P
Peter_J
Guest
Interesting. Hadn’t thought about it that way.
- Status
G
GKC
Guest
I find most of the Continuum very Anglo-Catholic. Not necessarily driving down the TAC road, but AC none the less. I can think of a few exceptions, but the ACA, the ACC, the APCK, and others are basically Anglo-Catholic.
GKC
G
grandfather
Guest
OK! So is the head of the Episciopal Church, the U.S. version of Anglicanism a woman named Shori, an Episcopal bishop, elected by other grownups who ordain homosexuals to their clergy and episcopate, and who advocate for gay marriage, vis a vis Gene Robinson who abandoned his wife and children and became a “June bride”?
Yep, we can take that serieously, no problem there at all.
I followed the whole Lambeth proceedings. The confusion and strain is caused by trying to make compatible things that are incompatible, trying to bring contradictions into harmony, to marry the immoral with moral, sheep with goats. When we do this, or try to, it requires mental gymnastics that confound and confuse. It becomes a farce, a circus, as witnessed at Lambeth. It is impossible to keep in communion things that are incompatible. It is impossible to keep human organizations in communion that do not share a common authority or head. What we are witnessing happen in the world of Anglicanism was inevitable. They are all branches cut off from the vine and cutting themselves off from one another into smaller branches. Whatever you call it, a separate communion, separated communion, does not matter. You can not have separation and unity anymore than you can have groups who believe homosexuals can marry in communion with groups who do not, or groups who believe women can be ordained and tyhose who do not. Separation and or with communion is an oxymoron. There is no married bachelor. You can’t have communion without unity. The Africans make that very clear. They are separated, period.
A
AlexiaMusing
Guest
Well now that we have the definitive word. LOL. Is this the method used to gain converts to RCC? By being utterly rude, and nasty? On whose authority personally speaking have you been made aware that the Holy Spirit is not in any other church by the Roman one? I didn’t think your Pope was making such pronouncements. Nobody saved but you?
A
AlexiaMusing
Guest
Funny, Anglicans say the same about Rome
G
grandfather
Guest
Thinking about the Anglican/Episcopal attempts to have unity and separation at the same time, or communion with separation I realized that this is not sometihng new for them, in a sense.
They have always tried to reconcile the irreconcilable.
When Cdl Newman was an Anglican he wrote the Middle Way, Via Media. He tried to portray Anglicanism as the reconciler of Protestantism and Catholicism. Anglicanism was Protestant and Catholic, both at the same time, and therefore the unifier of the Church, as ludicrous as that sounds. As he later came to realize, he had to chose which was true, or the true way. Logic says he may not have made the right choice, but nevertheless a choice had to be made.
The essence of it is truth is what it is. When there is a dispute about what truth is, you can not resolve it by a compromise between what is true and what is false, or between right and wrong.
Once truth is compromised it is no longer truth. Jesus either rose from the dead or He did not. There is no middle ground, or middle way. A woman can not be a little pregnant. She is or she is not.
An Anglican friend of mine was told by another Anglican who doubted the Resurrection that even if they found Jesus body tomorrow he would not lose his Anglican faith. My friend understanding that without the Resurrection there is no faith, replied that if Jesus body was found he would commit suicide.
It is impossible to reconcile two such extremes, or to have a church that ordains women and does not, or marries homosexuals and condemns homosexual behavior. It is impossible to reconcile the irreconcilable. It is impossible to hold in communion the irreconcilable as Rowan Willaims tried to do recently at Lambeth.
People can argue over whether the right route is to the north or south, but it can not be both. When a group is divided over which path is right and which is wrong there are two possible outcomes. One will persuade the other of its perspective and there will be unity, or the group will separate into two or more, and there will be disunity.
Once true unity of faith is broken as with Catholicism and Protestantism (to which Anglicanism most definitely belongs, despite its claims to be Catholic) continued fragmentation and division is inevitable, as we are witnessing today in the Anglican world. Divorces are always painful as we are also witnessing there.
Is it possible that Anglican claims to be Catholic are true?
Catholicism is inseparable from the papacy and Jesus’s promises to Peter. No pope = not Catholic. That is how Catholicism defines itself, tied to the bishop of Rome who is the head of the Church. Any group that denies that the pope is the head of the Church can not be Catholic according to the billion Catholics in the twenty some odd Catholic rites in the world.
So when the Anglicans claim to be Catholic while denying the pope’s authority and is the head of the Catohlic Church, it is like saying some bachelors are married, or that it is possible to have separation and communion at the same time.
Having many heads is the same as having no head. There is no way to sugar coat it. The house of cards is collapsing. Many people will suffer in the confusion and disarray and disintegration.
They have always tried to reconcile the irreconcilable.
When Cdl Newman was an Anglican he wrote the Middle Way, Via Media. He tried to portray Anglicanism as the reconciler of Protestantism and Catholicism. Anglicanism was Protestant and Catholic, both at the same time, and therefore the unifier of the Church, as ludicrous as that sounds. As he later came to realize, he had to chose which was true, or the true way. Logic says he may not have made the right choice, but nevertheless a choice had to be made.
The essence of it is truth is what it is. When there is a dispute about what truth is, you can not resolve it by a compromise between what is true and what is false, or between right and wrong.
Once truth is compromised it is no longer truth. Jesus either rose from the dead or He did not. There is no middle ground, or middle way. A woman can not be a little pregnant. She is or she is not.
An Anglican friend of mine was told by another Anglican who doubted the Resurrection that even if they found Jesus body tomorrow he would not lose his Anglican faith. My friend understanding that without the Resurrection there is no faith, replied that if Jesus body was found he would commit suicide.
It is impossible to reconcile two such extremes, or to have a church that ordains women and does not, or marries homosexuals and condemns homosexual behavior. It is impossible to reconcile the irreconcilable. It is impossible to hold in communion the irreconcilable as Rowan Willaims tried to do recently at Lambeth.
People can argue over whether the right route is to the north or south, but it can not be both. When a group is divided over which path is right and which is wrong there are two possible outcomes. One will persuade the other of its perspective and there will be unity, or the group will separate into two or more, and there will be disunity.
Once true unity of faith is broken as with Catholicism and Protestantism (to which Anglicanism most definitely belongs, despite its claims to be Catholic) continued fragmentation and division is inevitable, as we are witnessing today in the Anglican world. Divorces are always painful as we are also witnessing there.
Is it possible that Anglican claims to be Catholic are true?
Catholicism is inseparable from the papacy and Jesus’s promises to Peter. No pope = not Catholic. That is how Catholicism defines itself, tied to the bishop of Rome who is the head of the Church. Any group that denies that the pope is the head of the Church can not be Catholic according to the billion Catholics in the twenty some odd Catholic rites in the world.
So when the Anglicans claim to be Catholic while denying the pope’s authority and is the head of the Catohlic Church, it is like saying some bachelors are married, or that it is possible to have separation and communion at the same time.
Having many heads is the same as having no head. There is no way to sugar coat it. The house of cards is collapsing. Many people will suffer in the confusion and disarray and disintegration.
D
Dempsey1919
Guest
How was I rude and nasty? I told no lies nor did I distort the truth. I also do not speak for the Church, but merely for myself.
I did not say that “the Holy Spirit is not in any other church.” Those are your words, not mine. I simply stated that the Episcopalian Church does not have the infallable guidance of the Holy Spirit in the same way that the Catholic Church does. Anything good and true in all religions comes from the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit.
I believe in the universal salvific will of God. God wills that everyone be saved through Jesus Christ. I believe that the Catholic faith is the religion that is most pleasing to God. I also believe that the Catholic Church, alone, possesses the fullness of the Apostolic Christian faith. However, I also believe that it is possible for those outside of the Church to be saved, in accordance with the teachings of Catholic doctrine.
A
AlexiaMusing
Guest
How exactly do you KNOW these things rather than think them? Your opinions are yours but you state them as incontrovertible truths which they of course are not. Many many differ with you. I have no quarrel with what you believe, but I do quarrel when you state that something is so because your faith says it is. I don’t think God has weighed in on the subject frankly.
G
GKC
Guest
When you’re talking about the range of historic Anglican doctrine (let’s pass over the last few decades; it makes for awkward discussions)), you can look at two overlapping concepts. Anglicans can be classified on a continuum of Reformed/Anglo-Catholic, which relates more to doctrine, or along a line running from low church to high church, which is more related to churchmanship (how many candles and how much smoke and bells). These two lines are closely related, and sometimes the distinction is ignored.
Anglo-Catholics tend to affirm doctrine that would be familiar in a RC setting: Real Presence, baptisimal regeneration, some form of the Marian doctrines, the eucharist as propitiatory sacrifice, and importance of male priesthood, apostolic succession, etc, as the essence of the Church. The reformed (protestant is not quite the word wanted here) side looks more like a Lutheran approach, to pick something at random. And each line runs as a continuum, with degrees along the way. Me, I’m pretty far out on the Anglo-Catholic/high church ends.
If in doubt, look for a tabernacle.
GKC
D
Dempsey1919
Guest
I state them as truths because I believe them to be true. I have written nothing that cannot be proven. What have I written that is untrue about the Episcopal Church?
Do you deny that the Episcopal Church traces its roots to the Anglican Church which was founded by King Henry VIII?
Who is the undisputed leader of the Episcopal Church? The Archbishop of Canterbury is not the supreme leader; he is the first among equals. The Anglican Communion does not have an absolute leader. Does the Episcopal Church?
Do you deny that the Episcopal Church changes its doctrines over time? They changed their stance on contraception, female ordination, homosexuality, and homosexual “marriage.”
In my previous posts, I have simply stated Catholic doctrine regarding the foundation of the Church, Petrine Primacy, Papal Infallability, Development of Doctrine, and Apostolic Succession. I also stated the Catholic beliefs concerning the status of Anglican Holy Orders.
I challenge you to refute any of the points I raised. You may not like the tone of my writing, but I think you will find that I have been truthful.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
S
slyboots
Guest
To Alexia:
Your quote:
“How exactly do you KNOW these things rather than think them? Your opinions are yours but you state them as incontrovertible truths which they of course are not. Many many differ with you. I have no quarrel with what you believe, but I do quarrel when you state that something is so because your faith says it is. I don’t think God has weighed in on the subject frankly.”
God weighed in on the subject when Christ handed the faith to Peter. He said “the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” And so they have not.
Our Catholic faith was here from day 1 Christianity. The Episcopal Church was founded by a man who wanted an heir. A man who previously had written well on Catholic doctrine and was named “defender of the faith”. But sadly in his desire for a male child he threw over the true Church to found his own so he could justify his actions.
The Catholic Church unlike the Episcopal Church where I spent many years declares some things are simpy true or not. We are not afraid to have the Church follow the urging of the Holy Spirit and make Ex Cathedra statements of faith. We trust that Christ will protect us as He said he would.
The Episcopal Church declares them convenient or not sadly…like babies who are aborted with the church condoning it, marriages between two same sex people, Bishop Hines’ supporting the Black Panthers during the 60s and 70s, Bishop Pike’s revelations, feminism which has led to female priests and a female bishop and other issues.
The Anglican Church which seems to be trying to return to the Church’s traditional wisdom and teaching. And may someday find it’s way home across the Tiber thereby.
When a Catholic makes statements about the faith of the Church which are given to us by God through the Church, then it is no problem for us to state them as truth.
I understand why you might find this difficult. It’s one of the reasons the Episcopal Church is in error. They have no such authority.
Your quote:
“How exactly do you KNOW these things rather than think them? Your opinions are yours but you state them as incontrovertible truths which they of course are not. Many many differ with you. I have no quarrel with what you believe, but I do quarrel when you state that something is so because your faith says it is. I don’t think God has weighed in on the subject frankly.”
God weighed in on the subject when Christ handed the faith to Peter. He said “the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” And so they have not.
Our Catholic faith was here from day 1 Christianity. The Episcopal Church was founded by a man who wanted an heir. A man who previously had written well on Catholic doctrine and was named “defender of the faith”. But sadly in his desire for a male child he threw over the true Church to found his own so he could justify his actions.
The Catholic Church unlike the Episcopal Church where I spent many years declares some things are simpy true or not. We are not afraid to have the Church follow the urging of the Holy Spirit and make Ex Cathedra statements of faith. We trust that Christ will protect us as He said he would.
The Episcopal Church declares them convenient or not sadly…like babies who are aborted with the church condoning it, marriages between two same sex people, Bishop Hines’ supporting the Black Panthers during the 60s and 70s, Bishop Pike’s revelations, feminism which has led to female priests and a female bishop and other issues.
The Anglican Church which seems to be trying to return to the Church’s traditional wisdom and teaching. And may someday find it’s way home across the Tiber thereby.
When a Catholic makes statements about the faith of the Church which are given to us by God through the Church, then it is no problem for us to state them as truth.
I understand why you might find this difficult. It’s one of the reasons the Episcopal Church is in error. They have no such authority.
P
Peter_J
Guest
S
StarPaintedBlue
Guest
Thank you all very much for your thoughtful replies. 
I will tell my friends what you have said and send her the URLs to the links given!
I will tell my friends what you have said and send her the URLs to the links given!
G
GKC
Guest
That of Cranmer, as Archbishop of Canterbury. But in neither case was a divorce sought. Henry’s premise (and the history behind it is one of my hobbies) was that there was no sacramentally valid marriage, in Catherine’s case (details well known), and that he had technical grounds, in the case of Anne of Cleves, for a decree of nullity (failure to consummate the 2nd marriage, as evidence of Henry’s lack of informed consent, and Anne’s pre-marital contract to the Duke of Lorraine, establishing an impediment of the justice of public honesty, per verba du futuro.
Henry made the system work just as it did before he assumed control of the Church in England, that is, as a mixture of real-politic and theology. Decrees of nullity, not divorces.
GKC
A
AlexiaMusing
Guest
I care not a whit about your assumptions about the Episcopal church. I was referring to your statements of alleged fact about the Holy Spirit being more fully in the Roman church than in others. I guess I do think your tone is most argumentative and not inclined to foster friendly dialog but is pejorative in nature. I have nothing more to say frankly. I have no desire to refute your statements since I don’t feel any need to defend my faith at all. It is flawed like every faith, since we have not the fullness of understanding.
E
emeraldcoast
Guest
Hi Alexia,
Your pm box is full.
God Bless!
Your pm box is full.
God Bless!
A
AlexiaMusing
Guest
- Status