Episcopalians/Anglicans, Why Do You Think Your Religion is Correct?

[CMatt25]

Perhaps you can start a similiar program in your church. There’ s never a lack of volunteers or people donating and giving, there’s just a lack motivation to make it happen. The need has always been there, the only thing missing is the desire.

Peace

Perhaps Gary if I settle on one again. I’ve been shopping since the priest at my very large territorial parish stated in the depths of the recession what his answer to the poor is.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Perhaps if I settle on one again. I’ve been shopping since the priest at my territorial parish stated in the depths of the recession what his answer to the poor is.

Ah I see, the Episcopalians here have been a great help. In fact aside from what we were talking about, I was taking many of the children their for Baptism also, since the CC process was just much too complex. Its not that it couldn’t be done, its just the CC doesn’t move at others wills but her own. So IMHO the situation just become to desperate and waiting wasn’t an option.

In fact I actually went to talk to my Priest for the reason I was Baptizing the children myself when needed and felt guilty. Yes its like that out here today, so I understand what you seen and felt.

Peace

 

[CMatt25]

God bless you CMatt for such a kind response. I’m glad to hear you had such a good experience with an Episcopal Church.

When I first came to the Episcopal Church in 2010, I came from a Southern Baptist Church of about 12,000 members. In the Episcopal Church, we have about 400-500 in attendance each Sunday. As I learned more about the Episcopal Church, I was shocked by the generous outreach programs. In many ways, they were doing more than the mega Church I left.

I think with all the publicity about the liberal factions within TEC, people forget that Episcopalians are living out their faith everyday in their communities and beyond–sharing the love of Christ in service. It is a beautiful part of the Episcopal tradition.

Peace,
Anna

Thank you Anna. It was my first ever real life experience with an Episcopal church outside the web. But God bless you for the charity you seem to always show here and for sharing with us the good your faith community is doing where you live. God’s continued blessings in your and your faith community’s endeavors.

I know too some Episcopal churches are made up of believers with various experiences and POV. From what I can gather the one with the outreach I visited and others around me may fit such a bill. But I always think it’s beautiful as well when folks can nevertheless get beyond these differences and come together as people of faith in service and care. But then I confess and plead guilty of sorts of I think coming out of the womb with an ecumenical streak in me. Peace to you.

 

[CMatt25]

Ah I see, the Episcopalians here have been a great help. In fact aside from what we were talking about, I was taking many of the children their for Baptism also, since the CC process was just much too complex. Its not that it couldn’t be done, its just the CC doesn’t move at others wills but her own. So IMHO the situation just become to desperate and waiting wasn’t an option.

In fact I actually went to talk to my Priest for the reason I was Baptizing the children myself when needed and felt guilty. Yes its like that out here today, so I understand what you seen and felt.

Peace

Gary, you were taking children to be baptized at an Episcopal church?

 

[Richard_Rider]

No, it describes the situation.

We are willing to share communion with you.

You are not willing to share communion with us.

How is stating this “hostile”? The hostility lies surely in the refusal of communion, not in naming the existence of that refusal.

I know a good deal about it, and I know that it is extremely complicated. I invite the OP and other Catholics who think Anglicans somehow need to explain and defend their existence to lay out just why the refusal of communion exists in the first place, so we know what we are defending ourselves against. Generally when Catholics on this forum start to say what they think the reasons are, it becomes clear that they have some serious misunderstandings of Anglicanism and of the historical reasons for the schism.

Edwin

You talked about how the conversation should start by pointing out how “wicked and erroneous” you are. Phrasing it this was sounded rather hostile. We don’t say that Anglicans cannot commune because they are wicked and erroneous. Why are we the villains? By barring those who are not in a state of grace and not in communion with the Church, we are doing them a favor!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary, you were taking children to be baptized at an Episcopal church?

Most definate, I became very close with a particular parish across the street where the Homeless Shelter/Foodbank is. Most of the Churchs involved in helping here are Catholic and Episcopal. The churchs supply and volunteer to serve nightly meals either at the shelter or at their parish. Either way is fine.

The residents often from dysfunctional familys would arrive with young children or a child. Often lapsed Catholics or Christians whom due to their lifestyle never did anything with the children religious. 85% homeless are addicts of either alcohol or substance abuse or cross addicted, so as we talked and they began to come around a bit, church becomes a great way to deal with the emmense guilt they carry. The children are the priority and an instant concern since from day to day you just don’t know what these souls will do next. Relapse is just part of recovery. The parent is usually willing to go along with whats best for the children. All 12-step programs are based on Catholic/Christian teaching.

If they are Catholic then as the Father has said, we’ll be waiting for them to return. If they attend the Episocopal Church then thats fine also. Innocent Souls whom I believe should be Baptized when the parents prioritys are confused. Often easier said then done though.

Peace

 

[CMatt25]

Most definate, I became very close with a particular parish across the street where the Homeless Shelter/Foodbank is. Most of the Churchs involved in helping here are Catholic and Episcopal. The churchs supply and volunteer to serve nightly meals either at the shelter or at their parish. Either way is fine.

The residents often from dysfunctional familys would arrive with young children or a child. Often lapsed Catholics or Christians whom due to their lifestyle never did anything with the children religious. 85% homeless are addicts of either alcohol or substance abuse or cross addicted, so as we talked and they began to come around a bit, church becomes a great way to deal with the emmense guilt they carry. The children are the priority and an instant concern since from day to day you just don’t know what these souls will do next. Relapse is just part of recovery. The parent is usually willing to go along with whats best for the children. All 12-step programs are based on Catholic/Christian teaching.

If they are Catholic then as the Father has said, we’ll be waiting for them to return. If they attend the Episocopal Church then thats fine also. Innocent Souls whom I believe should be Baptized when the parents prioritys are confused. Often easier said then done though.

Peace

Gary, that is beautiful. God bless you and peace to you as well.

 

[Contarini]

You talked about how the conversation should start by pointing out how “wicked and erroneous” you are. Phrasing it this was sounded rather hostile. We don’t say that Anglicans cannot commune because they are wicked and erroneous. Why are we the villains?

My point is that you aren’t hostile enough to justify your practice. If pointing this out is hostile, so be it.

The only baptized people who should be banned from communion are people whose lives are flagrantly and unrepentantly wicked or whose views are radically incompatible with the Christian “rule of faith.”

By barring those who are not in a state of grace and not in communion with the Church, we are doing them a favor!

You are sending a confused message and that does no one any favors.

Either we are “wicked and erroneous” and not really your brothers and sisters in Christ, or we should share in the Body and Blood of the Lord with you. I respect the reasons why your Communion has tried to create a middle way between these stark options, but I’m not convinced it’s a good idea.

The reason I’ve made this argument in these terms in this thread is that the OP approaches the issue as if we were the ones refusing communion. It’s a bait-and-switch–you accuse us of schism because we don’t meet your requirements for extending communion to us.

Edwin

 

[CMatt25]

My point is that you aren’t hostile enough to justify your practice. If pointing this out is hostile, so be it.

The only baptized people who should be banned from communion are people whose lives are flagrantly and unrepentantly wicked or whose views are radically incompatible with the Christian “rule of faith.”

You are sending a confused message and that does no one any favors.

Either we are “wicked and erroneous” and not really your brothers and sisters in Christ, or we should share in the Body and Blood of the Lord with you. I respect the reasons why your Communion has tried to create a middle way between these stark options, but I’m not convinced it’s a good idea.

The reason I’ve made this argument in these terms in this thread is that the OP approaches the issue as if we were the ones refusing communion. It’s a bait-and-switch–you accuse us of schism because we don’t meet your requirements for extending communion to us.

Edwin

When I read the Son saying He turns away no one who comes to Him thru the Father, I’m not sure it’s a good idea either to refuse Communion to the baptized who discern His sacrifice of His body on the cross for us all. So open communion is one of the things I like about TEC. But that’s just me.

 

[Mickey]

I believe the Anglican Church, and the Episcopal Church by extension, have a valid communion so long as valid apostolic succession is in play, which it now is for MANY Anglican/Episcopal priests.

Really? Is this the official position of the Catholic Church?

 

[GKC]

Really? Is this the official position of the Catholic Church?

No.

I suppose that the what is referred to is based on the Old Catholic/PNCC participation in the consecration of Anglican bishops, beginning in 1932, after the Agreement of Bonn. Logically, this should result in valid, if illicit consecrations, but the RCC has not officially commented on it.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Mickey]

No.

I suppose that the what is referred to is based on the Old Catholic/PNCC participation in the consecration of Anglican bishops, beginning in 1932, after the Agreement of Bonn. Logically, this should result in valid, if illicit consecrations, but the RCC has not officially commented on it.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

Thank you.

 

[seanman611]

Instead of echoing the sentiments of others who have stated why they think we have valid preistly orders and other issues, i’m going to talk about what I like about TEC and Anglicanism.

First of all, I think the liturgy and worship is beautiful. Coming from a southern baptist church, I fell in love with the Anglican liturgy from the first service I attended.

Second of all, our little church of about 50 members with average Sunday attendance of about 20 to 25 does so much more community outreach than any church i’ve been a part of. We collect food, clothing, and other items for the needy. The church prepares meals for the men’s and women’s shelters in our little town. The gospel of giving and helping those in our community can easily be seen in our church.

Third, our church is traditional and located in a “moderate” diocese. Unfortunately, the drift toward modernism and liberalism with the national church and in many dioceses is growing and growing. However, as it stands, our church has remained traditional and has rejected modernism. The drift toward modernism is the hardest part about being an Episcopalian and remaining in TEC. If our little church abandons the creeds or affirms modernist theology, then i’ll have to look for a new church home. As it is, i’m staying put and hoping for the best.

Lastly, you can’t beat coffee and donuts (cookies and other pastries) after the service. Nobody does coffee and pastries like TEC!

 

[CMatt25]

Instead of echoing the sentiments of others who have stated why they think we have valid preistly orders and other issues, i’m going to talk about what I like about TEC and Anglicanism.

First of all, I think the liturgy and worship is beautiful. Coming from a southern baptist church, I fell in love with the Anglican liturgy from the first service I attended.

Second of all, our little church of about 50 members with average Sunday attendance of about 20 to 25 does so much more community outreach than any church i’ve been a part of. We collect food, clothing, and other items for the needy. The church prepares meals for the men’s and women’s shelters in our little town. The gospel of giving and helping those in our community can easily be seen in our church.

Third, our church is traditional and located in a “moderate” diocese. Unfortunately, the drift toward modernism and liberalism with the national church and in many dioceses is growing and growing. However, as it stands, our church has remained traditional and has rejected modernism. The drift toward modernism is the hardest part about being an Episcopalian and remaining in TEC. If our little church abandons the creeds or affirms modernist theology, then i’ll have to look for a new church home. As it is, i’m staying put and hoping for the best.

Lastly, you can’t beat coffee and donuts (cookies and other pastries) after the service. Nobody does coffee and pastries like TEC!

I’ve heard that. A Roman parish I’ve frequented serves bagels. Healthier I suppose but I guess everything in moderation is ok too as the saying goes. So nothing wrong with a donut on occasion.

 

[seanman611]

I’ve heard that. A Roman parish I’ve frequented serves bagels. Healthier I suppose but I guess everything in moderation is ok too as the saying goes. So nothing wrong with a donut on occasion.

No doubt my friend, fortunately, the sweets go first and they go quick!

 

[jordananglo]

No.

I suppose that the what is referred to is based on the Old Catholic/PNCC participation in the consecration of Anglican bishops, beginning in 1932, after the Agreement of Bonn. Logically, this should result in valid, if illicit consecrations, but the RCC has not officially commented on it.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

Hi GKC,

If there were of any concern to Rome, they would not have required absolute ordination of the new clergy in the Ordinariate. Msgr. Newton, the English Ordinary, confirms that Anglican orders are (still) considered invalid by Rome in his recent interview:

 

[GKC]

Hi GKC,

If there were of any concern to Rome, they would not have required absolute ordination of the new clergy in the Ordinariate. Msgr. Newton, the English Ordinary, confirms that Anglican orders are (still) considered invalid by Rome in his recent interview:

I know. But what I said was true. Rome, AFAIK, has never commented on the OC/PNCC subject, which, given what the teachings are on the validity of schismatic bishops’ consecrations (per Ott), could be interesting.

Way back when the idea of the Ordinariate was first raised, I was sure that the ordinations would be absolute. But if any had been (or might be) sub conditione, it would be…interesting.

GKC

 

[Cavaradossi]

I know. But what I said was true. Rome, AFAIK, has never commented on the OC/PNCC subject, which, given what the teachings are on the validity of schismatic bishops’ consecrations (per Ott), could be interesting.

Way back when the idea of the Ordinariate was first raised, I was sure that the ordinations would be absolute. But if any had been (or might be) sub conditione, it would be…interesting.

GKC

I should wonder why the Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of the (if not somewhat facetiously) so-called “Dutch touch”. Definitely according to the logic of Apostolicae Curae, the infusion of Old Catholic ordinations into the Anglican communion would be valid, so long as the ordaining bishop and the recipient had the proper intent.

 

[jordananglo]

I know. But what I said was true. Rome, AFAIK, has never commented on the OC/PNCC subject, which, given what the teachings are on the validity of schismatic bishops’ consecrations (per Ott), could be interesting.

Way back when the idea of the Ordinariate was first raised, I was sure that the ordinations would be absolute. But if any had been (or might be) sub conditione, it would be…interesting.

GKC

As an addendum, I would also draw your attention to the last question of this interview, to give an idea of the view of Rome towards “continuing Anglican” groups, even the TAC, who has been the most vocal and proactive about wanting unity with Rome (my boldface):

Did you receive many requests from the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), who had already split from the Anglican Church in the past?

There are twenty or so priests who put in their request last year. We just had a response from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and five of them have been given a ‘nulla osta’. We are now in the process of discerning their vocation to be catholic priests. Having the ‘nulla osta’ doesn’t guarantee you ordination.

Most of them however, did not receive the ‘nulla osta’ for a variety of reasons: some of them have no lay faithful at all, some of them have irregular marriages, some of them have received **very little training **and were ordained after very short courses.

These TAC priests do not fulfill the necessary requirements. So one of the most important aspects is that - even those TAC priests who are going to enter the Ordinariate – will be ordained at the end of the process, not at the beginning of it.

 

[Marybeloved]

I’ve heard that. A Roman parish I’ve frequented serves bagels. Healthier I suppose but I guess everything in moderation is ok too as the saying goes. So nothing wrong with a donut on occasion.

I’ve read this a lot about the West on these forums- I find it strange. Why do Western churches serve lunch or any meals at church? Here, after mass, people head straight home. Is this a Catholic thing?