Anglican Province of Christ the King

[GKC]

Complicated indeed to the point of frustration. I honestly don’t blame those faithful who leave for Rome (or the Orthodox Church for that matter) in despair and frustration. As I’ve said before, I myself was just about convinced to do as much.

Alas, Our Lord had other plans for me. St. Mark 13:13 spoke very strongly to me in this regard. Albeit I am interpreting that quote out of context.

Sensus Fidelium and all that you see…

As concerning the myriad of continuum jurisdictions…I probably come across as some sort of ecclesial cheerleader, or worse, the dreaded ‘poacher’. I regret this, and apologize to anyone whom I may have offended.

I have had the great pleasure of sharing dinner with Archbishop James Provence (head of the APCK) whom I’m sure your familiar with. A man imbued with the Holy Spirit who’s clear mindedness, fairness, etc I could only hope to emulate someday.

Are you familiar with Archbishop Shane Janzen? I have the pleasure of studying under him (in the hopes of becoming a postulant in the future), he is a former Basilian, so he knows the ‘ropes’ as concerning Catholic theology. If you ever make your way to the west coast of Canada, stop by St. John’s the Evangelist Cathedral Church on a Sunday for Holy Communion!

I only keep plugging the TAC as it seems (in my opinion anyway) the correct course, in light of Orthodox Christian tradition to organize the Church.

I have not heard of ++Janzen.

But as to Anglicans (or anyone) who can affirm all that the RCC requires them to affirm, the RCC may be their natural home. I have no problem with those who move; I have relatives that have.

GKC

 

[James82]

I have not heard of ++Janzen.

But as to Anglicans (or anyone) who can affirm all that the RCC requires them to affirm, the RCC may be their natural home. I have no problem with those who move; I have relatives that have.

GKC

This is where I differ than those. If one is to say “In order to be Catholic you must join the Roman Catholic Church”, I believe this screams of straw man (straw army if you will!).

I won’t go into the reasons of who, why and how. I’m sure you can almost guess my line of thought. The debate is never ending and quite tiresome.

 

[GKC]

This is where I differ than those. If one is to say “In order to be Catholic you must join the Roman Catholic Church”, I believe this screams of straw man (straw army if you will!).

I won’t go into the reasons of who, why and how. I’m sure you can almost guess my line of thought. The debate is never ending and quite tiresome.

No doubt. There are a number of such topics.

I said nothing about needing to be RC to be C.

GKC

 

[James82]

No doubt. There are a number of such topics.

I said nothing about needing to be RC to be C.

GKC

Oh I know you didn’t

But me being me, I must always hoist my flag lest I be self-convicted

 

[Marty_E]

I was wondering if any Continuing Anglicans or anyone else for that matter would know if the APCK is in communion with ANY other Continuing Anglican communions?

anglicanpck.org/index.shtml

Under Robert Sherwood Morse the APCK did not actively pursue communion with other continuing Anglican churches for reasons that really have never been clear. I knew many of the founders of the movement and have never been able to understand his lack of interest in realistic activity towards some form of union. Back in 2007 the APCK’s Eastern States Bishop, Rocco Florenza, cited the APCK’s failure to advance dialogue begun with the Anglican Church in America and the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) as his reason for leading 12 of the 14 congregations in the Eastern diocese into union with the Anglican Church in America.

However, the APCK lists two churches - the Anglican Catholic Church and the United Episcopal Church of America - as “Other St. Louis Affirmation Churches” on its website, which I take as a tacit endorsement.

The origins of these two is similar to that of the APCK. Bishop Charles D. D. Doren, the senior of the four bishops consecrated at Denver, initially served as Bishop of the Midwest, and then was translated to the new Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic States. However, he expressed concern about the increasingly Anglo-Catholic character of the Episcopate and Constitution and Canonical revisions undertaken in 1978-1981. When three parishes left the Anglican Catholic Church because they felt Broad and Low Churchmen were excluded from decision making process, the standing committee of the new jurisdiction invited Bishop Doren to be their first bishop and, subsequently, the first archbishop. In more recent years, it has described itself as representing the Broad or Central Church tradition, but it also has a number of decidedly Low Church parishes.

As far as I know the APCK is in formal communion with no one, but effectively treats the two churches mentioned as equals.

The squabbles among the continuing Anglican churches have greatly diminished the good that should have come from the St. Louis Affirmation.

.

 

[James82]

anglicanpck.org/index.shtml

Under Robert Sherwood Morse the APCK did not actively pursue communion with other continuing Anglican churches for reasons that really have never been clear. I knew many of the founders of the movement and have never been able to understand his lack of interest in realistic activity towards some form of union. Back in 2007 the APCK’s Eastern States Bishop, Rocco Florenza, cited the APCK’s failure to advance dialogue begun with the Anglican Church in America and the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) as his reason for leading 12 of the 14 congregations in the Eastern diocese into union with the Anglican Church in America.

However, the APCK lists two churches - the Anglican Catholic Church and the United Episcopal Church of America - as “Other St. Louis Affirmation Churches” on its website, which I take as a tacit endorsement.

The origins of these two is similar to that of the APCK. Bishop Charles D. D. Doren, the senior of the four bishops consecrated at Denver, initially served as Bishop of the Midwest, and then was translated to the new Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic States. However, he expressed concern about the increasingly Anglo-Catholic character of the Episcopate and Constitution and Canonical revisions undertaken in 1978-1981. When three parishes left the Anglican Catholic Church because they felt Broad and Low Churchmen were excluded from decision making process, the standing committee of the new jurisdiction invited Bishop Doren to be their first bishop and, subsequently, the first archbishop. In more recent years, it has described itself as representing the Broad or Central Church tradition, but it also has a number of decidedly Low Church parishes.

As far as I know the APCK is in formal communion with no one, but effectively treats the two churches mentioned as equals.

The squabbles among the continuing Anglican churches have greatly diminished the good that should have come from the St. Louis Affirmation.

.

This was the conclusion that I had come to myself (that they are in formal communion with no one), but I wasn’t entirely sure.

 

[GKC]

anglicanpck.org/index.shtml

Under Robert Sherwood Morse the APCK did not actively pursue communion with other continuing Anglican churches for reasons that really have never been clear. I knew many of the founders of the movement and have never been able to understand his lack of interest in realistic activity towards some form of union. Back in 2007 the APCK’s Eastern States Bishop, Rocco Florenza, cited the APCK’s failure to advance dialogue begun with the Anglican Church in America and the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) as his reason for leading 12 of the 14 congregations in the Eastern diocese into union with the Anglican Church in America.

However, the APCK lists two churches - the Anglican Catholic Church and the United Episcopal Church of America - as “Other St. Louis Affirmation Churches” on its website, which I take as a tacit endorsement.

The origins of these two is similar to that of the APCK. Bishop Charles D. D. Doren, the senior of the four bishops consecrated at Denver, initially served as Bishop of the Midwest, and then was translated to the new Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic States. However, he expressed concern about the increasingly Anglo-Catholic character of the Episcopate and Constitution and Canonical revisions undertaken in 1978-1981. When three parishes left the Anglican Catholic Church because they felt Broad and Low Churchmen were excluded from decision making process, the standing committee of the new jurisdiction invited Bishop Doren to be their first bishop and, subsequently, the first archbishop. In more recent years, it has described itself as representing the Broad or Central Church tradition, but it also has a number of decidedly Low Church parishes.

As far as I know the APCK is in formal communion with no one, but effectively treats the two churches mentioned as equals.

The squabbles among the continuing Anglican churches have greatly diminished the good that should have come from the St. Louis Affirmation.

.

This is in keeping with what I know, though my fallible memory conjured up a more formal; relationship with the ACC and the UECA than apparently was the case.

++Morse was determined to keep a tight grip on what he saw as the correct path for that form of Anglicanism. IMO.

GKC

 

[Marty_E]

But as to Anglicans (or anyone) who can affirm all that the RCC requires them to affirm, the RCC may be their natural home.

I would suppose the first question to answer would be whether one should affirm all that the Catholic Church requires one to affirm. If the answer is “yes”, then getting one’s intellect into synch with what logic requires follows.

.

 

[GKC]

I would suppose the first question to answer would be whether one should affirm all that the Catholic Church requires one to affirm. If the answer is “yes”, then getting one’s intellect into synch with what logic requires follows.

.

I rather think that if the answer is that they can so affirm, it is entirely proper from them to make the move. If not, or if so, not my problem.

GKC

 

[James82]

I rather think that if the answer is that they can so affirm, it is entirely proper from them to make the move. If not, or if so, not my problem.

GKC

There is not one teaching of the Catholic Church as taught by the Magisterium that I rebel against.

It is only the universal jurisdiction of the Holy See that I question, I do not say that I unthinkingly reject that jurisdiction though, that would be folly. There are roughly 300 million Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters that view it through this lens as well.

 

[GKC]

There is not one teaching of the Catholic Church as taught by the Magisterium that I rebel against.

It is only the universal jurisdiction of the Holy See that I question, I do not say that I unthinkingly reject that jurisdiction though, that would be folly. There are roughly 300 million Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters that view it through this lens as well.

Yes, that’s one of those things that someone should affirm, before crossing the river.

If the Magisterium does not teach that the Papal office possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, de fide (per Ott, p. 285), I am open to learning that.

GKC

 

[Marty_E]

It is only the universal jurisdiction of the Holy See that I question, I do not say that I unthinkingly reject that jurisdiction though, that would be folly.

I must say that four decades ago I somewhat shared your impression.

After watching the Anglican Communion begin disintegrating from within due to the lack of any teaching authority, I reassessed my thinking.

.

 

[James82]

I must say that four decades ago I somewhat shared your impression.

After watching the Anglican Communion begin disintegrating from within due to the lack of any teaching authority, I reassessed my thinking.

.

It is a constant struggle for me as well. However, as I have relayed in another thread, the attending of several modern Roman Catholic masses scared me off…full stop.

It has nothing to do though with some romantic attachment to Olde English liturgy as some may imagine.

If I may enumerate…

1. “Good morning everyone!”…R: “Good morning Fr. So and So!” (any sense of solemnity has been jubilantly vetoed from the start).
2. Jack and Jill wandering about the Holy of Holies before the priest consecrates the Host.
3. With the exception of a few traditional Roman Catholics, next to no one crossed themselves upon seeing the Host. (Why would people assume this should be optional? It is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ!).

Listen, I am going to just stop right there. To say anymore in such a tone would come across as berating, and that would be sinful of me.

It seems to me though, as I look at this banner above my post (Defending the Faith TODAY) that the Catholic Faith could have thousands of Jimmy Akins slaying Protestant Theology and it will be for naught if the center piece and cornerstone (Body and Blood of our Lord, REAL and PRESENT) is treated like Sideshow Bob on a Sunday Afternoon.

This is why I will remain (for now anyway) a traditional Anglican Catholic. It’s all Null and Void, fine…great.

But the liturgy I partake in is a solemn buildup to the crowning point of having Jesus Christ’s Body and Blood in me. This Body and Blood gives me God’s Grace and allows me to partake in an unspeakable yet quiet joy within my soul. It is a form of spiritual ‘ecstasy’ if that term is to be properly understood.

Liturgy cannot be made an end in and of itself as some drone on about, I do not and will not support that concept either. Nor in any way am I attempting some cheeky side swipe in accusing the Roman Catholic Host to be void.

What I am asserting is that both of our Host’s offer the same result, but the modern Roman Catholic Mass is not a road I am willing to travel at this point to reach that same result.

Edit: Wow I really took this thread off course, if a moderator would care to take my post and start a new thread with it I would be most obliged. Sorry guys.

 

[Marty_E]

What I am asserting is that both of our Host’s offer the same result, but the modern Roman Catholic Mass is not a road I am willing to travel at this point to reach that same result.

Sometimes sacrifices are required to defend Truth.

While the average Catholic liturgy is hardly elevating, much less solemn, liturgical practices are not monolithic.

There are 1962 Rite parishes, Anglican Use parishes, Eastern rites, and so on and so forth.

.

 

[James82]

Sometimes sacrifices are required to defend Truth.

While the average Catholic liturgy is hardly elevating, much less solemn, liturgical practices are not monolithic.

There are 1962 Rite parishes, Anglican Use parishes, Eastern rites, and so on and so forth.

.

Point well taken Marty.

However, I am not in an area where those alternatives are available.

 

[commenter]

…
The Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) is the largest and with a college of bishops, the most authoritive in matters of faith and morals as concerns orthodox doctrine.

Although many of the smaller bodies (APCK being one of them) have held on to orthodox doctrine as far as I know, they are scattered and often only have one or a few bishops presiding over their diocese and parishes. Hopefully they will come into the fold (the way things are looking, it is only a matter of time for many of them)…

The catch is, how can you know, or how can those churches (TEC, ACNA, Continuum) know what is orthodox doctrine especially as society changes new questions are asked, and the secular culture is far more sophisticated in its attack? If you ask the TEC leaders why they left orthodox doctrine, they would likely say they are still orthodox today. They, like the Presbyterians, could always point out some previously overlooked traditional or newly clarified scriptural reference for all their current (and future) beliefs and practices - so still orthodox in their self-assessment.

The TEC lost their way because all they had to guide them was the bible, the ecf’s, the creeds, the councils, centuries of Anglican theological heritage, the book of common prayer, and the prayerful checks and balances of scholars, bishops and the faithful. With good intentions but such an obviously inadequate safety net no wonder they went astray, with self-assessment so wildly wrong.

The Continuum is different. They have a powerful Safety Net of the Bible, the ECF’s, the Creeds, the Councils, Centuries of Anglican Theological Heritage, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Prayerful Checks and Balances of Scholars, Bishops, and the Faithful. You can see it’s a totally different, more doctrinally reliable situation from the TEC or C of E. Their own ability to self-assess for doctrinal orthodoxy, in 2014 or 2041, can be relied on.

 

[James82]

I just replied to you Commenter, but this mobile device decided to erase my text. I will get to a PC this weekend.

For future dialogue though, please refrain from condescension or sarcasm. I will debate with you adjoin in a spirit of ‘Truth, Beauty and Goodness’