Any Episcopalians or Anglicans on this board?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am an Anglican. And like former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, I am often ashamed of that fact.

I have come the the conclusion that the Church founded by Jesus Christ necessarily has a Magisterium. If the Church is the mystical Body of Christ whose Soul is the Spirit of Truth, then the mind of the Church, a faculty of the Soul, must possess infallibility since God cannot fail or teach error.

Anglicans have a limited Magisterium in the sensus fidelium, the sense of the Faithful, as she, like all Christian Churches and ecclesial communities are composed of Christians, who are indwelt by the Spirit through Baptism. We also (claim that we) have Bishops in Apostolic Succession. (I know Leo XIII was advised to deny this claim by a slim majority of theologians, and then wrote a Bull claiming our Orders are null and void).

But we do not have Peter’s Successor amongst our collegium episcoporum (college of bishops). So we do not possess the fulness of the Magisterium. And that increasingly bothers me. For truly, as St Ambrose said, Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesiam. (Where Peter is, there is the Church).

That’s a rant. But yes, I’m an Anglican. Any other Anglicans bothered that we don’t acknowledge the Petrine Succession as an Article of Religion, but plainly deny it?
 
QuicumqueVult said:
I am an Anglican. And like former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, I am often ashamed of that fact.

I have come the the conclusion that the Church founded by Jesus Christ necessarily has a Magisterium. If the Church is the mystical Body of Christ whose Soul is the Spirit of Truth, then the mind of the Church, a faculty of the Soul, must possess infallibility since God cannot fail or teach error.

Anglicans have a limited Magisterium in the sensus fidelium, the sense of the Faithful, as she, like all Christian Churches and ecclesial communities are composed of Christians, who are indwelt by the Spirit through Baptism. We also (claim that we) have Bishops in Apostolic Succession. (I know Leo XIII was advised to deny this claim by a slim majority of theologians, and then wrote a Bull claiming our Orders are null and void).

But we do not have Peter’s Successor amongst our collegium episcoporum (college of bishops). So we do not possess the fulness of the Magisterium. And that increasingly bothers me. For truly, as St Ambrose said, Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesiam. (Where Peter is, there is the Church).

That’s a rant. But yes, I’m an Anglican. Any other Anglicans bothered that we don’t acknowledge the Petrine Succession as an Article of Religion, but plainly deny it?
Click to expand...
Depends on what you consider the Petrine Succession to imply. Certainly, in my own parish, I hear the Pope referred to (and prayed for) as the Patriarch of the West (even if Benedict has sort of retired that title), and certainly considered primus inter pares. One may regret that loss, of communion, without assuming that it, in itself, cripples Anglicanism , anymore than it does Orthodoxy.

But your point is understood, and, certainly, there exists a simple solution to your dilemma.

GKC
 
Grace & Peace!
GKC said:
Depends on what you consider the Petrine Succession to imply. Certainly, in my own parish, I hear the Pope referred to (and prayed for) as the Patriarch of the West (even if Benedict has sort of retired that title), and certainly considered primus inter pares. One may regret that loss, of communion, without assuming that it, in itself, cripples Anglicanism , anymore than it does Orthodoxy.

But your point is understood, and, certainly, there exists a simple solution to your dilemma.

GKC
Click to expand...
Here here!

I’m an Anglo-Catholic (though a member of TEC), and I wish the Pope hadn’t retired the Patriarch of the West title. I do not subscribe to the RCC’s claims re: the Pope’s universal jurisdictional authority, but he is Peter’s successor and primus inter pares. And personally, I like BXVI, despite the fact that my socio-political liberalism might appear to belie that confession. But perhaps that just goes to prove I’m Anglican…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!
 
QuicumqueVult said:
I am an Anglican. And like former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, I am often ashamed of that fact.

I have come the the conclusion that the Church founded by Jesus Christ necessarily has a Magisterium. If the Church is the mystical Body of Christ whose Soul is the Spirit of Truth, then the mind of the Church, a faculty of the Soul, must possess infallibility since God cannot fail or teach error.

Anglicans have a limited Magisterium in the sensus fidelium, the sense of the Faithful, as she, like all Christian Churches and ecclesial communities are composed of Christians, who are indwelt by the Spirit through Baptism. We also (claim that we) have Bishops in Apostolic Succession. (I know Leo XIII was advised to deny this claim by a slim majority of theologians, and then wrote a Bull claiming our Orders are null and void).

But we do not have Peter’s Successor amongst our collegium episcoporum (college of bishops). So we do not possess the fulness of the Magisterium. And that increasingly bothers me. For truly, as St Ambrose said, Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesiam. (Where Peter is, there is the Church).

That’s a rant. But yes, I’m an Anglican. Any other Anglicans bothered that we don’t acknowledge the Petrine Succession as an Article of Religion, but plainly deny it?
Click to expand...
Depends on what you consider the Petrine Succession to imply. Certainly, in my own parish, I hear the Pope referred to (and prayed for) as the Patriarch of the West (even if Benedict has sort of retired that title), and certainly considered primus inter pares. One may regret that loss, of communion, without assuming that it, in itself, cripples Anglicanism , anymore than it does Orthodoxy.

But your point is understood, and, certainly, there exists a simple solution to your dilemma.

GKC
 
Deo_Volente said:
Grace & Peace!

Here here!

I’m an Anglo-Catholic (though a member of TEC), and I wish the Pope hadn’t retired the Patriarch of the West title. I do not subscribe to the RCC’s claims re: the Pope’s universal jurisdictional authority, but he is Peter’s successor and primus inter pares. And personally, I like BXVI, despite the fact that my socio-political liberalism might appear to belie that confession. But perhaps that just goes to prove I’m Anglican…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!
Click to expand...
If you don’t profess a degree of socio-political liberalism I would humbly have to ask if you have a well-formed intellect or conscience. Since you profess to be socially and politically, um, not ‘conservative’ or at least neither communist nor capitalist, then we may assume that your heart and mind concur with ‘BXVI’, especially given his latest words from Latin America.

My issue with Anglicanism is its presumption that one can be validly both morally and socially liberal. Social liberalism is relativism, plain and simple. You might as well be an atheist. I presume the notions ‘social’ and ‘moral’ are philosophically separable of course. But the beauty of Catholicism is that its social teaching makes it formally impossible to vote in total confidence in either the morally sensitive parties (Convservatives/Republicans) nor the socially sensitive parties (Democrats/Labour-LibDems).
 
Grace & Peace!
QuicumqueVult said:
If you don’t profess a degree of socio-political liberalism I would humbly have to ask if you have a well-formed intellect or conscience. Since you profess to be socially and politically, um, not ‘conservative’ or at least neither communist nor capitalist, then we may assume that your heart and mind concur with ‘BXVI’, especially given his latest words from Latin America.

My issue with Anglicanism is its presumption that one can be validly both morally and socially liberal. Social liberalism is relativism, plain and simple. You might as well be an atheist. I presume the notions ‘social’ and ‘moral’ are philosophically separable of course. But the beauty of Catholicism is that its social teaching makes it formally impossible to vote in total confidence in either the morally sensitive parties (Convservatives/Republicans) nor the socially sensitive parties (Democrats/Labour-LibDems).
Click to expand...
I find my socio-political liberalism is a necessary outgrowth of my religious position. To be honest, though, I was originally using “socio-political liberalism” as euphemistic for a series of positions and orientation/s (there I go euphemising) which I have noticed are more or less controversial in other areas of these fora and which, when expressed (if expressed), would certainly call my orthodoxy into question (in the minds of some, at least). I could easily be accused of having fallen prey to the relativism you rightly decry here (in fact I think I have been accused of just that, though perhaps in not so many words).

Generally, I agree with Mr. Elliot–“humankind cannot bear too much reality”. That reality is something we live towards, not something we possess in full. And that living-towards requires a measure of compassion when that reality is not fully embodied. I do not find that compassion very much present in camps (whether religious or political) in which rigid moralizing has become a habit/consistency turned hobgoblin (despite protestations to the contrary), or in which a moral code has ossified into a convenient idol, a replacement for conscience, or a substitute (and its a poor one) for empathy.

Oh but I’m ranting and am way off topic. Suffice to say that I think it is possible to appear both morally and socially liberal–if both morality and social liberalism are referred to a coherent theological frame/structure (and not vice versa). Too often, I think the RCC appears to argue backwards from a moral position to a theological one (at least that’s how it looks on the popular level). I don’t find that particularly appropriate. And I don’t think it was always the case. My understanding is that the social commitment of the Oxford movement came about as a result of the recovery of catholic tradition for Anglicanism. Not vice versa.

Not only am I ranting, I’m rambling.

I stop now.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!
 
rr1213 said:
Former…and maybe one day one again, albeit not in TEC.
Click to expand...
Gosh your locale has been in the news of late. Falls Church etc. I’d have thought the Old South would be less revisionist. But then again, proximity to DC, and the need to be a true Anglican (ie, a religio-political dilettante) renders the strength of one’s personal beliefs quite irrelevant in the face of political ambivalence and the need to affirm everyone and everything.
 
I was baptized and raised Episcopalian but no longer belong to that denom thankfully.😉
 
ALLFORHIM said:
I was baptized and raised Episcopalian but no longer belong to that denom thankfully.😉
Click to expand...
Sounds unanimous on this thread. Nobody here is a committed member of a parish in the Episcopal Church. It’s apostate and none of you is willing to contaminate yourselves either by intended or continued affiliation.

Guess what? Only ECUSA Anglicans are ‘Anglicans in the sense of being affiliated with Canterbury’, according to the normative definition of Anglican. Since the notion ‘Anglican Communion’ is a Victorian Anglo-American affectation, I’ll grant that being Anglican, as a distinct species of Christian, is rather a late development in Christian History.

So, if (1) you live in the USA and (2) desire to be in the Anglican Communion, thus affiliated with a truly global network of like-minded Christian, then you must belong to the Episcopal Church, USA. It does not matter a tinker’s curse whether you believe ECUSA is truly Christian or Anglican. Only if you are an ECUSA loyalist are you a true Anglican, in the ‘Anglican Communion’ sense of the term.

Welcome to 21st century Anglicanism. In mere decades we can celebrate half a millenium of Protestant freedom from Rome (ie apostasy). Praise the Lord!
 
QuicumqueVult said:
Sounds unanimous on this thread. Nobody here is a committed member of a parish in the Episcopal Church. It’s apostate and none of you are willing to contaminate yourselves either by intended or continued affiliation.

Welcome to 21st century Anglicanism. In mere decades we can celebrate half a millenium of Protestant freedom from Rome (ie apostasy). Praise the Lord!
Click to expand...
😃

Made me laugh. I don’t think it is apostasy but it made me laugh.

I remember a wonderful Catholic nun I had in university. She talked about how the Lord had provided benefits from the Prot Reformation in that it helped to bring counter reformation and pull the church back from some excesses.

North
 
QuicumqueVult said:
Gosh your locale has been in the news of late. Falls Church etc. I’d have thought the Old South would be less revisionist. But then again, proximity to DC, and the need to be a true Anglican (ie, a religio-political dilettante) renders the strength of one’s personal beliefs quite irrelevant in the face of political ambivalence and the need to affirm everyone and everything.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that is about a hundred miles to my north. Otherwise, I’d be in the middle of it.
 
QuicumqueVult said:
So, if (1) you live in the USA and (2) desire to be in the Anglican Communion, thus affiliated with a truly global network of like-minded Christian, then you must belong to the Episcopal Church, USA. It does not matter a tinker’s curse whether you believe ECUSA is truly Christian or Anglican. Only if you are an ECUSA loyalist are you a true Anglican, in the ‘Anglican Communion’ sense of the term.
Click to expand...
Depends on how CANA and AMIA shake out, let alone the Network.
 
Refugee to Rome after 40 years in the Episcopal Church, where I learned the Catholic faith so well :highprayer: I had to jump the Tiber. No regrets. Great sorrow for the state of the Anglican Communion today.

Keepin’ the lights on for ya, Quicumque!
 
rr1213 said:
Depends on how CANA and AMIA shake out, let alone the Network.
Click to expand...
AMIA is not recognized as being in Communion (on the web site). I think they are being cautious about in any way appearing to support these 3rd World Bishops who are pulling what ECUSA feels is ecclesiastical terrorism. On the other hand…if an African Bishop in Communion with Canterbury has made the decison to ordain and reocgnize parishes in the US they ARE in Communion.

Ahhhh if only John Shelby Spong were Archbishop of Canterbury this whole thing would be over 😃 Especially since at one point the good Bishop did refer to African Bishops as backward for not adovcating his vision of the social gospel.

North
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top