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

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t think you read my post, Jim. Again, I get it, friend. I get it! And I’m not a fan of running over to Father James face-to-face with confession. No thanks. Again, read my post and listen to what I’m trying to say. RATIONALE! RATIONALE! How is the for any who need it when they need it a historical position? How is it consistent? How is it Catholic? I think the fact, with all due respect, that you can’t answer that and keep telling me just to get my tukus over to confess is a sign that you can’t explain it and that Anglicanism isn’t as historical as it claims to be. I don’t say that to be a jerk, I’m just saying it analytically. It seems that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are consistent with penance/reconciliation and Anglicanism has succumbled to this wishy-washy, “if ya need it, what the heck” approach. I’m saying, WHY? I’m not asking if it’s available

In Anglicanism, auricular confession is for any who need it, when they need it.

Go.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No, it does help, Johnny. I have considered as much myself. I think that is part of the answer. But then I pondered the Orthodox in the East. I don’t think they use the same categorical terms “venial” and “mortal” but they still have levels of severity I believe with sin. They certainly don’t have the “all sin is equal” emphasis. But the Orthodox also have mandatory confession as well. It’s not optional and loosey-goosey. The Coptics have it, Armenians, etc. I’m just wondering why the Anglo-Catholics in the Anglican Church claim to be more Catholic than the pope and yet they jettisoned one of the “harder” aspects of being a Catholic. It gives the impression of wanting the dessert but not wanting to eat the broccoli and cauliflower It’s as if to say “give me the incense, genuflecting, and saints, but the confession, pass…”

Good question. Very good question. All I can speak towards is even the Catholic Church believes that venial sins are forgiven in the Mass. Only Mortal sins must be confessed (although confessing venial sins at confession is beneficial). Anglican Christianity rejects the distinction of venial vs mortal sin, so confession is never necessary. I know that doesn’t help but that is my answer…LOL

 

[GKC]

I don’t think you read my post, Jim. Again, I get it, friend. I get it! And I’m not a fan of running over to Father James face-to-face with confession. No thanks. Again, read my post and listen to what I’m trying to say. RATIONALE! RATIONALE! How is the for any who need it when they need it a historical position? How is it consistent? How is it Catholic? I think the fact, with all due respect, that you can’t answer that and keep telling me just to get my tukus over to confess is a sign that you can’t explain it and that Anglicanism isn’t as historical as it claims to be. I don’t say that to be a jerk, I’m just saying it analytically. It seems that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are consistent with penance/reconciliation and Anglicanism has succumbled to this wishy-washy, “if ya need it, what the heck” approach. I’m saying, WHY? I’m not asking if it’s available

How is the Orthodox view of the Papacy Catholic? What you got here is an Anglican particular. If it gets your undies in a wad, put that on the scale to weigh in deciding where you nail your foot down. Particulars are roadblocks, as you know. Anglicanism says corporate confession/absolution is individually efficacious. It also says that if you feel the need to more openly express the details of your burden, and discuss its merits/demerits, perhaps some counseling, and receive a more personalized statement of the absolution, go and do so. It’s the not old either /or dichotomy, it’s both. If you conclude that the RC position is the only possible one, make that the point that makes the decision of where you belong.

GKC

 

[Anna_Scott]

I don’t think you read my post, Jim. Again, I get it, friend. I get it! And I’m not a fan of running over to Father James face-to-face with confession. No thanks. Again, read my post and listen to what I’m trying to say. RATIONALE! RATIONALE! How is the for any who need it when they need it a historical position? How is it consistent? How is it Catholic? I think the fact, with all due respect, that you can’t answer that and keep telling me just to get my tukus over to confess is a sign that you can’t explain it and that Anglicanism isn’t as historical as it claims to be. I don’t say that to be a jerk, I’m just saying it analytically. It seems that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are consistent with penance/reconciliation and Anglicanism has succumbled to this wishy-washy, “if ya need it, what the heck” approach. I’m saying, WHY? I’m not asking if it’s available

Hey Gurney,
I know your response was for GKC, but I’m jumping in.

I do understand your frustration. Private confession is a new concept for me, having come out of the Baptist Church. In my Episcopal Church, the Priests will hear private confession, but it is not mandatory. Our Rector will even give penance. I’ve never heard any discussion in our Church about “venial” and “mortal” sins–not even in Confirmation class, which I took, but refused Confirmation—Yes, I’m still confused.

One of the many problems I’m encountering in the Episcopal Church is that it seems like the Church can’t make up its mind about being Protestant or Catholic. Our Priests claim we are “Catholic.” Yet, those convenient Protestant doctrines are really put to use, not to mention the new doctrines Episcopal leaders seem to be making up as they go along. You are right in saying “Anglicanism has succumbed to this wishy-washy” attitude about Confession (and in many other areas too.)

God help us both, Gurney,
Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m glad you posted, Anna. Your sympathetic and typically insightful post helped calm me down from the “undies in a wad” nonsense Jim just hurled my way. It’s rare for a GKC post to tick me off but today it did. Not happy with that snyde post.

In any case, I hear ya. I think wishy-washy is the reality. I think there are some real inconsistencies and illogical lines of thought in Anglicanism and when you push just a little too hard, Anglicans, especially Anglo-Catholics and those entrenched in the Anglican church for decades, snap like a crocodile. Why? I think the problem is the Oxford Movement didn’t make any sense. I feel like it was a 300 years after-the-fact attempt to try to retro-Catholicize a church that was always openly and proudly protestant. So I think I’m at the point in my ‘journey’ where I have two choices and I know GKC will disagree with me but that’s hunky dory:

1.) Accept imputation, Calvinist-style views on soteriology/atonement, embrace the 39 Articles and be a proud Protestant and stay at the Anglican Church

2.) Accept infusion and the Catholic views of soteriology and return to the Catholic faith.

option 3 is this:

3.) lie to myself and tell myself Anglicanism is Catholic just because it has apostolic succession and be an “anglo Catholic.” That’s just something I can’t buy really

Maybe your New Years resolution idea isn’t half bad, Anna. Maybe I am just cut out to be a Catholic Inconsistencies and illogical thought drives me too batty

Hey Gurney,
I know your response was for GKC, but I’m jumping in.

I do understand your frustration. Private confession is a new concept for me, having come out of the Baptist Church. In my Episcopal Church, the Priests will hear private confession, but it is not mandatory. Our Rector will even give penance. I’ve never heard any discussion in our Church about “venial” and “mortal” sins–not even in Confirmation class, which I took, but refused Confirmation—Yes, I’m still confused.

One of the many problems I’m encountering in the Episcopal Church is that it seems like the Church can’t make up its mind about being Protestant or Catholic. Our Priests claim we are “Catholic.” Yet, those convenient Protestant doctrines are really put to use, not to mention the new doctrines Episcopal leaders seem to be making up as they go along. You are right in saying “Anglicanism has succumbed to this wishy-washy” attitude about Confession (and in many other areas too.)

God help us both, Gurney,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m glad you posted, Anna. Your sympathetic and typically insightful post helped calm me down from the “undies in a wad” nonsense Jim just hurled my way. It’s rare for a GKC post to tick me off but today it did. Not happy with that snyde post.

In any case, I hear ya. I think wishy-washy is the reality. I think there are some real inconsistencies and illogical lines of thought in Anglicanism and when you push just a little too hard, Anglicans, especially Anglo-Catholics and those entrenched in the Anglican church for decades, snap like a crocodile. Why? I think the problem is the Oxford Movement didn’t make any sense. I feel like it was a 300 years after-the-fact attempt to try to retro-Catholicize a church that was always openly and proudly protestant. So I think I’m at the point in my ‘journey’ where I have two choices and I know GKC will disagree with me but that’s hunky dory:

1.) Accept imputation, Calvinist-style views on soteriology/atonement, embrace the 39 Articles and be a proud Protestant and stay at the Anglican Church

2.) Accept infusion and the Catholic views of soteriology and return to the Catholic faith.

option 3 is this:

3.) lie to myself and tell myself Anglicanism is Catholic just because it has apostolic succession and be an “anglo Catholic.” That’s just something I can’t buy really

Maybe your New Years resolution idea isn’t half bad, Anna. Maybe I am just cut out to be a Catholic Inconsistencies and illogical thought drives me too batty

Oh, how I wish there was an option 4.

Anna

 

[JohnnyReb]

I’m glad you posted, Anna. Your sympathetic and typically insightful post helped calm me down from the “undies in a wad” nonsense Jim just hurled my way. It’s rare for a GKC post to tick me off but today it did. Not happy with that snyde post.

In any case, I hear ya. I think wishy-washy is the reality. I think there are some real inconsistencies and illogical lines of thought in Anglicanism and when you push just a little too hard, Anglicans, especially Anglo-Catholics and those entrenched in the Anglican church for decades, snap like a crocodile. Why? I think the problem is the Oxford Movement didn’t make any sense. I feel like it was a 300 years after-the-fact attempt to try to retro-Catholicize a church that was always openly and proudly protestant. So I think I’m at the point in my ‘journey’ where I have two choices and I know GKC will disagree with me but that’s hunky dory:

1.) Accept imputation, Calvinist-style views on soteriology/atonement, embrace the 39 Articles and be a proud Protestant and stay at the Anglican Church

2.) Accept infusion and the Catholic views of soteriology and return to the Catholic faith.

option 3 is this:

3.) lie to myself and tell myself Anglicanism is Catholic just because it has apostolic succession and be an “anglo Catholic.” That’s just something I can’t buy really

Maybe your New Years resolution idea isn’t half bad, Anna. Maybe I am just cut out to be a Catholic Inconsistencies and illogical thought drives me too batty

I’m with Anna, perhaps and option 4? Number 1 does not sound like you. Number 2 sounds like its more in your ball part, and number 3, well…doesn’t sound like something you are willing to embrace. As for why Anglicanism tried to show itself more Catholic, I think its because the English reformation was not theological in its onset, but political. It came to embrace Protestant theology later on. Likewise, the liturgy seems very “Catholic”. Someone even suggested to me that Henry didn’t want to leave the Catholic church entirely, but just wanted political control and administration of the Church to be controlled in England (such as in the case of his desired annulment of his marriage to Catherine).

Coming from a Wesleyan Pentecostal background, (prior to CathoIicism) I can take a 4th option. Wesley was heavily influenced by eastern thought, theosis, and infusion, and it can be seen in his work on sanctification (and Wesley himself was Anglican and had no desire to break the Methodist movement from the Anglican Church, but thats another story). I am not sure you could buy the idea of justification=imputation, sanctification=infusion? Confession is very useful in sanctification, I think that is why even venial sins are encouraged to be confessed. So maybe confession is needed for sins that are extremely damaging to our relationship with God, and to our fellow man, damaging to the point that only the life giving power of the sacrament of confession-along with an act of penance- can spiritual heal the damage that has been done. I mean Christianity isn’t just about getting us “saved” or “justified” or whatever we want to call it. Christianity is about our full redemption, God became man, so that man could become God, after all.

I wish that confession was more available from my parish. I think I have much to talk to Father Mark about, oh well.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m with Anna, perhaps and option 4? Number 1 does not sound like you. Number 2 sounds like its more in your ball part, and number 3, well…doesn’t sound like something you are willing to embrace. As for why Anglicanism tried to show itself more Catholic, I think its because the English reformation was not theological in its onset, but political. It came to embrace Protestant theology later on. Likewise, the liturgy seems very “Catholic”. Someone even suggested to me that Henry didn’t want to leave the Catholic church entirely, but just wanted political control and administration of the Church to be controlled in England (such as in the case of his desired annulment of his marriage to Catherine).

Coming from a Wesleyan Pentecostal background, (prior to CathoIicism) I can take a 4th option. Wesley was heavily influenced by eastern thought, theosis, and infusion, and it can be seen in his work on sanctification (and Wesley himself was Anglican and had no desire to break the Methodist movement from the Anglican Church, but thats another story). I am not sure you could buy the idea of justification=imputation, sanctification=infusion? Confession is very useful in sanctification, I think that is why even venial sins are encouraged to be confessed. So maybe confession is needed for sins that are extremely damaging to our relationship with God, and to our fellow man, damaging to the point that only the life giving power of the sacrament of confession-along with an act of penance- can spiritual heal the damage that has been done. I mean Christianity isn’t just about getting us “saved” or “justified” or whatever we want to call it. Christianity is about our full redemption, God became man, so that man could become God, after all.

I wish that confession was more available from my parish. I think I have much to talk to Father Mark about, oh well.

Very interesting post JohnnyReb. I think Henry’s history is a complicated one. Perhaps he intended the Catholic Church in England to remain Catholic–just Catholic minus Papal authority. No doubt he had some very personal and selfish motives for this liberation. Protestant influences entered as time passed, some good and some not.

You are right that Christianity isn’t just about getting us “saved” or “justified.” Today, we see an obsession with the afterlife that is nothing short of narcissistic. We forget to “serve” in the Kingdom of God. I think the writings of Anglican Bishop, N. T. Wright, are helpful when it comes to the big picture of the Gospel and God’s Kingdom. This is a difficult message, when prosperity Gospels are all around us. In a society that cries “me, me, me,” preachers seem to feel the need to promise a sizable return on tithing. What a sad development in Christian history, but that’s another topic altogether.

I’m sorry, Gurney, for heading off topic. Guess, I’ve been away too long. Anyway, we do have to have our hearts right with God to press forward in serving Him and others. So, repentance and confession are important, and penance certainly has a place in this process. Far too often, we ask forgiveness without true repentance, and I’m including myself in this category. I think private confession to a Priest and penance can help us with true repentance-- so that we are less likely to repeat the same sin again and again, thinking, “Oh well, I can just pray for forgiveness.” Of course, Christ did give the Apostles the power to forgive or withhold forgiveness of sin in a passage of Holy Scripture rarely quoted in Protestant Churches.

Anna

 

[GKC]

I’m glad you posted, Anna. Your sympathetic and typically insightful post helped calm me down from the “undies in a wad” nonsense Jim just hurled my way. It’s rare for a GKC post to tick me off but today it did. Not happy with that snyde post.

In any case, I hear ya. I think wishy-washy is the reality. I think there are some real inconsistencies and illogical lines of thought in Anglicanism and when you push just a little too hard, Anglicans, especially Anglo-Catholics and those entrenched in the Anglican church for decades, snap like a crocodile. Why? I think the problem is the Oxford Movement didn’t make any sense. I feel like it was a 300 years after-the-fact attempt to try to retro-Catholicize a church that was always openly and proudly protestant. So I think I’m at the point in my ‘journey’ where I have two choices and I know GKC will disagree with me but that’s hunky dory:

1.) Accept imputation, Calvinist-style views on soteriology/atonement, embrace the 39 Articles and be a proud Protestant and stay at the Anglican Church

2.) Accept infusion and the Catholic views of soteriology and return to the Catholic faith.

option 3 is this:

3.) lie to myself and tell myself Anglicanism is Catholic just because it has apostolic succession and be an “anglo Catholic.” That’s just something I can’t buy really

Maybe your New Years resolution idea isn’t half bad, Anna. Maybe I am just cut out to be a Catholic Inconsistencies and illogical thought drives me too batty

No intent to be snide, just a light touch. You know how these things can be misread, here.

I would expect you to cross Anglicanism off your list (can’t handle that particular; hunky-dory it is) and proceed to the next candidate. But I’m dropping out of this, and possibly a few other things, for the nonce. I just received word that one of my BILs had a stroke. No details. But you know how such things can take up your attention.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Very interesting post JohnnyReb. I think Henry’s history is a complicated one. Perhaps he intended the Catholic Church in England to remain Catholic–just Catholic minus Papal authority. No doubt he had some very personal and selfish motives for this liberation. Protestant influences entered as time passed, some good and some not.

You are right that Christianity isn’t just about getting us “saved” or “justified.” Today, we see an obsession with the afterlife that is nothing short of narcissistic. We forget to “serve” in the Kingdom of God. I think the writings of Anglican Bishop, N. T. Wright, are helpful when it comes to the big picture of the Gospel and God’s Kingdom. This is a difficult message, when prosperity Gospels are all around us. In a society that cries “me, me, me,” preachers seem to feel the need to promise a sizable return on tithing. What a sad development in Christian history, but that’s another topic altogether.

I’m sorry, Gurney, for heading off topic. Guess, I’ve been away too long. Anyway, we do have to have our hearts right with God to press forward in serving Him and others. So, repentance and confession are important, and penance certainly has a place in this process. Far too often, we ask forgiveness without true repentance, and I’m including myself in this category. I think private confession to a Priest and penance can help us with true repentance-- so that we are less likely to repeat the same sin again and again, thinking, “Oh well, I can just pray for forgiveness.” Of course, Christ did give the Apostles the power to forgive or withhold forgiveness of sin in a passage of Holy Scripture rarely quoted in Protestant Churches.

Anna

Your first para is accurate.

GKC

 

[jordananglo]

Oh, how I wish there was an option 4.

Anna

Folks, there is now an option 4. It is called the Anglican Ordinariate. The pope made it; Catholic in doctrine, Anglican in culture, devotion, and liturgy. It is coming soon; get in line with the rest of us.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Folks, there is now an option 4. It is called the Anglican Ordinariate. The pope made it; Catholic in doctrine, Anglican in culture, devotion, and liturgy. It is coming soon; get in line with the rest of us.

jordananglo,

Yes, but isn’t the Anglican Ordinariate in full communion with the Catholic Church and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome?

Anna

 

[jordananglo]

Of course! It is a feature, not a bug.

jordananglo,

Yes, but isn’t the Anglican Ordinariate in full communion with the Catholic Church and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome?

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

***Edited ***to add Gurney’s quote:

I’m glad you posted, Anna. Your sympathetic and typically insightful post helped calm me down from the “undies in a wad” nonsense Jim just hurled my way. It’s rare for a GKC post to tick me off but today it did. Not happy with that snyde post.

In any case, I hear ya. I think wishy-washy is the reality. I think there are some real inconsistencies and illogical lines of thought in Anglicanism and when you push just a little too hard, Anglicans, especially Anglo-Catholics and those entrenched in the Anglican church for decades, snap like a crocodile. Why? I think the problem is the Oxford Movement didn’t make any sense. I feel like it was a 300 years after-the-fact attempt to try to retro-Catholicize a church that was always openly and proudly protestant. So I think I’m at the point in my ‘journey’ where I have two choices and I know GKC will disagree with me but that’s hunky dory:

1.) Accept imputation, Calvinist-style views on soteriology/atonement, embrace the 39 Articles and be a proud Protestant and stay at the Anglican Church

2.) Accept infusion and the Catholic views of soteriology and return to the Catholic faith.

option 3 is this:

3.) lie to myself and tell myself Anglicanism is Catholic just because it has apostolic succession and be an “anglo Catholic.” That’s just something I can’t buy really

Maybe your New Years resolution idea isn’t half bad, Anna. Maybe I am just cut out to be a Catholic Inconsistencies and illogical thought drives me too batty

Folks, there is now an option 4. It is called the Anglican Ordinariate. The pope made it; Catholic in doctrine, Anglican in culture, devotion, and liturgy. It is coming soon; get in line with the rest of us.

jordananglo,

Yes, but isn’t the Anglican Ordinariate in full communion with the Catholic Church and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome?

Anna

Of course! It is a feature, not a bug.

jordananglo,

What does that mean???

Anna

Edited to add Gurney’s quote and the following: being in full communion with the Catholic Church under the authority of the Bishop of Rome is the same as Gurney’s option 2, even if it is called the Anglican Ordinariate.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Folks, there is now an option 4. It is called the Anglican Ordinariate. The pope made it; Catholic in doctrine, Anglican in culture, devotion, and liturgy. It is coming soon; get in line with the rest of us.

Believe that option is considered but I am not ready at this point to return to Rome, or accept and all Catholic doctrine. The issue is bigger than culture and devotion. If that was the issue, I would line right up.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Folks, there is now an option 4. It is called the Anglican Ordinariate. The pope made it; Catholic in doctrine, Anglican in culture, devotion, and liturgy. It is coming soon; get in line with the rest of us.

Believe that option is considered but I am not ready at this point to return to Rome, or accept and all Catholic doctrine. The issue is bigger than culture and devotion. If that was the issue, I would line right up.

If that were the case, I’d be in that line too.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Very interesting post JohnnyReb. I think Henry’s history is a complicated one. Perhaps he intended the Catholic Church in England to remain Catholic–just Catholic minus Papal authority. No doubt he had some very personal and selfish motives for this liberation. Protestant influences entered as time passed, some good and some not. . . .

Your first para is accurate.

GKC

Any time I can get an O.K. from you on anything historical, I’m happy.

Anna

 

[jordananglo]

If that were the case, I’d be in that line too.

Anna

Dear Anna,

You are correct that the Ordinariate is for those who believe the teachings of Catholic Church and want to be in full visible communion with the pope and the other billion+ Catholics in the world. As a lifelong Anglican that has come to that point, it is truly a joyous and exciting time, not to mention a huge relief. If you find yourself at this point in the future, you will be very welcome! Happy discerning.

 

[GKC]

Any time I can get an O.K. from you on anything historical, I’m happy.

Anna

Happy to oblige.

GKC

 

[Anna_Scott]

Dear Anna,

You are correct that the Ordinariate is for those who believe the teachings of Catholic Church and want to be in full visible communion with the pope and the other billion+ Catholics in the world. As a lifelong Anglican that has come to that point, it is truly a joyous and exciting time, not to mention a huge relief. If you find yourself at this point in the future, you will be very welcome! Happy discerning.

jordananglo,

You are very kind, and I am truly happy that you have found your way to the Catholic Church. It’s been a tough journey for me. I relate well to Gurney’s concerns.

I just can’t get past the idea of religious submission of “mind and will” to a human being, even if he is occupying the “Chair of Peter.” That’s not the only issue, but the biggest one. If I convert to Catholicism (and that day may come,) it must be with my whole heart.

Peace,
Anna