Episcopalian/ Anglican services

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mystagogy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LDNCatholic said:
Ridiculous comparison. Just because I do not pay reverance to a piece of bread ‘‘consecrated’’ by an imitation of a Catholic priest I am somehow less Christlike? If I don’t believe everything your splintered Church professes I am less of a Christian? If anything avoiding this conscious idolatry is far more Christian.

I apologise to anyone who take offence as this is not my intention but I feel sometimes a sharp response is the only one appropriate to such ridiculous conclusions.

I have Anglican family. We march with the Anglicans on Good Friday. I will not worship your way however as I do not believe as you do. As a Catholic I will remind my co-religionists that we do not worship as you do (even GKC, a non Catholic, does that, as he knows it is not right to trick people into worshipping his way, or masking how serious it is like some seem to do).
Click to expand...
Right, LDN, I’ve been invited to family/friend’s events because of the relationship I have with the individuals – not their faith community… Why should I not attend the Anglican/Episcopalian cousin’s family event, which happens to be based on their faith, even if I don’t accept it as my own? I do also attend Bar Mitzvahs and non-Christian friend’s weddings… If I step outside the space when my Hindu friends are incensing and worshipping Krishna, wouldn’t that be less offensive than just sitting there while the rest are doing what their rites require? Or would it be less offensive to stand motionless amongst the crowd while all my Muslim friends are professing their faith and prostrating around me?
 
emeraldcoast said:
As an Episcopalian, I am also an Anglican. There are however schismatic"anglicans" or breakaway churches here in the USA. I prefer to stay away from those type of churches and stay with a Church that is in full Communion with the See of Canterbury. I love it when we see people on the net try to label Episcopalians all as Liberals-- I am a Republican and voted for McCain.🙂

Have a blessed day!
Click to expand...
After reading the above I have to wonder about something. Is there really perceived to be such a thing as a “schismatic ‘anglican’?” I grew up Episcopalian and I never heard such a phrase before. I never thought that the Episcopal Church had that kind of idea about itself. And I never got the impression that other denominations were seen as being in schism with us since they lacked a formal relationship with Canterbury. Is the above understanding really something that the Episcopal Church holds to these days?
 
SyroMalankara said:
GKC,

Here’s the opposing perspective from a Latin scholastic, that the so-called DT doesn’t fix…

From the Eastern (Catholic and Orthodox) perspective, DT changes nothing, Anglican ordinations are outside the Church. If an individual Anglican minister wishes to convert, he will be ordained not conditionally, but as from the lay state.
Click to expand...
I am familiar with that article. It assumes what it needs to demonstrate, as to intention and a sacerdotal priesthood, and is not relevant to the point of the infusion of valid episcopal lines, post 1662. The best presentation of the issue that I am aware of is found in Fr. J. J. Hughes’ two books ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID, and STEWARDS OF THE LORD. The first is the best overall coverage of the sad case of the history of
Apostolicae Curae, (superior to the linked article) and the second is the best exposition of a possible Anglican position, re: Apostolicae Curae. Fr. Hughes is RC.

OTOH, for the best statement of the logic behind the Bull, (then Jesuit Fr.) Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION is recommended. The subject is a long time hobby of mine; these two authors are essential.

As to the Orthodox position, yes, I know, as I said. To the Orthodox, all those outside the Church (including the RCC) are in that same position.

GKC
 
LDNCatholic said:
Ridiculous comparison. Just because I do not pay reverance to a piece of bread ‘‘consecrated’’ by an imitation of a Catholic priest I am somehow less Christlike? If I don’t believe everything your splintered Church professes I am less of a Christian? If anything avoiding this conscious idolatry is far more Christian.

I apologise to anyone who take offence as this is not my intention but I feel sometimes a sharp response is the only one appropriate to such ridiculous conclusions.

I have Anglican family. We march with the Anglicans on Good Friday. I will not worship your way however as I do not believe as you do. As a Catholic I will remind my co-religionists that we do not worship as you do (even GKC, a non Catholic, does that, as he knows it is not right to trick people into worshipping his way, or masking how serious it is like some seem to do).
Click to expand...
OTOH, I do believe a great deal as you do.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
cothrige said:
After reading the above I have to wonder about something. Is there really perceived to be such a thing as a “schismatic ‘anglican’?” I grew up Episcopalian and I never heard such a phrase before. I never thought that the Episcopal Church had that kind of idea about itself. And I never got the impression that other denominations were seen as being in schism with us since they lacked a formal relationship with Canterbury. Is the above understanding really something that the Episcopal Church holds to these days?
Click to expand...
Indeed, there are schisms within Anglicanism. The precise nature depends a good deal on how on defines what Anglicanism is.

GKC
 
emeraldcoast said:
As an Episcopalian, I am also an Anglican. There are however schismatic"anglicans" or breakaway churches here in the USA. I prefer to stay away from those type of churches and stay with a Church that is in full Communion with the See of Canterbury. I love it when we see people on the net try to label Episcopalians all as Liberals-- I am a Republican and voted for McCain.🙂

Have a blessed day!
Click to expand...
Thank you for your honest Answer. As I suspected those calling themeselves “Anglican” in this country are are schimatics form the Episcopal P.O.V… Is it not also true that the Episcopal church is the only church in America recognised by the Anglican Communion, while those who style themselves “Anglican” pretty mucn stand on their own,and are not in commuion with Canterbury? Just like like the sede-vaticanists who call them selves “catholic” but are out of communion with the Holy See of Rome?

Really I do not hold in high regard schismatics from any church.
 
pipper said:
Thank you for your honest Answer. As I suspected those calling themeselves “Anglican” in this country are are schimatics form the Episcopal P.O.V… Is it not also true that the Episcopal church is the only church in America recognised by the Anglican Communion, while those who style themselves “Anglican” pretty mucn stand on their own,and are not in commuion with Canterbury? Just like like the sede-vaticanists who call them selves “catholic” but are out of communion with the Holy See of Rome?

Really I do not hold in high regard schismatics from any church.
Click to expand...
Not entirely accurate. Those Anglicans (such as myself) who are called Continuing Anglicans are not in communion with Canterbury. Others who are separated from the Episcopal Church are still in communion with Canterbury, often having placed themselves under more traditional Anglican prelates, in the Communion, in the Third World. So there are more than one sort of Anglican in this country who is not in TEC, these days.

For that matter, being in communion with Canterbury is not the essence of Anglicanism, though it certainly is, as to being in the official Anglican Communion. But one should recall that the episcopacy was brought to TEC from the Non-Jurors, not in communion with Canterbury; the first “Continuing” Anglicans, in a way.

Schism is sometimes preferable to apostasy, sadly.

GKC
 
GKC said:
OTOH, I do believe a great deal as you do.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
Click to expand...
Well that is pretty evident. Reading some of your posts, you seem to have much more in common with Catholicism than with my experience of Anglicanism.
 
emeraldcoast said:
As an Episcopalian, I am also an Anglican. There are however schismatic"anglicans" or breakaway churches here in the USA. I prefer to stay away from those type of churches and stay with a Church that is in full Communion with the See of Canterbury. I love it when we see people on the net try to label Episcopalians all as Liberals-- I am a Republican and voted for McCain.🙂

Have a blessed day!
Click to expand...
A denomination that turns a blind eye to abortion or outright supports the “right” to kill babies, that sanctions homosexuals in a “marriage” that mocks the very institution set forth by God, a denomination that ordains gay men that cheated on their wives to “marry” men, a denomination that allows divorce with abandon even among its clergy, that says Jesus is “a” way to salvation not the “only” way, one that ordains Zen Buddhists, uh, yeah, I think it’s safe to call that liberal. And the irony here is that John McCain LOST because he was too liberal!! If the Republicans had stuck to their guns and stayed true to their beliefs of less government, less spending, protecting our borders, and fiscal discipline in general, we’d have a Republican president. There are liberals who are conservative with defense and conservatives who vote liberal because of union issues, environment and other things. Liberal denomination and liberal voting are two separate issues.
 
LDNCatholic said:
Well that is pretty evident. Reading some of your posts, you seem to have much more in common with Catholicism than with my experience of Anglicanism.
Click to expand...
What was your experience with Anglicanism, LDN?
 
pipper said:
Thank you for your honest Answer. As I suspected those calling themeselves “Anglican” in this country are are schimatics form the Episcopal P.O.V… Is it not also true that the Episcopal church is the only church in America recognised by the Anglican Communion, while those who style themselves “Anglican” pretty mucn stand on their own,and are not in commuion with Canterbury? Just like like the sede-vaticanists who call them selves “catholic” but are out of communion with the Holy See of Rome?

Really I do not hold in high regard schismatics from any church.
Click to expand...
One might just as easily say that the liberal Episcopal Church was the schismatic group; in fact, that’s exactly what the conservative, traditionalist, orthodox Anglicans maintain here in North America, in South America, and in Africa. The rest of the Anglican world doesn’t ordain homosexuals and female presiding bishops with lefty agendas nor does most of the Anglican world outside of the U.S. Episcopal Church condone abortion and gay “marriages.” The Anglicans are not “schismatic” who are re-aligning Anglicanism in North America. In fact, the statistics are very very clear that Episcopalian congregations are the oldest in age and growing older. Their parishes are heavy on the elderly and the younger, middle-aged, etc. have left en masse. If the Episcopal Church is the normal, orthodox, epitome of Anglicanism in America, why did the Archbishop of Canterbury not even allow “Bishop” Gene Robinson, the gay man who cheated on his wife for a relationship with another man, to attend the last Lambeth meetings? Why have Africans, Asians, and South Americans felt a need to MISSION to American Episcopalians? Why did bishops and thousands of good, God-fearing folks split their entire dioceses from the Episcopal Church? Because they’re schismatics? Technically all Anglicans are schismatic from Roman Catholicism to begin with so for an Episcopalian to mock Anglican realignment parishes as schismatic is the ultimate in irony.

Also, when did Anglican identity necessitate a relationship with Canterbury? As far as I know, continuing Anglicans haven’t been in a relationship with the ABOC for decades? He is an empty figurehead with no real power and no influence. In many ways he has no credibility either. The last four ABOC’s have been so impotent, lost, and unable to keep the communion together that some consider them totally irrelevent. When you have a guy like Archbishop Rowand Williams recommending that England embrace Islamic Shariah Law, you’ve entered the Twilight Zone! And then he allowed Buddhist chanting during the last Lambeth Conference. And we can’t forget the African tribal groupings he had for “problem-solving” at Lambeth where he threw Gene Robinson and the gay cause he usually supports under the bus? I hope Anglican legitimacy isn’t predicated on a relationship with this guy!
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
What was your experience with Anglicanism, LDN?
Click to expand...
Being brought up in England with an Anglican paternal family. The local vicar is even on the board of governers for the local Catholic primary school, even though I had a Catholic education we still had to learn about Anglicanism in history and R.E classes.

Very liberal. They do try to copy Catholicism but women vicars, the general ‘‘happy clappy’’ nature of their services, and the fact that the local Anglican church wasn’t consecrated until 50 years after it was built (right next to a 12th Century church they used to use), they used to take the chairs out and use it as a dance hall, rent it out for parties etc. These things tell me that there is not as much reverance or substance in their Church as their is in ours.
 
Although obviously as GKC demonstrates, there are Anglicans who are very close to us theologically, thought it is beyond me why they don’t just come home.
 
GKC said:
As to the Orthodox position, yes, I know, as I said. To the Orthodox, all those outside the Church (including the RCC) are in that same position.

GKC
Click to expand...
Not exactly, most Orthodox bishops would not consider a Latin or Eastern Catholic priest as non-ordained. The majority may chrismate the clergyman before accepting his Orders into Orthodoxy, some will do less, simply concelebrating the Eucharist with him…
 
pipper said:
Thank you for your honest Answer. As I suspected those calling themeselves “Anglican” in this country are are schimatics form the Episcopal P.O.V… Is it not also true that the Episcopal church is the only church in America recognised by the Anglican Communion, while those who style themselves “Anglican” pretty mucn stand on their own,and are not in commuion with Canterbury? Just like like the sede-vaticanists who call them selves “catholic” but are out of communion with the Holy See of Rome?

Really I do not hold in high regard schismatics from any church.
Click to expand...
The question then becomes who left the FAITH. The church is first and foremost the Faith, not the building or the hierarchy, despite the Episcopal church running around suing anyone who wants to keep the property they paid for, along with their faith.

As a continuing Anglican, we are continuing the same faith the Episcopals had 50 years ago. Someone strayed from the faith. Could it be the Episcopals with women priests and openly homosexual bishops?

You really need to figure out who left what here. There comes a time when people must take a stand against heresy and proclaim “Jesus Chist is the same, yesterday, today and forever…”
 
SyroMalankara said:
Not exactly, most Orthodox bishops would not consider a Latin or Eastern Catholic priest as non-ordained. The majority may chrismate the clergyman before accepting his Orders into Orthodoxy, some will do less, simply concelebrating the Eucharist with him…
Click to expand...
I have heard this described in a variety of ways, all saying basically that the general Orthodox view of orders, outside of Orthodoxy, is that they are “empty”, incapable of conveying grace, though the treatment of converting Anglican versus Roman clergy might be different t. Would you agree with that?

GKC
 
LDNCatholic said:
Being brought up in England with an Anglican paternal family. The local vicar is even on the board of governers for the local Catholic primary school, even though I had a Catholic education we still had to learn about Anglicanism in history and R.E classes.

Very liberal. They do try to copy Catholicism but women vicars, the general ‘‘happy clappy’’ nature of their services, and the fact that the local Anglican church wasn’t consecrated until 50 years after it was built (right next to a 12th Century church they used to use), they used to take the chairs out and use it as a dance hall, rent it out for parties etc. These things tell me that there is not as much reverance or substance in their Church as their is in ours.
Click to expand...
Anglicans are a motley crew. Find an Anglo-Catholic parish, under the episcopal guidance of a “Flying Bishop”, to see CoE Anglicanism at its best. Or, drop by locally, and we’ll sing the Angelus for you.

GKC
 
piperspop said:
The question then becomes who left the FAITH. The church is first and foremost the Faith, not the building or the hierarchy, despite the Episcopal church running around suing anyone who wants to keep the property they paid for, along with their faith.

As a continuing Anglican, we are continuing the same faith the Episcopals had 50 years ago. Someone strayed from the faith. Could it be the Episcopals with women priests and openly homosexual bishops?

You really need to figure out who left what here. There comes a time when people must take a stand against heresy and proclaim “Jesus Chist is the same, yesterday, today and forever…”
Click to expand...
I’ll buy that.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top