Anglican Issues with the Catholic Church

[GKC]

From a Catholic pov, it really shouldn’t matter if we call +KJS “Bishop” or “Presiding Bishop” since we technically don’t recognize the orders of any Anglican Bishop. That makes it merely a polite contrivance to refer to them by their ‘official’ titles. For that matter, when I was an Episcopalian, I had a hard time thinking that Methodist Bishops were real Bishops. I still called them “Bishop”, though.

I can certainly see as a conservative Anglican how the case could be made to refuse to refer to the Presiding Bishop as a Bishop (or ordained minister, PERIOD). I felt the same way prior to my trek across the Tiber.

Quite so.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[GKC]

In general it is considered polite to refer to someone by their proper title. Refusing to do so generally implies that at a minimum, one is unwilling to have polite discourse with the person professing the title.

In the case of Katherine Schori, the one issue that comes up is that for many people, myself included, there is a reasonable case to be made for conscientious objection to do so. The ordination of women in the Episcopal Church was widely understood to be illegal to begin with and the elevation of the same to the episcopacy was doubly so. People who feel strongly about this should not be expected to use such titles. However they should recognize that such a refusal may largely preclude any dialogue about such issues.

For myself, I would sooner walk out of a service than be in the same room with any woman who professes to have received ordination to the Episcopal priesthood or elevation to the Episcopacy. I would not greet nor knowingly grant obeisance to any male bishop who had ordained women to any such role. This necessarily places me at the extreme fringes of the continuing Church movement within the Episcopal Church.

As you say. But the Continuing Church movement is not a part of the Episcopal Church, nor the Anglican Communion. It’s a Anglicanism without Canterbury.

Even so, your doxy is my doxy, on this point.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[chris_molter]

As you say. But the Continuing Church movement is not a part of the Episcopal Church, nor the Anglican Communion. It’s a Anglicanism without Canterbury.

Even so, your doxy is my doxy, on this point.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

GKC,

I’m interested to hear your thoughts: what happens when and if (and it looks like a matter of when rather than if at this point, a la GAFCON) the ‘orthodox’ Anglicans reform their own communion without including Canterbury? Will true Anglicanism still be focused upon the throne of St Augustine? Do you think a remnant Global North AC centered at Canterbury with TEC, Canada, South Africa, and a few other provinces survive or thrive? Will the Global South communion elect a rival Archbishop of Canterbury, or an equivalent in another geographic location?

There’s so much in flux right now, I don’t imagine anyone is going to be a Nostradamus about the fate of global Anglicanism, but I’d love to hear what you envision!

 

[martinporres]

As the OP, I don’t quite mind where this thread has gone and do wish it to continue, but it’s incidentally illuminated the original question for me in that I see Anglicans as constantly trying to reconcile their independence with their desired catholicity, which to me seems a difficult and unenviable path.

---

I’m also particularly interested in GKC’s response to chris molter’s last post.

---

In Christ,
mp

 

[GKC]

GKC,

I’m interested to hear your thoughts: what happens when and if (and it looks like a matter of when rather than if at this point, a la GAFCON) the ‘orthodox’ Anglicans reform their own communion without including Canterbury? Will true Anglicanism still be focused upon the throne of St Augustine? Do you think a remnant Global North AC centered at Canterbury with TEC, Canada, South Africa, and a few other provinces survive or thrive? Will the Global South communion elect a rival Archbishop of Canterbury, or an equivalent in another geographic location?

There’s so much in flux right now, I don’t imagine anyone is going to be a Nostradamus about the fate of global Anglicanism, but I’d love to hear what you envision!

I’m honored that you ask. But my crystal ball is not high-def, either.

I would guess that the official Anglican Communion centered on the historic See of Cantaur, will continue, mainly comprised of Global North jurisdictions. Its doctrinal relationship to traditional Anglicanism, of any stripe ( from evangelical to Anglo-Catholic) will be increasingly tenuous and vanishing. Any claim that it is a part of the Catholic faith will be long gone (as it has been for 30 yers or more). Whether the 3rd world global South primates will officially separate and formally select an uber- Primate to take +Cantaur’s place, for them, I can’t say. I would expect that perhaps 3-4 other Episcopal dioceses will follow San Joaquin into the Southern orbit: Fort Worth, Pittsburg, Quincy. Individual parishes from across the country will continue to do likewise.

Canterbury will be come an historical reference point for the Global South. Since it’s a toothless, honorary headship, it won’t be missed. Of course, any who separate from +Cantaur won’t get invited to Lambeth every 10 years, and will miss out on some fine port.

Doctrinally, ECUSA, and much of the Global North will continue to move from traditional Anglicanism, past the borders of Mere Christianity, and into the fever swamps of apostasy. Whether ECUSA will continue as the official rep of this brand of Church of What’s Happening Now, locally, the ball is cloudy. Perhaps they might be replaced by some other grouping, as ACNA or AMIA, under Canterbury. I don’t move much in those circles.

True Anglicanism, in the sense history demonstrates it, will flicker and die in the Global North and perhaps live on in the South, but not in its Anglo-Catholic mode. +Akinola, for all his good points, lays hands on hairspray.

The last remnants of true Anglicanism, esp. in its Anglo-Catholic mode, will survive as long as the Continuing Anglican movement does. I have no great expectations as to how long that will be, or when we all will devolve into the ultimate form of unlimited jurisdictions comprising a bishop, 2 little old ladies and a cat. But as long as the Continuing Anglican movement, fissiparous as it is, survives, Classical Anglicanism, part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, with seven sacraments, conveying grace, most specifically to include valid orders and the Eucharist, of Our Lord’s very Body and Blood, etc (Trent, Session XIII, Canon 1) will continue. Yes, I know. Believe me, I know.

Thanks for asking. Truth is, I haven’t a clue. But if some of this happened, I wouldn’t be surprised.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[GKC]

As the OP, I don’t quite mind where this thread has gone and do wish it to continue, but it’s incidentally illuminated the original question for me in that I see Anglicans as constantly trying to reconcile their independence with their desired catholicity, which to me seems a difficult and unenviable path.

---

I’m also particularly interested in GKC’s response to chris molter’s last post.

---

In Christ,
mp

Not so difficult. Unenviable, can’t say.

And, for what it’s worth, see above. ask again for further unsatisfactory replies.

GKC

 

[mikew262]

I don’t mean for this to sound harsh, but why should anyone refer to a heretic by a “proper” title? On second thought, I did mean for it to sound harsh.:bible1:

Unnecessary and disrespectful. Grow up! Would you appreciate a Lutheran calling our Pope the “Antichrist”? While I think most don’t believe it, I believe that is still in their writings.

Whether you agree with her being a Bishop or not, she is still a fellow Christian.

 

[The_Dweller]

Unnecessary and disrespectful. Grow up! Would you appreciate a Lutheran calling our Pope the “Antichrist”? While I think most don’t believe it, I believe that is still in their writings.

Whether you agree with her being a Bishop or not, she is still a fellow Christian.

First of all, telling someone to “grow up” is hardly conducive to a productive conversation.

Secondly, 1234’s objection was to the use of PB or Mrs., instead of Presiding Bishop Schori. This is hardly comparable to a Protestant referring to the Pope as the Antichrist.

If it is the word “heretic” to which you object, according to the CCC, heresy is defined as…“the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;”. Now, how would you describe someone who advocates the ordination of actively homosexual bishops and clergy, and who claims that there is nothing in scripture which says that homosexuality is a sin? How would you describe someone who refers to Christ as “Mother Jesus”? How would you describe someone who has consistently tried to have orthodox Episcopal bishops and clergy hounded out of the church, and continually sues parishes which are trying to leave what they perceive to be a heretical church? Finally, how would you describe a bishop who questions the bodily resurrection of Christ, saying “I think Easter is most profoundly about meaning, not mechanism.”?

Is this woman truly a fellow Christian?

 

[flameburns623]

Unnecessary and disrespectful. Grow up! Would you appreciate a Lutheran calling our Pope the “Antichrist”? While I think most don’t believe it, I believe that is still in their writings.

Whether you agree with her being a Bishop or not, she is still a fellow Christian.

No. If she has accepted priesthood and elevation to the Episcopacy against clear teaching of Scripture and Christians tradition, she probably is NOT a Christian.

But then, it is issues like these driving me to reconsider whether or not to go to Rome.

 

[CatherineJones]

I think there’s a number of reasons, more pastoral than theological, why a person would choose Anglicanism.

I often think the papal claims are rather like the claims of a husband to respect his headship, without regard for a history of abuse. OK. We agree; however, there’s a history here & merely bringing up the ideal is not going to get the woman to agree to move back in. Put another way we acknowledge Christian principles about marriage–but we don’t subscribe to Shariya law’s long reaching means of enforcement (ie the husband has the right to beat or kill the wife, etc.)

Immediate universal jurisdiction by the pope (which hasn’t been the case everywhere at all times) has an abusive history. ( The Eastern apostolic sees rejected papal jurisdiction, seeing the pope as the last court of appeal, not an immediate ruler.)

That aside, what are the general pastoral issues: pastoral relationships. Most Catholic priests don’t even manage to greet many of their parishioners, let alone pastor them & I can gaurantee you that, in the face of a priest shortage, a self-respecting Anglican church would hire lay persons to do some of the pastoring and teaching. Anglicans see it as low quality service with low potential for discipleship. (An organization of Anglican priests that had worked for corporate re-unification with Rome for oh about a 100 years had 400 priest members join the RCC after the priesting of women; within a few years, 1/2 returned to the AC & the pastoral situation was chiefly cited as their motivation for return.)

Secondly: alas, annulments. Many individuals won’t go to Rome because they don’t want to deal with the cost, opportunity for their X to embarrass, delay or deliberately abuse the process, etc. An Anglican would expect an annulment to come through a pastor-bishop, not a court! Friends and business associates would not be brought in to testify & the matter would remain private and confidential.

Third: mission. Anglicans do not think it is prudent, no matter how strongly they believe certain Marian dogma, to deny persons the sacraments because they do not accept these and papal dogmas. They believe these things are not necessary to salvation & a hindrance to coming to the sacraments for many.

Fourth: Holiness. Anglo-Catholics have a rich tradition of holiness, of doing things RC’s tend to relegate to saints or mystic saints as a matter of course, of integrity and family-centered balance, of rich sacramental life within pastoral relationships. Rome appears very institutional and luke-warm to many Anglicans, lacking evidence of holiness and real compassion. It seems more caught up with rules and regulations and short on tender-hearted loved and humility.

Fifth: liturgy and lack of participation of the heart by the congregation are big turn offs.

Sixth: healing. Anglicans pioneered the sacramental healing ministry renewal and much of the charismatic connections. Unction is readily available to Anglicans for small hurts of body and emotions, not just the seriously ill.

Seventh: Clerical celibacy.

Eighth:: Delaying communion until age seven. Anglican and eastern churches commune immediately after baptism and chrismation (confirmation)

Ninth: Communing before confirmation (chrismation).

Tenth: Love, kindness, compassion, graciousness. My mother swears up and down that US Catholics have a cruel streak and a self-righteous streak in their formation. They’ve been taught to follow rules, but often lack hospitality, kindness and sacrificial love.

Eleventh: Pastoral laziness or dishonest dealings: Now that Anglicans have submitted to conditional re-ordination by lines of succession recognized by Rome, Rome continues to teach that their orders are invalid. Some wonder if this is proselytizing; others suspect an insitution that moves that slowly cares nothing about the individual.

 

[CatherineJones]

Whether the 3rd world global South primates will officially separate and formally select an uber- Primate to take +Cantaur’s place, for them, I can’t say. I would expect that perhaps 3-4 other Episcopal dioceses will follow San Joaquin into the Southern orbit: Fort Worth, Pittsburg, Quincy. Individual parishes from across the country will continue to do likewise.

I would suspect the organizing will follow the evangelizing. What I mean is AMIA and CANA are leading by evangelizing. They are growing, unlike the continuing churches and traditionalist catholic churches (and the RCC and TEC). (Yes, I know, the RCC is loosing only slightly–but has lost 1/3rd of US membership in thirty-five years if one doesn’t the Hispanic immigration.)

The power in AMIA and CANA will be in numbers–in getting around the obstacles The enemy has dreamed up and getting on with evangelizing and discipling effectively.

I like to hope all orthodox Anglicans will come together. The EO’s in the country have always felt their divisions were a weakness, but AMIA’s system of networking relationship dioceses vs geographical dioceses seems to be working incredibly well. I wonder if it will prove more mission-effective than the Roman state’s geographical model? One thing is for certain; it is much less vulnerable to infiltration and destruction of the faith and mission than the geographical diocese model.

 

[GKC]

I think there’s a number of reasons, more pastoral than theological, why a person would choose Anglicanism.

I often think the papal claims are rather like the claims of a husband to respect his headship, without regard for a history of abuse. OK. We agree; however, there’s a history here & merely bringing up the ideal is not going to get the woman to agree to move back in. Put another way we acknowledge Christian principles about marriage–but we don’t subscribe to Shariya law’s long reaching means of enforcement (ie the husband has the right to beat or kill the wife, etc.)

Immediate universal jurisdiction by the pope (which hasn’t been the case everywhere at all times) has an abusive history. ( The Eastern apostolic sees rejected papal jurisdiction, seeing the pope as the last court of appeal, not an immediate ruler.)

That aside, what are the general pastoral issues: pastoral relationships. Most Catholic priests don’t even manage to greet many of their parishioners, let alone pastor them & I can gaurantee you that, in the face of a priest shortage, a self-respecting Anglican church would hire lay persons to do some of the pastoring and teaching. Anglicans see it as low quality service with low potential for discipleship. (An organization of Anglican priests that had worked for corporate re-unification with Rome for oh about a 100 years had 400 priest members join the RCC after the priesting of women; within a few years, 1/2 returned to the AC & the pastoral situation was chiefly cited as their motivation for return.)

Secondly: alas, annulments. Many individuals won’t go to Rome because they don’t want to deal with the cost, opportunity for their X to embarrass, delay or deliberately abuse the process, etc. An Anglican would expect an annulment to come through a pastor-bishop, not a court! Friends and business associates would not be brought in to testify & the matter would remain private and confidential.

Third: mission. Anglicans do not think it is prudent, no matter how strongly they believe certain Marian dogma, to deny persons the sacraments because they do not accept these and papal dogmas. They believe these things are not necessary to salvation & a hindrance to coming to the sacraments for many.

Fourth: Holiness. Anglo-Catholics have a rich tradition of holiness, of doing things RC’s tend to relegate to saints or mystic saints as a matter of course, of integrity and family-centered balance, of rich sacramental life within pastoral relationships. Rome appears very institutional and luke-warm to many Anglicans, lacking evidence of holiness and real compassion. It seems more caught up with rules and regulations and short on tender-hearted loved and humility.

Fifth: liturgy and lack of participation of the heart by the congregation are big turn offs.

Sixth: healing. Anglicans pioneered the sacramental healing ministry renewal and much of the charismatic connections. Unction is readily available to Anglicans for small hurts of body and emotions, not just the seriously ill.

Seventh: Clerical celibacy.

Eighth:: Delaying communion until age seven. Anglican and eastern churches commune immediately after baptism and chrismation (confirmation)

Ninth: Communing before confirmation (chrismation).

Tenth: Love, kindness, compassion, graciousness. My mother swears up and down that US Catholics have a cruel streak and a self-righteous streak in their formation. They’ve been taught to follow rules, but often lack hospitality, kindness and sacrificial love.

Eleventh: Pastoral laziness or dishonest dealings: Now that Anglicans have submitted to conditional re-ordination by lines of succession recognized by Rome, Rome continues to teach that their orders are invalid. Some wonder if this is proselytizing; others suspect an insitution that moves that slowly cares nothing about the individual.

I do wish folks wouldn’t talk like this last point. I know of no conditional reordination of Anglicans by episcopal lines recognised by Rome as valid. I do know of joint consecrations, as part of joint communion, between Anglicans and Old Catholics of Utrecht, beginning in 1932, and (mainly) Episcopalians and Canadian Anglicans, and the PNCC, starting in 1946. Rome recognises the OCs and the PNCC as possessing valid but illicit episcopal lines and orders (before Utrecht starting putting sacerdotal vestments on females).

What one gets in that case, are Anglican bishops, jointly consecrated ab initio, not Anglican anythings reordained, *sub conditione *or absolutely. From this, valid but illict orders flow as the Anglican bishops ordain clergy.

Rome, incidentally, has never officially commented, AFAIK, on these consecrations.

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholicus *

 

[c659smith]

I think there’s a number of reasons, more pastoral than theological, why a person would choose Anglicanism.

I often think the papal claims are rather like the claims of a husband to respect his headship, without regard for a history of abuse. OK. We agree; however, there’s a history here & merely bringing up the ideal is not going to get the woman to agree to move back in. Put another way we acknowledge Christian principles about marriage–but we don’t subscribe to Shariya law’s long reaching means of enforcement (ie the husband has the right to beat or kill the wife, etc.)

Immediate universal jurisdiction by the pope (which hasn’t been the case everywhere at all times) has an abusive history. ( The Eastern apostolic sees rejected papal jurisdiction, seeing the pope as the last court of appeal, not an immediate ruler.)

That aside, what are the general pastoral issues: pastoral relationships. Most Catholic priests don’t even manage to greet many of their parishioners, let alone pastor them & I can gaurantee you that, in the face of a priest shortage, a self-respecting Anglican church would hire lay persons to do some of the pastoring and teaching. Anglicans see it as low quality service with low potential for discipleship. (An organization of Anglican priests that had worked for corporate re-unification with Rome for oh about a 100 years had 400 priest members join the RCC after the priesting of women; within a few years, 1/2 returned to the AC & the pastoral situation was chiefly cited as their motivation for return.)

Secondly: alas, annulments. Many individuals won’t go to Rome because they don’t want to deal with the cost, opportunity for their X to embarrass, delay or deliberately abuse the process, etc. An Anglican would expect an annulment to come through a pastor-bishop, not a court! Friends and business associates would not be brought in to testify & the matter would remain private and confidential.

Third: mission. Anglicans do not think it is prudent, no matter how strongly they believe certain Marian dogma, to deny persons the sacraments because they do not accept these and papal dogmas. They believe these things are not necessary to salvation & a hindrance to coming to the sacraments for many.

Fourth: Holiness. Anglo-Catholics have a rich tradition of holiness, of doing things RC’s tend to relegate to saints or mystic saints as a matter of course, of integrity and family-centered balance, of rich sacramental life within pastoral relationships. Rome appears very institutional and luke-warm to many Anglicans, lacking evidence of holiness and real compassion. It seems more caught up with rules and regulations and short on tender-hearted loved and humility.

Fifth: liturgy and lack of participation of the heart by the congregation are big turn offs.

Sixth: healing. Anglicans pioneered the sacramental healing ministry renewal and much of the charismatic connections. Unction is readily available to Anglicans for small hurts of body and emotions, not just the seriously ill.

Seventh: Clerical celibacy.

Eighth:: Delaying communion until age seven. Anglican and eastern churches commune immediately after baptism and chrismation (confirmation)

Ninth: Communing before confirmation (chrismation).

Tenth: Love, kindness, compassion, graciousness. My mother swears up and down that US Catholics have a cruel streak and a self-righteous streak in their formation. They’ve been taught to follow rules, but often lack hospitality, kindness and sacrificial love.

Eleventh: Pastoral laziness or dishonest dealings: Now that Anglicans have submitted to conditional re-ordination by lines of succession recognized by Rome, Rome continues to teach that their orders are invalid. Some wonder if this is proselytizing; others suspect an insitution that moves that slowly cares nothing about the individual.

All this mumbo jumbo

The facts are that the Catholic Church continues to grow by leaps and bounds and is now the largest Religion in the world with 1.2 billion at last count.

The anglican church continues to split over issues such as the woman priests, abortion, divorce, acceptance of homosexual lifestyles all tearing through the Anglican Church.

Do you know that even though England having a large ratio over Catholics in population — Church attendance on Sunday by Catholics is triple that of Anglicans.

Tony Blair’s conversion over to Catholism should tell you something of the status of the Anglican Church.

By the way did you know that 2008 is the year of evangelizing in the Catholic Church.

I pray one day you will make the journey back home to the Catholic Church.

 

[thirdn6]

In general it is considered polite to refer to someone by their proper title. Refusing to do so generally implies that at a minimum, one is unwilling to have polite discourse with the person professing the title. QUOTE]

So this is about politeness or …er…respect…
Mark 14:60 And the high priest rising up in the midst:

…now that seems irrelevant to the topic but that is an example of an absolute IN YOUR FACE truth!

So, is it politeness or in your face truth?
For myself:

Male or female I would not greet nor grant obedience to any invalidly ordained clergy in matters of faith. For doing so is like giving consent to their “misleading” works.
Mark 13:5 And Jesus answering:

I’d rather have dialogue with the members of the congregations…

---

Be angry, and sin not… Give not place to the devil.
Ephesians 4:26-27 +

 

[The_Dweller]

No. If she has accepted priesthood and elevation to the Episcopacy against clear teaching of Scripture and Christians tradition, she probably is NOT a Christian.

But then, it is issues like these driving me to reconsider whether or not to go to Rome.

flameburns623, I think we’re sort of in the same boat. I have often wondered whether I am being called,in my case, back to Rome. I have been enrolled in RCIA a number of times but never completed it. There always seemed to be some issues holding me back.

I found an Anglo-Catholic church close to my home. It is a member of the Anglican Province of Christ The King. They insist on using the 1928 BCP. They do not recognize the ordination of women, and they do recognize all 7 sacraments. The one thing that puzzles me is this. Doesn’t recognizing all 7 sacraments directly contradict the 39 Articles? Perhaps someone more learned than myself would be so kind as to enlighten me. These are the kind of questions which keep me a dweller on the threshold.:juggle:

 

[c659smith]

flameburns623, I think we’re sort of in the same boat. I have often wondered whether I am being called,in my case, back to Rome. I have been enrolled in RCIA a number of times but never completed it. There always seemed to be some issues holding me back.

I found an Anglo-Catholic church close to my home. It is a member of the Anglican Province of Christ The King. They insist on using the 1928 BCP. They do not recognize the ordination of women, and they do recognize all 7 sacraments. The one thing that puzzles me is this. Doesn’t recognizing all 7 sacraments directly contradict the 39 Articles? Perhaps someone more learned than myself would be so kind as to enlighten me. These are the kind of questions which keep me a dweller on the threshold.:juggle:

What holds you back?

The Catholic Church will welcome you back home like the prodical son. Please make the Journey and God Bless.

 

[The_Dweller]

No. If she has accepted priesthood and elevation to the Episcopacy against clear teaching of Scripture and Christians tradition, she probably is NOT a Christian.

But then, it is issues like these driving me to reconsider whether or not to go to Rome.

All this mumbo jumbo

The facts are that the Catholic Church continues to grow by leaps and bounds and is now the largest Religion in the world with 1.2 billion at last count.

The anglican church continues to split over issues such as the woman priests, abortion, divorce, acceptance of homosexual lifestyles all tearing through the Anglican Church.

Do you know that even though England having a large ratio over Catholics in population — Church attendance on Sunday by Catholics is triple that of Anglicans.

Tony Blair’s conversion over to Catholism should tell you something of the status of the Anglican Church.

By the way did you know that 2008 is the year of evangelizing in the Catholic Church.

I pray one day you will make the journey back home to the Catholic Church.

Just a few comments which I hope you will take in the cordial spirit in which they are intended.

Perhaps you missed the recent press release from the Vatican, which said that Muslims now outnumber Catholics.

As far as abortion, divorce, and homosexual lifestyles, Catholics, much to my dismay, are involved in these as well.
The big difference is, the Anglican Church approves of and, on occasion, celebrates these lifestyles.

You are absolutely correct, from what I’ve read, that more Catholics attend church than Anglicans. Unfortunately, more Muslims attend mosque in England than Catholics and Anglicans combined.

As for Tony Blair, yes, he is now Catholic, but very recently participated in an abortion rights fundraiser.

Peace be with you!

 

[The_Dweller]

What holds you back?

The Catholic Church will welcome you back home like the prodical son. Please make the Journey and God Bless.

What I believe one day seems to hold me back the next! Anyway,
as I said, my comments relating to your previous post were meant in an entirely friendly manner. I hope you will pray for me as I continue on my journey. Peace be with you!

 

[GKC]

flameburns623, I think we’re sort of in the same boat. I have often wondered whether I am being called,in my case, back to Rome. I have been enrolled in RCIA a number of times but never completed it. There always seemed to be some issues holding me back.

I found an Anglo-Catholic church close to my home. It is a member of the Anglican Province of Christ The King. They insist on using the 1928 BCP. They do not recognize the ordination of women, and they do recognize all 7 sacraments. The one thing that puzzles me is this. Doesn’t recognizing all 7 sacraments directly contradict the 39 Articles? Perhaps someone more learned than myself would be so kind as to enlighten me. These are the kind of questions which keep me a dweller on the threshold.:juggle:

I have been a member of an APCK parish, in my time.

The Articles are not normative for Anglicans in general. The only Anglicans who are, theoretically, bound to affirm them, are ordinands of the Church of England, due to the Erastian nature of the CoE. Anglicans in general ( with one other exception of a single jurisdiction in Africa), may affirm, ignore, pick and chose or burn the Articles, as they see fit. Anglicanism is not confessional, but Creedal, and the Articles are binding on none, except as noted. They are history (as one finds, looking into the 79 book. Which is one of the few points about the 79 book I like). There is a reason the APCK, and almost all Continuing Anglican jurisdictions use the 1928 BCP.

Anglo-Catholics, which the APCK overwhelmingly is, are particularly inclined to ignore the Articles, not much caring how Elizabeth I chose to govern her Church.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[The_Dweller]

I have been a member of an APCK parish, in my time.

The Articles are not normative for Anglicans in general. The only Anglicans who are, theoretically, bound to affirm them, are ordinands of the Church of England, due to the Erastian nature of the CoE. Anglicans in general ( with one other exception of a single jurisdiction in Africa), may affirm, ignore, pick and chose or burn the Articles, as they see fit. Anglicanism is not confessional, but Creedal, and the Articles are binding on none, except as noted. They are history (as one finds, looking into the 79 book. Which is one of the few points about the 79 book I like). There is a reason the APCK, and almost all Continuing Anglican jurisdictions use the 1928 BCP.

Anglo-Catholics, which the APCK overwhelmingly is, are particularly inclined to ignore the Articles, not much caring how Elizabeth I chose to govern her Church.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

Thanks very much. The information is very helpful. I have to admit, I was confirmed too quickly in the Episcopal Church. I needed to learn a great deal more about its history. A lesson learned the hard way!

GKC, if I may be so bold, what was it that caused you to leave the
APCK? Thanks again. Peace