Ask an Anglican/Episcopalian

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GKC said:
I refrain from predicting.

I observe.

Time will tell.

GKC
Click to expand...
Ach, I wasn’t accusing you of predicting disaster, just Mr Rombola. I know that when you’re fudging showing dudgeon, you’re really just a grudging curmudgeon.
 
Picky_Picky said:
Ach, I wasn’t accusing you of predicting disaster, just Mr Rombola. I know that when you’re fudging showing dudgeon, you’re really just a grudging curmudgeon.
Click to expand...
Well put, sir! Well put! I’m with GKC . . . I’m really beginning to like this guy . . .
 
Picky_Picky said:
Ach, I wasn’t accusing you of predicting disaster, just Mr Rombola. I know that when you’re fudging showing dudgeon, you’re really just a grudging curmudgeon.
Click to expand...
I try to eschew bludgeoning with a truncheon.

GKC
 
Picky_Picky said:
Ach, I wasn’t accusing you of predicting disaster, just Mr Rombola. I know that when you’re fudging showing dudgeon, you’re really just a grudging curmudgeon.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t thinking of GKC, either…but I do think he’d make a good honorary curmudgeon in the Clubhouse thread if Tomyris would let him in the door.
 
GKC said:
Well, thanks for inserting your thoughts into the thread.
Click to expand...
No problem. I’m just playing along, actually. You’re the one who inserted ‘train wreck’ into the mix. I thought it was an apt analogy and pointed out a couple. If you dispute they’re train wrecks, say so and tell me why.
GKC said:
Perhaps you might want to upgrade your reading material. But that’s not my call.

GKC
Click to expand...
Any suggestions? I’ve read the Bible and take a refresher every day, I say the Divine Office. I’ve read The Divine Comedy, all of Shakespeare, most of Dostoevsky, most of Irenaeus, some Aquinas, but I got a headache so I stopped. And I’ve read Kelly’s “Early Christian Doctrines.” Great book. Lots of other stuff, too. What should I upgrade to, do you think?
 
Ferde_Rombola said:
No problem. I’m just playing along, actually. You’re the one who inserted ‘train wreck’ into the mix. I thought it was an apt analogy and pointed out a couple. If you dispute they’re train wrecks, say so and tell me why.

Any suggestions? I’ve read the Bible and take a refresher every day, I say the Divine Office. I’ve read The Divine Comedy, all of Shakespeare, most of Dostoevsky, most of Irenaeus, some Aquinas, but I got a headache so I stopped. And I’ve read Kelly’s “Early Christian Doctrines.” Great book. Lots of other stuff, too. What should I upgrade to, do you think?
Click to expand...
No, I have a particular fondness for train wreck. Feel free to use it.

I always suggest Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII, in situations like this.

GKC
 
Picky_Picky said:
Ach, I wasn’t accusing you of predicting disaster, just Mr Rombola.
Click to expand...
Really? Where did I predict disaster for the Catholic Church? I see much contention, much suffering and persecution in the future, but disaster? No, the Lord is ever at our side and promised he’s be there to the end of the age. One of my sayings is, when the last light goes out on this planet it will be in the Vatican and the pope will flip the switch.
 
EvangelCatholic said:
You can start with reading the quote and link below. Not sure if you mean to be tactless.
Click to expand...
I mean to be truthful. There are a lot of people who have an aversion to the truth.

Directing me to a joint statement by a few Catholics and a few Lutherans doesn’t come close to telling me where my remarks are at odds with the teachings of the Church. Try again, in your own words.

Vatican II was a train wreck in the result, but not in the documents, which are sound doctrine. Here’s this from the Decree on Ecumenism: “Christ the Lord founded one Church and one only.” I subscribe to that teaching of the Council and it informs my apologetics.
 
Ferde_Rombola said:
I mean to be truthful. There are a lot of people who have an aversion to the truth.

Directing me to a joint statement by a few Catholics and a few Lutherans doesn’t come close to telling me where my remarks are at odds with the teachings of the Church. **Try again, **in your own words.

Vatican II was a train wreck in the result, but not in the documents, which are sound doctrine. Here’s this from the Decree on Ecumenism: “Christ the Lord founded one Church and one only.” I subscribe to that teaching of the Council and it informs my apologetics.
Click to expand...
I think I’ll take a pass!
 
Peter_J said:
Speaking as someone who has seen a lot of really futile back-and-forths on this forum, may I just say “Thank you”. :aok:
Click to expand...
I look into the eyes of these children singing the Advent of Christ the King; it helps my perspective. [some of those younger boys look like they forgot the words :rotfl:

 
GKC said:
Exactly. Priests were shipped over. And so were agents, not ordained, of the Bishop of London, to watch over affairs. Confirmation was limited to episcopal visits or required returning to the mother country, where the episcopal hands were located. Hence the phrase, still in the BCP (1928, at least; haven’t looked in the '79), limiting communion to those confirmed or desirous of being confirmed. A recognition of the situation.

Yes. The CoE was the established Church in a number of the colonies. Five, to my memory; I’m too busy/lazy to seek the info out. And there was no problem with the points you raise, when the colonies who made the CoE the established Church did so, in the early 1700s. It was the CoE, and the CoE met all the conditions you mention.

OTOH, since (IIRC), other colonies had established Churches not being CoE, the requirements you listed were not mandatory. The establishment lingered on, theoretically, in state constitutions, until well into the 1800s.

GKC
Click to expand...
Strange way of running a Church but then I guess it was also a strange way of running colonies. Too bad you had to break away - It would have been nice to have you guys at the Commonwealth Games, probably with each state sending a team instead of a Team USA, much like the England, Scotland, etc competing as separate teams instead of a Team GB.
 
GKC said:
There was a time when the CoE, in essence, was Anglicanism. And while there was a range of doctrinal opinion, under an umbrella of mere Christianity, it was not anarchy.
Click to expand...
You sure that is not nostalgia? All churches look back to a golden age. We and the Orthodox imagines that the church was perfect in apostolic times while our traditionalists think the church was perfect before Vatican 2.
 
jimkhong said:
Strange way of running a Church but then I guess it was also a strange way of running colonies. Too bad you had to break away - It would have been nice to have you guys at the Commonwealth Games, probably with each state sending a team instead of a Team USA, much like the England, Scotland, etc competing as separate teams instead of a Team GB.
Click to expand...
Not sure that was a standardized way to run a Church, in colonies.The process sort grew. But slowly the CoE established colonial sees, located in the colonies, as the Church followed the flag. And eventually the colonies became self governing, and the colonial Churches followed, I often am surprised to remember when the Anglican Church of Canada became self governing. Sometime around WWII, IIRC.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Exactly. Priests were shipped over. And so were agents, not ordained, of the Bishop of London, to watch over affairs. Confirmation was limited to episcopal visits or required returning to the mother country, where the episcopal hands were located. Hence the phrase, still in the BCP (1928, at least; haven’t looked in the '79), limiting communion to those confirmed or desirous of being confirmed. A recognition of the situation.

Yes. The CoE was the established Church in a number of the colonies. Five, to my memory; I’m too busy/lazy to seek the info out. And there was no problem with the points you raise, when the colonies who made the CoE the established Church did so, in the early 1700s. It was the CoE, and the CoE met all the conditions you mention.

OTOH, since (IIRC), other colonies had established Churches not being CoE, the requirements you listed were not mandatory. The establishment lingered on, theoretically, in state constitutions, until well into the 1800s.

GKC
Click to expand...
Can you explain the Anglican archbishopric in Canada?
 
EvangelCatholic said:
I look into the eyes of these children singing the Advent of Christ the King; it helps my perspective. [some of those younger boys look like they forgot the words :rotfl:

Click to expand...
That was a lovely change from the usual contentiousness on these threads!
 
jimkhong said:
You sure that is not nostalgia? All churches look back to a golden age. We and the Orthodox imagines that the church was perfect in apostolic times while our traditionalists think the church was perfect before Vatican 2.
Click to expand...
No, neither nostalgia nor a golden age. Just the Elizabethan compromise, messy and makeshift. With blow-ups, as in the Ritualist movement.

I think my parish was perfect around 2007.

Nostalgia, there.

GKC
 
Peter_J said:
Indeed. Whereas we have our traditionalists, you have your liberals. (Can’t say I would want to trade. :ouch:)
Click to expand...
If Evangelical Continuing Anglicans can be in communion with the conservative Africans in the Anglican communion (if I understand GKC correctly), why not get our traditionalists and their liberals to be in communion? To paraphrase, why cause problems in two of our friendly Communions, when we can cause problems in just one of their united Communion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top