply. I could tell you more in an IM.

That’s enough for me to get the picture I think. I do see things in a similar fashion, but my personal reasons are different. Suffice it to say, my maternal grandparents should have used birth control or at least had less children, but did not, and harmed their older children as a result, ruined themselves financially etc…having less children would have been beneficial for them, but how NFP advocates would try to twist the situation to say that there was nothing wrong with the large number of children in her family was just irritating to no end, and devoid of common sense…just to save a pet doctrine…it was clear that my grandparents were selfish in having too many children.

Also, even though I would NEVER divorce my wife, I see couples that truly need a divorce (abuse, adultery, etc.) and the Church’s position on “annulments” seems silly IMO. Rather than calling a spade a spade like the Orthodox, they simply declare a valid marriage never existed in the first place. I don’t agree with their approach even though this issue doesn’t really pertain to me.

Annulments. Hmmmm. Sometimes I do think that a valid marriage did not exist, but as you point out, other times it looks just like a divorce, Catholic style. Certainly they are overused IMO.

INDULGENCES—I hate this stuff. I cannot buy into it and it seems like innovative medievel corrupt nonsense

Treasury of Merit—Just can’t swallow it, it goes along with indulgences

Ditto.

And I’m also struggling with imputation vs. infusion of grace. The Romans and Galatians in me screams “imputation!” but infusion also makes a lot of sense.

What about both/and rather then either/or. But I agree about Romans and Galatians.

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY—Honorius…'nuff said

Papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction—this doesn’t seem in line with historical pre-schism Christianity. Christianity was conciliar with the pope at the head of the table (when he actually showed up for a council )

Catholics are very, very scrupulous to a point that it disturbs me; I see so much overscrupulosity in CAF that it seems that Catholicism lends itself well to heavy doses of guilt (I was never so guilty in my heart as when I was Catholic) and over-analysis of one’s faults rather than trusting in God’s grace and mercy

Rote prayer vs. heartfelt prayer

Praying to saints

and many other issues…

You won’t get any disagreement from me here.

Thanks. Now do you mind discussing issues with Anglicanism (minus WO, which I know is a thorn in your side)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

My issues with Anglicanism are largely their propensity for contradiction. Case in point: read John Stott and JI Packer, both low church evangelical Anglicans. They are also Calvinists. They’ve signed onto the Westminister Confession and love Calvin top to bottom. They both claim the priesthood is ridiculous. The Early Church, they claim, had no priesthood at all. There is no sacrificial priesthood and offering to God in persona christi, etc. It’s ludicrous, they claim. Then you have these high church “Anglo-Catholics” on the other hand who are sometimes more Catholic than the pope, to coin a phrase! They are the complete opposite of Stott and Packer types. The evangelicals cling to the 39 Articles, the Anglo-Catholics wholeheartedly reject them 100% and consider them a temporary burp in the Church of England, a moment of insanity when the Church veered too protestant a course but thanks to the Oxford Movement, all is right again and anyone with brains knows the Articles aren’t worth squat. That is all bizarre to me!? The Catholic Church, whether we disagree with it or not, is very coherent, very orderly, very organized. Anglicanism is very prone to chaos because it isn’t top-heavy like the Catholic Church.

I don’t like the Calvinistic tone of the 39 Articles.

I don’t like the “all may, some should, none must” motto for going to confession

I hate the idea of the “Anglican Communion.” It’s so weird. Take my parish church for example. They broke off from TEC, joined ACNA, and are currently having the pants sued off them by TEC lawyers. My rector and bishop are hardcore conservatives and yet they and the ACNA are begging for recognition from Canterbury. Why? The ABC is uber liberal, the last few have been, the CofE is liberal, etc. Why does my diocese and ACNA feel the silly need to get recognized by Canterbury? It’s so arbitrary.

I don’t like the way Anglicanism is NOT confessional. I appreciate the way Lutheranism is confessional as is Calvinism. But Anglicanism, coming from that lex orandi lex credendi focal point, there isn’t enough doctrine just as I think in Catholicism there’s too much!

When you ask about things like imputation or infusion, sola scriptura, or other issues, good luck finding an answer with Anglicanism. Depends on whom you ask! From one parish or diocese to another, expect drastically different results!

When my rector sends out the newsletter he frequently mentions “the Church.” I’m wondering which Church he’s talking about? The evangelicals and anglo catholics seem like two different worlds IMO…

That’s enough for me to get the picture I think. I do see things in a similar fashion, but my personal reasons are different. Suffice it to say, my maternal grandparents should have used birth control or at least had less children, but did not, and harmed their older children as a result, ruined themselves financially etc…having less children would have been beneficial for them, but how NFP advocates would try to twist the situation to say that there was nothing wrong with the large number of children in her family was just irritating to no end, and devoid of common sense…just to save a pet doctrine…it was clear that my grandparents were selfish in having too many children.

Annulments. Hmmmm. Sometimes I do think that a valid marriage did not exist, but as you point out, other times it looks just like a divorce, Catholic style. Certainly they are overused IMO.

Ditto.

What about both/and rather then either/or. But I agree about Romans and Galatians.

You won’t get any disagreement from me here.

Thanks. Now do you mind discussing issues with Anglicanism (minus WO, which I know is a thorn in your side)

 

[Bluegoat]

Hmm, if you don’t mind Gurney, I’d like to give my thoughts.

My issues with Anglicanism are largely their propensity for contradiction. Case in point: read John Stott and JI Packer, both low church evangelical Anglicans. They are also Calvinists. They’ve signed onto the Westminister Confession and love Calvin top to bottom. They both claim the priesthood is ridiculous. The Early Church, they claim, had no priesthood at all. There is no sacrificial priesthood and offering to God in persona christi, etc. It’s ludicrous, they claim. Then you have these high church “Anglo-Catholics” on the other hand who are sometimes more Catholic than the pope, to coin a phrase! They are the complete opposite of Stott and Packer types.

This is one of the most serious problems I have in Anglicanism. How can I say I’m “in communion” with people when I have to check to see if their priests have apostolic succession? Or how is it that my Church is in communion with Lutherans who do not have apostolic succession? I don’t have a problem with a range of views, but when the range is so broad that people on one end actually cannot sensibly take the Eucharist with those on the other end - and I mean logically speaking, not for emotional/pouty reasons - doesn’t that actually contradict the meaning of being “in communion”?

The evangelicals cling to the 39 Articles, the Anglo-Catholics wholeheartedly reject them 100% and consider them a temporary burp in the Church of England, a moment of insanity when the Church veered too protestant a course but thanks to the Oxford Movement, all is right again and anyone with brains knows the Articles aren’t worth squat. That is all bizarre to me!? The Catholic Church, whether we disagree with it or not, is very coherent, very orderly, very organized. Anglicanism is very prone to chaos because it isn’t top-heavy like the Catholic Church.

In itself this doesn’t bother me. I dislike some of the articles, but I don’t necessarily have a problem with those who disagree, so long as they also embrace the other Anglican documents and read them in light of each other.

I don’t like the Calvinistic tone of the 39 Articles.

Calvinism is a pernicious heresy. But I actually think that the articles and the liturgy, taken together, exclude it.

I don’t like the “all may, some should, none must” motto for going to confession

Me neither, but I think this is not so much a principle as a practice. It should be changed.

I hate the idea of the “Anglican Communion.” It’s so weird. Take my parish church for example. They broke off from TEC, joined ACNA, and are currently having the pants sued off them by TEC lawyers. My rector and bishop are hardcore conservatives and yet they and the ACNA are begging for recognition from Canterbury. Why? The ABC is uber liberal, the last few have been, the CofE is liberal, etc. Why does my diocese and ACNA feel the silly need to get recognized by Canterbury? It’s so arbitrary.

I think I disagree, with the caveat that it is currently all messed up. In principle, the way we know who is “in” the Church is by mutual recognition. How we know who is out is when no one recognizes you, or almost no one. Sometimes there are periods where it is unclear - that suggests a problem that needs to be worked out. If the Anglicans were ever to be recognized by the Orthodox Christian groups, for example, they would then understand themselves to all be in the Church together.

I think a big part of the problem now is that there is really no way to “unrecognize” other groups in the Anglican communion, and the desire to allow latitude in beliefs has been pushed too far - to the point where groups are simply not able to speak of being in communion with each other. The communion needs to have a basis in more than a bit of history - it needs to have a basis in correct belief. We have never developed a way to really deal with this.

I don’t like the way Anglicanism is NOT confessional. I appreciate the way Lutheranism is confessional as is Calvinism. But Anglicanism, coming from that lex orandi lex credendi focal point, there isn’t enough doctrine just as I think in Catholicism there’s too much!

Well, I wonder, Anglicanism used to work a lot better in this. I would suggest a few things have changed. One is that the Bible was recognized as authoritative by all, and now it isn’t. Another is that the liturgy was recognized as presenting the lens to understand the Bible, and that the Bible shaped the liturgy. THe new liturgies were developed with the idea that we take our own views, pick appropriate symbols and images from the Bible, and create a liturgy that reflects us, and the viewpoints, language, and cadence of our own time. And additionally, there area variety of liturgies, so we can no longer be unified by it in a meaningful way.

When you ask about things like imputation or infusion, sola scriptura, or other issues, good luck finding an answer with Anglicanism. Depends on whom you ask! From one parish or diocese to another, expect drastically different results!

Indeed. But whether this is a bad thing necessarily is not clear to me.

When my rector sends out the newsletter he frequently mentions “the Church.” I’m wondering which Church he’s talking about? The evangelicals and anglo catholics seem like two different worlds IMO…

Yes, this is I think the issue.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

My issues with Anglicanism are largely their propensity for contradiction. Case in point: read John Stott and JI Packer, both low church evangelical Anglicans. They are also Calvinists.

You got the wrong guy! John Stott is not a Calvinist; the real Calvinists excoriate him. I know: I used to attend All Souls, his parish, for about 2 years. If anything, he is just a “moderate Calvinist”, which is a way of saying Thomist or Augustinian.

Otherwise, I basically agree with your rant.

So what to do? My solution is to join a conservative Continuing Anglican group that has arguably apostolic succession and believes in the real presence.

And when that becomes intolerable, its time to start an Anglo Catholic Western Rite mission!

 

[JohnnyReb]

Hmm, if you don’t mind Gurney, I’d like to give my thoughts.

This is one of the most serious problems I have in Anglicanism. How can I say I’m “in communion” with people when I have to check to see if their priests have apostolic succession? Or how is it that my Church is in communion with Lutherans who do not have apostolic succession? I don’t have a problem with a range of views, but when the range is so broad that people on one end actually cannot sensibly take the Eucharist with those on the other end - and I mean logically speaking, not for emotional/pouty reasons - doesn’t that actually contradict the meaning of being “in communion”

The range of views reminds me a little bit of Baptists, some are Calvinist, some are Arminians, some are absolute eternal security, others are “Lordship Salvation”. If you dig enough in many traditions, there is diversity. In Pentecostalism, you have Word of Faith Then you have the Wesleyans, and then the Finished Work school of thought.

You ask some very good questions otherwise, especially for those for whom apostolic succession is very important. When TEC began eucharistic sharing with the ELCA Lutherans, and how is working to restore relations with the Methodists, I saw this problem coming. Its a charitable move on their part, but how far does it go? TEC is full of liberal mess anyway! I hope the liberal TEC stuff does not infect the entire United Methodist Church like it did TEC.

In itself this doesn’t bother me. I dislike some of the articles, but I don’t necessarily have a problem with those who disagree, so long as they also embrace the other Anglican documents and read them in light of each other.

That’s kind of where I stand. I like the articles, but they are not the be all end all. They are heavily embraced by the continuing group I am part of, but its clear from the liturgy that they embrace other Catholic aspects of the faith, so they don’t take them too far.

Calvinism is a pernicious heresy. But I actually think that the articles and the liturgy, taken together, exclude it.

Not sure what to make of that. This guy here wants to say that the 39 articles and the Westminster Confession of faith have a nice affinity with each other, that they are kindred spirits. I’m bothered by that. I am not a Calvinist and never have been, even though I have read alot of RC Sproul, Schwindoll, James White etc…

39articles.com/samples/001-meredith-39articles-WCF.htm

I think I disagree, with the caveat that it is currently all messed up. In principle, the way we know who is “in” the Church is by mutual recognition. How we know who is out is when no one recognizes you, or almost no one. Sometimes there are periods where it is unclear - that suggests a problem that needs to be worked out. If the Anglicans were ever to be recognized by the Orthodox Christian groups, for example, they would then understand themselves to all be in the Church together.

I think a big part of the problem now is that there is really no way to “unrecognize” other groups in the Anglican communion, and the desire to allow latitude in beliefs has been pushed too far - to the point where groups are simply not able to speak of being in communion with each other. The communion needs to have a basis in more than a bit of history - it needs to have a basis in correct belief. We have never developed a way to really deal with this.

That is one of the strengths of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, they have means to deal with it. The problem with correct belief for me is the liberalism found in some parts of the Anglican communion like the TEC in America. While I see Gurney’s point, I hope that Anglicans would come up with a system that brings us all together, given the large number and diversity of continuing groups. I mean you have the AMIA, ACNA, Reformed Episcopal Church, Anglican Catholic Church etc…just to name a few. This is not to say that we must gain recognition from Canturbury, but a unified body of a continuing group would go a long way towards impacting the Anglican communion in a positive way, a goal of the continuing groups as it is.

 

[Bluegoat]

That is one of the strengths of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, they have means to deal with it. The problem with correct belief for me is the liberalism found in some parts of the Anglican communion like the TEC in America. While I see Gurney’s point, I hope that Anglicans would come up with a system that brings us all together, given the large number and diversity of continuing groups. I mean you have the AMIA, ACNA, Reformed Episcopal Church, Anglican Catholic Church etc…just to name a few. This is not to say that we must gain recognition from Canturbury, but a unified body of a continuing group would go a long way towards impacting the Anglican communion in a positive way, a goal of the continuing groups as it is.

The thing is, to recognize more than one Bishop in a given area is a problem. The Orthodox are dealing with it in NA now, and it is messy, but they know that it i a serious problem. If Canterbury just recognized all these groups, it would only be creating the problem for themselves.

And as it stands, all of them do not, in my view, have compatible doctrines, so it would do nothing to help the problem that the Anglican idea of being in communion is pretty meaningless at the moment.

I think you are right - a good start would be for the conservative Anglicans to get themselves into some kind of order. Right now they are like a bunch of little non-denoms that happen to have Bishops, ready to split off at any provocation. It’s this kind of thing that makes me think that the Eastern understanding of validity may be better, and true. It seems any crazy lot can get a bishop with valid orders these days. Does that mean that they are the Church?

I find myself thinking of myself as a member of a parish these days more than as a member of the Anglican Communion. Personally, if my parish went for Western Rite orthodoxy, I’d be thrilled. But I think that would require something extreme on the part of the Bishop or Primate to get the parishioners out of their complacency. But I don’t have any doubt that such a thing will occur before too long.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Madrid,

Well I’m not a P.C. kinda guy but I wouldn’t go as far as to call my post a “rant.” Another poster asked me to address my concerns about Anglicanism, so I did. No rant intended.

Stott has called himself a Calvinist on more than one occasion and I have read a couple of his books and many of his commentaries, etc. He sounds like a classic Calvinist to me! But nevertheless, labels notwithstanding, the guy is opposed to the idea of a sacerdotal priesthood, and that was my real point. It’s weird to have a communion that believes in AND rejects the priesthood all in one body?

Regarding your last suggestions, I must tell you, the Anglican community in my area is small enough already. There is no continuing group here and there aren’t the numbers to build one. And I’m not interested in such an endeavor anyway. The Anglo-Catholics here are negligable in size. Most are evangelical to broad church, no real Anglo-Catholics. And most Anglo-Catholic clergy I can think of have retired. Our bishop, an Anglo-Catholic, is retiring in October. The numbers are too tiny.

You got the wrong guy! John Stott is not a Calvinist; the real Calvinists excoriate him. I know: I used to attend All Souls, his parish, for about 2 years. If anything, he is just a “moderate Calvinist”, which is a way of saying Thomist or Augustinian.

Otherwise, I basically agree with your rant.

So what to do? My solution is to join a conservative Continuing Anglican group that has arguably apostolic succession and believes in the real presence.

And when that becomes intolerable, its time to start an Anglo Catholic Western Rite mission!

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Hi Madrid,

Well I’m not a P.C. kinda guy but I wouldn’t go as far as to call my post a “rant.” Another poster asked me to address my concerns about Anglicanism, so I did. No rant intended.

Stott has called himself a Calvinist on more than one occasion and I have read a couple of his books and many of his commentaries, etc. He sounds like a classic Calvinist to me! But nevertheless, labels notwithstanding, the guy is opposed to the idea of a sacerdotal priesthood, and that was my real point. It’s weird to have a communion that believes in AND rejects the priesthood all in one body?

No offence intended. I should have written “discourse”, although I am not in the least bit opposed to a good rant.

There are both Calvinists and Arminians who oppose sacerdotal priesthood. I wouldn’t label Stott a Calvinist because of that. He is better know for entertaining “Conditional Immortality”, which puts him more in line with Orthodox thinkers.

Anyway, I get your point. Increasingly, “Anglican” just means “theist”.