Anglican Patrimony

[BernadetteM]

If a Bishop or a priest is causing schism within the Church, denying the doctrines of the faith, I would agree that the Pope should remove them. In fact, there are some who should be removed and that has not been done. As far as Catholics go, Christ built the Church on Peter (Papacy) and the Pope is the head. There over one billion Catholics compared to what in the Anglican Communion?

Yes churches are closed because of financial reasons and also because of a lack of priests. It doesn’t appear to be a punishment. The same holds true in the Episcopal church. As far as ownership of the buildings in the Catholic Church the buildings are owned by the diocese, except in specific instances. My parish property is owned by a family, not the diocese.

I gather from past experience that the Episcopal church also owns the property of most of the property, at least the courts have awarded the property to the diocese. In my former TEC parish, the property was not owned by the diocese, yet we had to go to court and in the end were awarded the property.

I agree that if a whole TEC parish decides to leave TEC, that it would be charitable for the church to allow the members to purchase the property.

As far as conservative over liberal, that is not the issue, at least within the Catholic Church. There are doctrines that cannot be changed, women priests for one, then again there are disciplines that may be changed such as married priests in the Latin Rite.

Whether it would be in TEC or a Catholic parish and the Bishop or priest was teaching false doctrines, they should be removed. My nieces father-in-law was the Episcopal Bishop of a large diocese and did not believe in the Resurrection of Christ, that was years ago and since then TEC has changed to the point that I don’t recognize it as the church I grew up in.

As a Christian we profess or at least did profess that Jesus Christ is God the Son and died for our salvation and was resurrected, if TEC rejects this, then are they still considered Christian? Yes I am well aware that there are many who still accept the teachings, however, it appears at least to those who have left that this is no longer the case. It really has nothing to do with being conservative.

None of these comments are personal, these are the feelings of those who belong to the Continuum and those who are joining the Ordinariate.

You have chosen TEC as your home and if you feel you must defend it, then those who belong to the Continuum are much more concerned with the path that has been taken by TEC, than those who leave to join either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church.

Any reasonable person knows that while the Church is perfect, many members are not.

Actually TEC for what ever reason has not been vindictive towards thse going into the Ordinariate, which is a blessing, as others have not been so kind.

It is not I who has a problem with the PB, as she doesn’t have any affect on me, it is what I have read and who knows what is truth in todays’ world.

God Bless

Bernadette

 

[GKC]

If a Bishop or a priest is causing schism within the Church, denying the doctrines of the faith, I would agree that the Pope should remove them. In fact, there are some who should be removed and that has not been done. As far as Catholics go, Christ built the Church on Peter (Papacy) and the Pope is the head. There over one billion Catholics compared to what in the Anglican Communion?

Yes churches are closed because of financial reasons and also because of a lack of priests. It doesn’t appear to be a punishment. The same holds true in the Episcopal church. As far as ownership of the buildings in the Catholic Church the buildings are owned by the diocese, except in specific instances. My parish property is owned by a family, not the diocese.

I gather from past experience that the Episcopal church also owns the property of most of the property, at least the courts have awarded the property to the diocese. In my former TEC parish, the property was not owned by the diocese, yet we had to go to court and in the end were awarded the property.

I agree that if a whole TEC parish decides to leave TEC, that it would be charitable for the church to allow the members to purchase the property.

As far as conservative over liberal, that is not the issue, at least within the Catholic Church. There are doctrines that cannot be changed, women priests for one, then again there are disciplines that may be changed such as married priests in the Latin Rite.

Whether it would be in TEC or a Catholic parish and the Bishop or priest was teaching false doctrines, they should be removed. My nieces father-in-law was the Episcopal Bishop of a large diocese and did not believe in the Resurrection of Christ, that was years ago and since then TEC has changed to the point that I don’t recognize it as the church I grew up in.

As a Christian we profess or at least did profess that Jesus Christ is God the Son and died for our salvation and was resurrected, if TEC rejects this, then are they still considered Christian? Yes I am well aware that there are many who still accept the teachings, however, it appears at least to those who have left that this is no longer the case. It really has nothing to do with being conservative.

None of these comments are personal, these are the feelings of those who belong to the Continuum and those who are joining the Ordinariate.

You have chosen TEC as your home and if you feel you must defend it, then those who belong to the Continuum are much more concerned with the path that has been taken by TEC, than those who leave to join either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church.

Any reasonable person knows that while the Church is perfect, many members are not.

Actually TEC for what ever reason has not been vindictive towards thse going into the Ordinariate, which is a blessing, as others have not been so kind.

It is not I who has a problem with the PB, as she doesn’t have any affect on me, it is what I have read and who knows what is truth in todays’ world.

God Bless

Bernadette

I’m of the Continuum. I am not concerned by the path which TEC has taken. It’s disappeared into the mists.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

If a Bishop or a priest is causing schism within the Church, denying the doctrines of the faith, I would agree that the Pope should remove them.

Exactly. And all I’m saying is that when you speak of the Episcopal Church “treating orthodox priests badly,” it sounds as if you are making some neutral judgment about how religious organizations should treat people who disagree with the dominant ideology.

Your objection–and one of my objections–to the Episcopal Church’s actions is that they aren’t based in orthodoxy.

In fact, there are some who should be removed and that has not been done. As far as Catholics go, Christ built the Church on Peter (Papacy) and the Pope is the head. There over one billion Catholics compared to what in the Anglican Communion?

Let’s not distract from the real issues by bringing in numbers. If the numbers were reversed but everything else were the same, you would, I suspect, hold to exactly the same beliefs you do about who the true Church is.

Yes churches are closed because of financial reasons and also because of a lack of priests. It doesn’t appear to be a punishment. The same holds true in the Episcopal church. As far as ownership of the buildings in the Catholic Church the buildings are owned by the diocese, except in specific instances. My parish property is owned by a family, not the diocese.

Really? In the Episcopal Church there is a canon saying that all property is held in trust for the diocese.

As far as conservative over liberal, that is not the issue, at least within the Catholic Church

Yes, it is.

. There are doctrines that cannot be changed, women priests for one, then again there are disciplines that may be changed such as married priests in the Latin Rite.

In any tradition, there are disagreement about what things can be changed and what can’t. This is certainly true in Catholicism. In any such dispute, the people who think fewer things can be changed are called “conservatives,” and the people who think more things can be changed are called “liberals.” There is no good reason for Catholics to refuse to apply this terminology to themselves. The rejection of this language appears to be a linguistic power play by conservatives–indeed by ultra-conservatives who can’t even imagine a reasonable disagreement over which things can be changed and which can’t.

As a Christian we profess or at least did profess that Jesus Christ is God the Son and died for our salvation and was resurrected, if TEC rejects this, then are they still considered Christian? Yes I am well aware that there are many who still accept the teachings, however, it appears at least to those who have left that this is no longer the case.

I’m not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that some people who have left mistakenly believe that no one still accepts the teachings (which is what your syntax seems to imply), or are you saying that while some people still accept the teachings, those who have left reasonably conclude that TEC as a whole does not (which makes more sense in terms of your general argument)?

Obviously if TEC denied your admirable basic summary of the Christian faith, it would no longer be Christian in any orthodox sense. Of course, all you have to do is attend an Episcopal parish or pick up a copy of the 1979 BCP to see that the Episcopal Church certainly affirms these truths. I would reverse your statement: there are many in the Episcopal Church (including, alas, some clergy and even a bishop or two) who do not accept the basic truths of the Faith, but the Episcopal Church as a whole certainly does.

It really has nothing to do with being conservative.

Of course it does. Granted, holding to the truths you listed is a very minimal form of “conservatism,” but again, conservative and liberal are comparative terms.

You have chosen TEC as your home and if you feel you must defend it

Actually no. I don’t feel anything of the sort. I am trying to be as fair as possible. I have no interest in defending TEC in itself. I am very concerned about the current direction of TEC and feel no loyalty to it as an institution, though I feel much affection for its liturgical life and the particular communities I’ve participated in within it.

I’m simply saying that if you bracket the question of orthodoxy and look just at how the RCC treats its dissenters versus how TEC treats its dissenters, you can’t make a case that TEC’s treatment is worse, and there’s a pretty good case that the RCC’s treatment is worse.

Actually TEC for what ever reason has not been vindictive towards thse going into the Ordinariate, which is a blessing, as others have not been so kind.

That’s pretty easy to explain, I think. TEC is concerned, as I said, with people claiming the Anglican “brand.” If they are under the umbrella of the Roman Communion, the society as a whole will just see them as a somewhat weird variety of Roman Catholic. ACNA claims to be the “real Anglicanism” or at least an equally real expression of Anglicanism in North America, so it’s a threat.

Those other Anglicans who have left TEC, on the other hand (especially the Continuers and conservative Anglo-Catholics generally), are more likely to see the Ordinariate as a threat, because the territory they are claiming is “the right way to maintain a Catholic identity once you leave TEC.”

To put it more simply: TEC and conservative Anglicans are fighting over who gets to be Anglican; Continuers and Ordinariate folks are fighting over who gets to be Catholics inheriting the Anglican patrimony.

Edwin

 

[Santi2]

There has been much discussion within the Continuing Anglican groups and those Anglicans entering the Ordinariate in regards to Anglican Patrimony.

I have read many different opinions on this subject and would like an official definition of what Anglican Patrimony is within both the Anglican Communion and those who are part of the Continuum.

As a former Episcopalian, raised in a very low church setting, then attending an Anglo Catholic parish for many years, I cannot define what is recognized by all Anglicans as Anglican Patrimony.

There were extreme differences in liturgy, theology and traditions within the Anglican Communion then and there seems to be the same within the Continuum.

It appears to me that it is rather an individual’s opinion of what Anglican Patrimony is vs. what is officially taught within all who claim to be Anglican or claim to retain Anglican Patrimony as part of their faith.

What is the bottom line that one can find in official documents stating what it is? And if the definition given is not practiced by many within these these different groups, are they not truely “Anglican” or do they not retain Anglican Patrimony? What actually defines an Anglican if they are not in communion the the Anglican Communion? From the outside looking in, the individual groups just seem to be another denomination as there is no unity, nor leadership, outside of their own group.

Each country has there own traditions who are part of the Anglican Communion and those in the US who are part of the Continuum also practice distinct traditions within their individual groups. Many of these condemn those who claim to retain their Anglican Patrimony if it differs from their own.

It is rather confusing and it would be refreshing if there are official documents that state what Anglican Patrimony is and must be accepted by all who claim that Anglican Patrimony is an integrated part of their faith.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

Bernadette, I attended Mgr Keith Newton’s talk last Saturday and the Q&A’s touched on some of your queries. I hope the FAQ link on the website of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham helps. God bless.

ordinariate.org.uk/faq.htm

 

[GKC]

“In the Episcopal Church there is a canon saying that all property is held in trust for the diocese.”

Which is a case of sleight of hand. The Dennis Canon, whether properly passed at GC or not, over turns neutral property/trust law, in that it ignores that, in such neutral law, only an entity who can dispose of property legally can establish a trust on the property. and that must be done by a positive, affirmative act.

Courts are tending to find for TEC, basing their logic on an assumption that TEC is a formally hierarchical organization, rather than one based on the dioceses as independent and equal. The on-going aggrandizement of the PB’s role, and disciplinary powers accruing thereto, plays to the same scenario.

Are you watching +Lawrence and the Diocese of SC?

GKC

 

[Contarini]

“In the Episcopal Church there is a canon saying that all property is held in trust for the diocese.”

Which is a case of sleight of hand. The Dennis Canon, whether properly passed at GC or not, over turns neutral property/trust law, in that it ignores that, in such neutral law, only an entity who can dispose of property legally can establish a trust on the property. and that must be done by a positive, affirmative act.

Courts are tending to find for TEC, basing their logic on an assumption that TEC is a formally hierarchical organization, rather than one based on the dioceses as independent and equal. The on-going aggrandizement of the PB’s role, and disciplinary powers accruing thereto, plays to the same scenario.

Agreed.

Are you watching +Lawrence and the Diocese of SC?

A little, but not in detail.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Agreed.

A little, but not in detail.

Edwin

All your base are belong to us.

+Lawrence is right next door. It is an interesting, if not edifying spectacle, so far.

GKC

 

[jordananglo]

Those other Anglicans who have left TEC, on the other hand (especially the Continuers and conservative Anglo-Catholics generally), are more likely to see the Ordinariate as a threat, because the territory they are claiming is “the right way to maintain a Catholic identity once you leave TEC.”

To put it more simply: TEC and conservative Anglicans are fighting over who gets to be Anglican; Continuers and Ordinariate folks are fighting over who gets to be Catholics inheriting the Anglican patrimony.

Edwin

Edwin, That is a very insightful statement. In all of the post-Ordinariate fallout, TEC has actually acted fairly well to the whole thing, while the “continuing Anglicans” just lost it. They acted hysterically, and the whole affair split the ACA, and will draw away untold numbers from the varying other continuing groups - and will be the new default option as Catholics holding the Anglican patrimony, without being in the Anglican communion. The continuuers will be the poor step-child: they will continue to have poorly trained clergy, many ex-Catholics, and divorced and re-married clergy and bishops. Rome will enforce standards in the Ordinariate, and will consequently be the new standard bearer of Catholics from the Anglican tradition.

All in all, although the Ordinariate seems to rub the Episcopalians the wrong way, it is actually a win for them: it splits the rival Anglicans, and protects the brand name. Besides, the Episcopalians are really in “competition” with the other white liberal main-liners; the Catholic Church only appeals to a dwindling group within TEC that they don’t really want around anyway: traditional Anglo-Catholics.

 

[GKC]

Edwin, That is a very insightful statement. In all of the post-Ordinariate fallout, TEC has actually acted fairly well to the whole thing, while the “continuing Anglicans” just lost it. They acted hysterically, and the whole affair split the ACA, and will draw away untold numbers from the varying other continuing groups - and will be the new default option as Catholics holding the Anglican patrimony, without being in the Anglican communion. The continuuers will be the poor step-child: they will continue to have poorly trained clergy, many ex-Catholics, and divorced and re-married clergy and bishops. Rome will enforce standards in the Ordinariate, and will consequently be the new standard bearer of Catholics from the Anglican tradition.

All in all, although the Ordinariate seems to rub the Episcopalians the wrong way, it is actually a win for them: it splits the rival Anglicans, and protects the brand name. Besides, the Episcopalians are really in “competition” with the other white liberal main-liners; the Catholic Church only appeals to a dwindling group within TEC that they don’t really want around anyway: traditional Anglo-Catholics.

And then there are the Continuers who are not caught up in the subject, at all.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[BernadetteM]

Edwin, That is a very insightful statement. In all of the post-Ordinariate fallout, TEC has actually acted fairly well to the whole thing, while the “continuing Anglicans” just lost it. They acted hysterically, and the whole affair split the ACA, and will draw away untold numbers from the varying other continuing groups - and will be the new default option as Catholics holding the Anglican patrimony, without being in the Anglican communion. The continuuers will be the poor step-child: they will continue to have poorly trained clergy, many ex-Catholics, and divorced and re-married clergy and bishops. Rome will enforce standards in the Ordinariate, and will consequently be the new standard bearer of Catholics from the Anglican tradition.

All in all, although the Ordinariate seems to rub the Episcopalians the wrong way, it is actually a win for them: it splits the rival Anglicans, and protects the brand name. Besides, the Episcopalians are really in “competition” with the other white liberal main-liners; the Catholic Church only appeals to a dwindling group within TEC that they don’t really want around anyway: traditional Anglo-Catholics.

Just an observation, I know of two priests, from the several I know, that are from the more evangelical tradition who are joining the Ordinriate. I guess we will just have to wait and see who the Ordinariate will draw in the future. The one group of Lutherans are already applying, however, I have not heard any more on their status.

God Bless

Bernadette