Ask an Anglican/Episcopalian

[jimkhong]

Sorry. I was unclear. I meant that I intend to become Catholic, but I was being a little coy. I’m still not entirely sure that I will manage to go through with it.

As a matter of fact, I did retain my official membership in my parish in NC throughout the three years I lived in NJ, and for the first few years that I lived in Indiana.

Also, it’s not about refusing to break bread. On the contrary, my primary reason for still hesitating to become Catholic is that I don’t want to break Eucharistic fellowship with Episcopalians, or indeed with any Christians. But I do want to be in communion with Rome, and I cannot in good conscience submit to the ecclesiastical authority of TEC. Nor do I wish to feed the schismatic tendencies within Anglicanism by joining a conservative breakaway parish.

Edwin

Look very sound to me. God bless you on your search and may the Holy Spirit continue to be the guide.

 

[Peter_J]

It is not more true. It is different with the English. I can’t really put my finger onto it. There is a detached (but obvious fondness) way of talking about religion.

Try saying something nasty about their national churches to an Italian, Greek or Ukrainian and you will get punched. I have seen it happen (OK, maybe I haven’t met the Ukrainians other than at the London Ukrainian cathedral but certainly have with the punchup with the Italian and the Greek, figuratively if not physically). Can’t imagine an Englishman getting all flustered if you criticise the CoE. He may even agree with you. Something about the Englishman’s self-depradation - interesting article on it here.

etc.

Thanks Jim. It is, as you say, difficult to pin down in words how the English culture-religion-connection is different from the Greek one (or the Italian or the Ukrainian), but you did a nice job of it nevertheless.

 

[GKC]

Re-reading my earlier post, I agree my language could have been a little to dogmatic and a few more ‘could’ and ‘may’ would be have more appropriate.

The other interesting difference in categorisation in the Anglican Church is that they come in discrete multually-exclusive blocks. One is either Anglo-Catholic or Evangelical, for instance. And as they worship in different parishes, they do not necessarily interact except at episcopal meetings. So, the diversity among Anglicans is visible only at the high Church-wide level but not at the parish level.

Catholics are harder to pin down in those categories as opnions may differ depending on the issue concerned. I, for instance, may occassionally pray the rosary in Latin but will not agree to a Latin mass as the main Sunday mass in the parish even though I may attend weekday Latin masses when I could. Most Catholics are equally complex and you cannot take one’s opinion/practice on one issue to be indicative on another issue.

As we normally escape categorisation (there are exceptions of course, particularly among Latinist/traditionalists), we attend mass with people of different persuasions on various issues and that helps the sense of communion among the diverse. Not necessarily easy for someone pastorally-sensitive like me to deal with the Sola GIRM/Sola Canon Law Catholics, though.

Ah, I didn’t realise you are a Continuing Anglican. Not intended as a provocation, but didn’t the Continuing Anglicans continue to fracture after leaving the Communion while the Anglican Communion remain unitary. As you said, fissiparous.

I presume that Continuing Anglicans do not disagree with all of the Anglican Communion, but only with certain wings of (for instance)TEC. How do you continue your relationship with those in the Communion that you agree with? Does there continue to be mutual acceptance of each other’s bishops? If so, does it mean you have to evaluate each new bishop for his orthodoxy?

I always recommend waffling, when discussing Anglicans. Hard to make successful generalizations

My experience is somewhat different, with respect to the “purity” of a parish. My parish was formed as a self-consciously Anglo-Catholic parish, from the earliest days of the Continuing movement, shortly after the St. Louis meeting and declaration. It was mainly formed from members of the most AC parish in the area. But it also picked up less markedly AC members, from a number of other parishes locally. And to this day, we have two Sunday services, one being a Morning prayer, with Communion, for the more centrist group, one being Mass for the more markedly AC. But, as circumstances dictate, each might appear at either service. Not without some grumpiness, sometimes.

This mixture is partially driven by the nature of the parish, as part of the Continuum, and for long being the only game in town. The newer parish, established a few years ago and formerly (I think ) under AMIA, is markedly lower in ecclesiology. Most Episcopal parishes I have seen are somewhat mixed; harder to give a label. I have found the same sort of inability to pin down some in my parish (Incense: yes/no,* Angelus*:yes/no, Benediction: yes/no), even among the more nominally ACs. I take little for granted.Some times we look like Mere Anglicanism.

But the problem we have in adopting the concept of diversity/live and let live arises at the level when the diversity precludes the worship, tout court. For an orthodox Anglican (possibly a case of “no true Scotsman”, here) to receive the Body/Blood from the hands of a female in sacerdotal garments is simply impossible. That is not, to such, worship at all, but a simulacrum of worship.

Fissiparous, and hence I so named it. Sometimes it looks a little better, for getting the
cats herded together, some times less.

Continuing Anglicans have the usual hard to categorize relations with portions of the Communion. Primarily those on the more evangelical side have connections to the more orthodox jurisdictions in Africa, some in the Continuum stay in touch with GAFCON, it varies. But the case now is not merely whether a given bishop is orthodox, but whether he is a bishop at all: who laid hands on him. To that it has come.

I must curtail this. My computer is acting up.

GKC

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

The original Compromise, as seen in the Articles.

Consider ACNA, as it exists, under the basically evangelical ++Duncan and the Anglo-Catholic +Iker. They make common cause, against what TEC is becoming. Whether they can come to terms with the contradictions in their concepts, say of Orders, I can’t say. At this point, neither can they.

Historically, the odds are against it. IOW, when you come to a fork in the road, take it.

And I disagree, further, that the concept of Anglo-Catholic is one who is ready to bolt for the Barque. Push has come to shove and I can’t see that occurred. But then, I know little of the numbers that have gone to the Ordinariate.

I know one such. His name is Fr. Jurgen Llias, an Episcopal priest for 40 years. At some point a few years ago he was sent a copy of the Articles and told to sigh off on them, under some kind of oath, I think. “I couldn’t sign it.” he said. “It’s not true.” Long story short, he was ordained a Catholic priest in my parish last spring. A dozen or so of his former Anglican parish accompanied him into the Church.

As to your point on the future of the Communion, I think quite possibly that it could reach a crisis. And is, in fact in the early stages of one.

The ‘early stages’ began about ten minutes after Luther nailed his 95 opinions to the church door at Wittenburg. It’s an on-going process and if we use God’s clock – one day is a thousand years and a thousand years one day – it’s all one event.

I see a continuing, depressing tragedy.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Historically, the odds are against it. IOW, when you come to a fork in the road, take it.

Not sure what that means. Aren’t there by definition two ways to take at a fork?

As to the Ordinariate: fascinating subject. It would be interesting to know how successful that has been (in earthly things like numbers, I mean). Plenty of interesting anecdotal evidence on one side; lots of Anglican loyalists saying it’s just a dribble on the other. Is there any source of statistical info for the Chair of St Peter or Our Lady of Walsingham or Southern Cross?

 

[aidanbradypop]

As to the Ordinariate: fascinating subject. It would be interesting to know how successful that has been (in earthly things like numbers, I mean). Plenty of interesting anecdotal evidence on one side; lots of Anglican loyalists saying it’s just a dribble on the other. Is there any source of statistical info for the Chair of St Peter or Our Lady of Walsingham or Southern Cross?

I suppose it is going well. There is a parish about 2.5 hrs from me. I attended once this past summer. They are a small mission I guess you would call it. Very nice! I am not against anyone going into the RCC via the Ordinariate. Everyone has a place where they need to be.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I suppose it is going well. There is a parish about 2.5 hrs from me. I attended once this past summer. They are a small mission I guess you would call it. Very nice! I am not against anyone going into the RCC via the Ordinariate. Everyone has a place where they need to be.

I should be used to it by now, but I’m not: What distances you lot travel! Almost as though the US were a big place. Global warming must stoke up a few degrees every Sunday. Did you feel it was an Anglican liturgy or something a bit odd? Anyway, you’re anecdoting again! Any source of statistics, anyone?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I meant that I intend to become Catholic, but I was being a little coy. I’m still not entirely sure that I will manage to go through with it.

I think you know enough to wait until you are sure – one way or the other. Continue to pray and seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That sounds trite, I know, but it’s the best I can come up with.

Also, it’s not about refusing to break bread. On the contrary, my primary reason for still hesitating to become Catholic is that I don’t want to break Eucharistic fellowship with Episcopalians, or indeed with any Christians.

If you become a Catholic, you must. St. Paul says if we do not discern the body [in the Blessed Sacrament) we eat and drink condemnation upon ourselves. Non-Catholics are not to receive the Sacrament for that very reason; the Church knows, if they don’t discern the real body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord in the Eucharistic species exactly the way the Church does, they place their souls and those of the priest(s) who willingly allowed them to receive it, in jeopardy.

But I do want to be in communion with Rome, and I cannot in good conscience submit to the ecclesiastical authority of TEC. Nor do I wish to feed the schismatic tendencies within Anglicanism by joining a conservative breakaway parish.

Edwin

Then you have a serious decision to make. If and when you are confirmed at the Vigil Mass, you will be required to affirm that you believe everything the Catholic Church teaches. If you can’t do that, you might want to consider holding off for as long as it takes for you to ‘get it right.’ God bless you on your journey.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I think you know enough to wait until you are sure – one way or the other. Continue to pray and seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If you become a Catholic, you must. St. Paul says if we do not discern the body [in the Blessed Sacrament) we eat and drink condemnation upon ourselves. Non-Catholics are not to receive the Sacrament for that very reason; the Church knows, if they don’t discern the real body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord in the Eucharistic species exactly the way the Church does, they place their souls and those of the priest(s) who willingly allowed them to receive it, in jeopardy.

Then you have a serious decision to make. If and when you are confirmed at the Vigil Mass, you will be required to affirm that you believe everything the Catholic Church teaches. If you can’t do that, you might want to consider holding off for as long as it takes for you to ‘get it right.’ God bless you on your journey.

I think it’s Contarini you’re advising, mate. Easily done. Ah (edit) I spoke too soon.
[/quote]

 

[GKC]

Historically, the odds are against it. IOW, when you come to a fork in the road, take it.

I know one such. His name is Fr. Jurgen Llias, an Episcopal priest for 40 years. At some point a few years ago he was sent a copy of the Articles and told to sigh off on them, under some kind of oath, I think. “I couldn’t sign it.” he said. “It’s not true.” Long story short, he was ordained a Catholic priest in my parish last spring. A dozen or so of his former Anglican parish accompanied him into the Church.

The ‘early stages’ began about ten minutes after Luther nailed his 95 opinions to the church door at Wittenburg. It’s an on-going process and if we use God’s clock – one day is a thousand years and a thousand years one day – it’s all one event.

I see a continuing, depressing tragedy.

I know the occasional anecdotal story myself, but not some hearty statistics. Sort of like tracking Obama Care.

I have no idea what the episode with the Articles might be about. Even in the CoE, that is no longer done (AFAIK). Odd in the extreme. I’d have told whoever sent the missive to stuff it.

And yes. Fascinating train wreck = equal continuing, depressing tragedy. We might not be talking of precisely the same tragedy, but such it is, any case.

GKC

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Not sure what that means. Aren’t there by definition two ways to take at a fork?

lol> it’s a uniquely American saying, Picky. It’s ascribed to a former catcher for the New York Yankees baseball team named Yogi Berra, who was famous for his malapropos, such as, “Nobody goes there any more. It’s too crowded.” and “Baseball is ninety-five percent pitching. The other half is hitting and fielding.” The last two are originals. The one I used was made up by some else and credited to him.

As to the Ordinariate: fascinating subject. It would be interesting to know how successful that has been (in earthly things like numbers, I mean). Plenty of interesting anecdotal evidence on one side; lots of Anglican loyalists saying it’s just a dribble on the other. Is there any source of statistical info for the Chair of St Peter or Our Lady of Walsingham or Southern Cross?

I think the phenomenon is much too young to take a survey. I know of no stats on the subject. It’s probably a dribble, depending on how many there are in a dribble.

 

[GKC]

Not sure what that means. Aren’t there by definition two ways to take at a fork?

As to the Ordinariate: fascinating subject. It would be interesting to know how successful that has been (in earthly things like numbers, I mean). Plenty of interesting anecdotal evidence on one side; lots of Anglican loyalists saying it’s just a dribble on the other. Is there any source of statistical info for the Chair of St Peter or Our Lady of Walsingham or Southern Cross?

The world wonders.

GKC

 

[jimkhong]

I always recommend waffling, when discussing Anglicans. Hard to make successful generalizations

Point taken on a very good advice. Especially when my experience of Anglicans is limited to CoE and those in my country (which I think is under Canterbury anyway)

Continuing Anglicans have the usual hard to categorize relations with portions of the Communion. Primarily those on the more evangelical side have connections to the more orthodox jurisdictions in Africa, some in the Continuum stay in touch with GAFCON, it varies. But the case now is not merely whether a given bishop is orthodox, but whether he is a bishop at all: who laid hands on him. To that it has come.

It has always been this point, hasn’t it? The Africans have always been asking. Women priests - still OK as they can see a woman priest and avoid her - provided she is not transexual (one day we will get one - God’s way put putting a liberal cat among African pigeons). But women bishops - how do you know whether that hunky Anglo-Catholic priest was ordained by a woman bishop? So,the Africans reasoned, better to reject all priests who come from TEC (and NZ, Australia, Canada, etc, etc).

I get confused. Don’t Continuum attend GAFCON?

 

[GKC]

lol> it’s a uniquely American saying, Picky. It’s ascribed to a former catcher for the New York Yankees baseball team named Yogi Berra, who was famous for his malapropos, such as, “Nobody goes there any more. It’s too crowded.” and “Baseball is ninety-five percent pitching. The other half is hitting and fielding.” The last two are originals. The one I used was made up by some else and credited to him.

I think the phenomenon is much too young to take a survey. I know of no stats on the subject. It’s probably a dribble, depending on how many there are in a dribble.

I suspect that is true, in the low 4 digits, at best. No hurry. Time will tell. I know I was accounted as hostile to the whole idea, on this and similar sites, for wondering as it all began, what it would all mean, and casting doubt on the projections of vast herds of Anglicans sweeping majestically into Rome, because I strongly doubted that the TAC was quite as numerous as advertised, and that they would enter, en masse. And I was right. But then, I had been watching the whole process for 10 years.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

lol> it’s a uniquely American saying, Picky. It’s ascribed to a former catcher for the New York Yankees baseball team named Yogi Berra, who was famous for his malapropos, such as, “Nobody goes there any more. It’s too crowded.” and “Baseball is ninety-five percent pitching. The other half is hitting and fielding.” The last two are originals. The one I used was made up by some else and credited to him.

I think the phenomenon is much too young to take a survey. I know of no stats on the subject. It’s probably a dribble, depending on how many there are in a dribble.

Ah, thanks. Yes, I’ve heard of Mr Berra, although what baseball might be I’ve no idea (he lied). Horrible when someone trips his foot against a joke like that – I apologise.

 

[GKC]

Point taken on a very good advice. Especially when my experience of Anglicans is limited to CoE and those in my country (which I think is under Canterbury anyway)

It has always been this point, hasn’t it? The Africans have always been asking. Women priests - still OK as they can see a woman priest and avoid her - provided she is not transexual (one day we will get one - God’s way put putting a liberal cat among African pigeons). But women bishops - how do you know whether that hunky Anglo-Catholic priest was ordained by a woman bishop? So,the Africans reasoned, better to reject all priests who come from TEC (and NZ, Australia, Canada, etc, etc).

I get confused. Don’t Continuum attend GAFCON?

ACNA does, but they are not Continuum, by definition. I think some Continuum jurisdictions might, but I’m too lazy to look it up. And there are some fraternal, mutual support organizations with mutual memberships, overlapping, where devious plots are hatched.

GKC

 

[jimkhong]

As to the Ordinariate: fascinating subject. It would be interesting to know how successful that has been (in earthly things like numbers, I mean). Plenty of interesting anecdotal evidence on one side; lots of Anglican loyalists saying it’s just a dribble on the other. Is there any source of statistical info for the Chair of St Peter or Our Lady of Walsingham or Southern Cross?

Walsingham: 1000 as of Easter this year. They seem to think it was quite an achievement, Honestly, they are not that well received among Catholics either. Remember, Churchill crossed the floor of the House more than once. If the Ordinariate don’t like Francis, will they move on?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I have no idea what the episode with the Articles might be about. Even in the CoE, that is no longer done (AFAIK). Odd in the extreme. I’d have told whoever sent the missive to stuff it.

I don’t think Fr. Llias did that, but it’s what got him swimming.
GKC;11505235:

And yes. Fascinating train wreck = equal continuing, depressing tragedy. We might not be talking of precisely the same tragedy, but such it is, any case.

GKC

Just ponder for a moment who it is who is most pleased by the divisions in Christianity and you’ll have your answer to what I mean.

 

[GKC]

GKC;11506343:

I have no idea what the episode with the Articles might be about. Even in the CoE, that is no longer done (AFAIK). Odd in the extreme. I’d have told whoever sent the missive to stuff it.

I don’t think Fr. Llias did that, but it’s what got him swimming.

Just ponder for a moment who it is who is most pleased by the divisions in Christianity and you’ll have your answer to what I mean.

Oh, I knew what you meant.

GKC

 

[jimkhong]

ACNA does, but they are not Continuum, by definition. I think some Continuum jurisdictions might, but I’m too lazy to look it up. And there are some fraternal, mutual support organizations with mutual memberships, overlapping, where devious plots are hatched.

GKC

So, what exactly is the difference between Continuum, Continuing Anglicans and is (say) ACNA in one or the other?