Ask an Anglican Anything

Status
Not open for further replies.
De_Maria said:
Why? ljomdoi
Click to expand...
After years of restlessness I couldn’t stay because:
  1. I’m a marian minimalist
  2. I don’t believe that Pope is the supreme head of the church
  3. I believe clergy should be married and that women should be clergy
  4. The church “as an institution administered by human beings” has done a miserable job of dealing with predator priests and safeguarding young people and has not adequately atoned for this time. The rot goes all the way up the food chain.
  5. The church “as an institution administered by humans” has not atoned for the harm it inflicted on the First Nations People of Canada.
  6. Confession to God does not require a human intermediary
  7. Communion should be a common table
  8. Lay people should be engaged in the governance of the church
These points are made with the upmost of respect. I am not looking for an argument. You asked why I left and I presented the most salient points. Given my differences, I felt leaving was a more dignified response then staying.
 
What of the harm done by the Anglicans on the tribes of Canada?
 
chercheur said:
What drew you to Anglicanism over other Christian denominations?
Click to expand...
The Eucharist is central to my understanding of salvation. So not just any denomination would do. I guess for me, and this means no respect, the Anglican church allows me to continue to experience the ritual of Catholicism while remedying many of the concerns I have with that church.
 
GKMotley said:
I’m Anglican and bash parts of the motley mix of Anglicanism regularly.
Click to expand...
I bash it to. One of my critiques is the low level of expectation the church has for its followers. I mean there is no Sunday “obligation;” no distinction between mortal and venial sin; there is an absence of piety. At the same time there is no deference to authority for the sake of deference.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
If you were ever a Catholic, you’re still a Catholic, so I refuse to acknowledge you as an Anglican , I’m sorry that’s the way the Church sees it that’s the way I see it. Having said that, I’m curious if you’ve ever read this or read about ithttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01644a.htm
Click to expand...
I’m not going to debate how the RC church views me.

I am familiar with the Papal Bull on the recognition of orders. The churches are at an impasse. The RC’s believe the orders are invalid because of the absence of apostolic succession. Anglican declare that the apostolic succession is still present. I don’t see how this is reconcilable.
 
The27thPsalm said:
What of the harm done by the Anglicans on the tribes of Canada?
Click to expand...
We have and continue to atone for our misdeeds. We have paid reparation (which the RCs have not).

According the Assembly of First Nation’s Chiefs, the Anglican Church of Canada has led the way in efforts to reconcile with its past and is held as an example for other faith groups to emulate.
 
Caritas6744 said:
The RC’s believe the orders are invalid because of the absence of apostolic succession. Anglican declare that the apostolic succession is still present.
Click to expand...
Why do you believe the RC Church is wrong about this, and why do you believe the Anglican Church is correct. Feel free to include links to help explain. This is a question I’m interested in and would appreciate an Anglican’s point of view.
 
Last edited:
Depends on who says the ordination is invalid. Anglicans, with the possible exception of that small group referred to as Anglo-Papalists, have no particular reason to consider what Apostolicae Curae says, re: Anglican orders. RCs should adhere to such RC teachings carefully, at the appropriate level of theological certainty.,

For me, the long, sad story of the history, politics, personalities and theology involved in the point, from the first meeting of Halifax and Portal, in 1890, to the closing of the Malines Conversations in 1927 have been a hobby for many years.

Got a few such hobbies. Results in an accumulation of books that staggers the mind and the floor of the house.
 
Last edited:
Anglicans, generally, are not required to subscribe to the articles, unless their particular Anglcain jurisdiction has established such a requirement. For the CoE, that requirement, technically, was for the clergy to subscribe, or not deny them, IAW the 1571 Act of of Subscription. Absent any authority mandating otherwise, Anglicans are free to affirm, ignore, deny, or partially do any of these, or alternatively,remove them from their prayer book.

Note: This was supposed to be a reply to Bythian, above, on the articles. And yet, here it is, attached to something else.

It is entirely my fault…
 
Last edited:
In the USA, among other examples, there is the Episcopal Church. It is Anglican. It is not the totality of Anglicanism. Neither is the CoE.
 
Apologies if this was already asked, but what made the Anglican Church stand out to you instead of one of the other Christian churches?
 
GKMotley said:
this has been a hobby of mine for around 20 years.
Click to expand...
I see you are quite knowledgeable on this. The rules for granting an annulment appear to have been loosened, at least in the USA. In your personal opinion, if the present rules for annulment were in place at that time, would Henry VIII have been granted the annulment?
 
Technically it would have been far simpler under today’s process, AFAIK.

The rules for a decree of nullity were revised, beginning with the Council of Trent. The aim was to narrow the net a little, to make it less likely that any of the ruling strata could find a loophole to obtain a decree of nullity, for reasons of state.
 
As to personal auricular confession, the “rule” is all can, some should, none must. And yes, those on the A-C side of the Anglican spectrum are likely to do so more than those on the evangelical side.
 
Yeah, I don’t really fathom the effete bit, but the wishy-washy I can understand, the sort of “neither one thing nor the other” and “all things to all men” criticism.

To the Continuum Anglicans the Church of England has gone weak at the knees for current secular fashion (@GKMotley will correct me, I hope), for Sydney Anglicans the Church of England has sold out its Protestant heritage. That inclusivity is actually what I admire about the CofE, and my opinion matters not a scrap.

Of course I’m a wishy-washy liberal, so that might account for it.
 
Last edited:
I see, I missed that. Thank you.

So he or she likely believes in female ordination and other stuff I would consider heretical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top