How has the Anglican Communion gone wrong?

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .And Vatican II was quite a disaster. Whatever intentions were there at the time materialized into a mess.

Vatican II a disaster. . . . .LUMEN GENTIUM came out of Vatican II. Progress Gurney?

Anna

 

[Califman831]

Vatican II a disaster. . . . .LUMEN GENTIUM came out of Vatican II. Progress Gurney?

Anna

not progress, more like heresy

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans

We can only be saved in the name of Christ, not is some false gospel being spread by an Antichrist name mo-hammed.

 

[Contarini]

not progress, more like heresy

May God send us more such heresy, and save us from those who think their own prejudices are orthodoxy.

Edwin

 

[Califman831]

More like loyalty the church and the catholic faith, you should consider partaking in it and stop letting liberal winds keep you from sound doctrine. Many Popes, saints, councils, and catechisms have denounced Islam. Where they wrong too? Should we chuck our history and the gospel of Christ for the sake correct of being politically correct?

 

[Contarini]

More like loyalty the church and the catholic faith, you should consider partaking in it and stop letting liberal winds keep you from sound doctrine. Many Popes, saints, councils, and catechisms have denounced Islam. Where they wrong too? Should we chuck our history and the gospel of Christ for the sake correct of being politically correct?

None of these have ever said that Muslims worship a false god, as far as I know. This has been debated over and over. Mickey produced a passage from St. John of Damascus–but this passage does not say that Muslims worship a false god. It says that Islam is a heresy, which is quite different.

Furthermore, I do not believe that Catholics are bound to accept every polemical expression ever used–only dogmatic definitions.

Islam is a quasi-Christian heresy. St. John of Damascus was right to call Muslims “mutilators of God.” Pope Benedict was essentially right in what he said at Regensburg, though he should have avoided making a generalization based on one Islamic thinker, especially given that some Christian theologians have held a similarly arbitrary view of God.

Edwin

 

[Anna_Scott]

Vatican II a disaster. . . . .LUMEN GENTIUM came out of Vatican II. Progress Gurney?

Anna

not progress, more like heresy

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans

We can only be saved in the name of Christ, not is some false gospel being spread by an Antichrist name mo-hammed.

Califman831,

My comment to Gurney was actually an “inside” joke between two friends about ***his ***progress in returning to Catholicism. We’ve both had long discussions, on the forums, about the requirements of LUMEN GENTIUM in regards to Papal infallibility. LUMEN GENTIUM came out of Vatican II, and I was just “ribbing” Gurney a bit; because seeing Vatican II as a “disaster” is one way of dealing with the demands of LUMEN GENTIUM to submit religious mind and will to the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra.

So, I wasn’t commenting on “progress” in terms of Vatican II. And—even though I was ribbing Gurney a bit; as his friend, I am very happy he has returned to the Catholic Church and found some peace in his own journey.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Anna,

Of course I know you’re joking. We’ve been friends long enough!! And you’ve come to know me like an open book. Of course LG (not the cellphone company! ) still troubles me indeed. And another adept poster here made comments about CCC841 being horrible doctrine and I heartily concur on that as well. I’m living in contradiction and right now just trying my best to make sense of it all.

The one appealing thing for sure about Anglicanism for me was this----I could feel that ALL three of the major apostolic succession churches (Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Anglicanism) are flawed and I wasn’t a heretic with them. I have always felt that they each maintain defects and not one of them is perfect in doctrine or theology. But if you ask a Catholic, he’ll tell you they’re infallible, ask the Orthodox and they’ll tell you they’re infallible and the Catholics are schismatics and lost souls, but ask the Anglicans and they admit they’re imperfect. Sometimes I found that appealing—a refreshing honesty. They seemed to be just earnestly trying to discern the Truth and admitting that they don’t have all the finer points hammered out but the fundamentals they have indeed. I liked that.

My wife is not happy as a Catholic. Despite being born and raised one in the Philippines, she finds the Church flawed, the education and homilies and didactic side banal and empty, doesn’t see a heck of a lot of value in confession like I do, and she’s not into the sacramentals much either. Since going back to the CC she has been lackluster with motivation but while Anglican she was motivated, excited, into it. My parents the same thing. My mom and dad were really jazzed up about Mass on weekends with St. Paul’s Anglican. St. Mary’s now? They don’t even go to Mass three times a month. They hit it here and there. Motivation low as all getout.

And I feel a little caught in between. My kids were really excited about St. Paul’s too. We loved the rector and people and the worship was great. It had its shortcomings and banality at times too but overall I enjoyed it.

I could easily go there the rest of my days but honestly extra ecclesiam non sallus scares the bejeaminies out of me. Outside the Catholic Church no salvation…I get shivers.

When my grandma died the day after Christmas, we had to watch a woman steadily die and drift away. It made me think, almost obsessively, what will become of her? Death…death…wow…death over and over. And I think my fear of hell and the fundamentals of just wondering if I turned my back on Christ’s real true Church kicked in?

Intellectually at this point I can defend MUCH of Catholicism but intellectually honest-wise I cannot defend several areas that I personally don’t like or agree with in my core—lumen gentium, ccc841, NFP, indulgences (still hate 'em), infallibility (my reading of the Fathers and history precludes this but Matt 16:18 does make sense), co-redemptrix language, and the sex scandals and how they were dealt with bothers me tremendously…so at this point, I’m just trying to be faithful on an almost emotional level.

Intellectually I cannot be fully on board either Catholicism or Orthodoxy I think. And I’m tired of ping-pongin’ my family. We need some stability.

If God came to me tonight and said “be an Anglican!” I’d be so happy! LOL because I genuinely enjoyed it.

So yes, Anna, you know me all too well my sister…

Califman831,

My comment to Gurney was actually an “inside” joke between two friends about ***his ***progress in returning to Catholicism. We’ve both had long discussions, on the forums, about the requirements of LUMEN GENTIUM in regards to Papal infallibility. LUMEN GENTIUM came out of Vatican II, and I was just “ribbing” Gurney a bit; because seeing Vatican II as a “disaster” is one way of dealing with the demands of LUMEN GENTIUM to submit religious mind and will to the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra.

So, I wasn’t commenting on “progress” in terms of Vatican II. And—even though I was ribbing Gurney a bit; as his friend, I am very happy he has returned to the Catholic Church and found some peace in his own journey.

Anna

 

[MarkBrown]

Ah, Mark you take me back to my youth group days. Those were some great times. By the way Red is a pretty good band too. I’m 30 and still listen to that kind of stuff. I always have said I will be suffering from Alzheimers in a nursing home with that stuff blaring out of my room.

Conservative more evangelical minded Anglicans would seem to fit right in, but then the more Catholic aspects of our faith would really cause some good conversations. I beat some people wondered what a priest was doing there. I think its cool that you went in your clericals. Thats too funny.

I am 46 and still listen. Though not as loud now. How is your head banging? The youth group did it fairly poorly. I showed them how to do it properly…though my hair is very short…left over from the Marines and thin. My mojo increased greatly as I head banged.
And yes my neck does hurt today!

Oh I got some looks and one rabid fundie tried to save me! It was not pretty. I use to be a rabid fundie for about 5 minutes. As rabid fundie was going on about so much silliness, I turned to the group and said…this is what happens when you cut yourself off from the true vine. We then prayed for him, right there at the entrance. I then asked St Michael the ArchAngel to protect us from the wiles of the devil. When I was done, the kids made a sign of the Cross and people just stared. I gave a big grin and said “see working already. Let’s go have some fun.”

Yea, I can be confrontational when needed. I try to use humor if possible.

 

[MarkBrown]

But what Father Mark isn’t telling you is how much he was a fan of Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, and metal! He needs to tell the story about driving with a priest and the metal came on in the car. That is a classic!

Let us not forget Ozzie and no not the guy with Harriet!

I am not allowed to pick the station or Cd in the car anymore!

And yes the priest is still in therapy!

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hi Anna,

Of course I know you’re joking. We’ve been friends long enough!! And you’ve come to know me like an open book. Of course LG (not the cellphone company! ) still troubles me indeed. And another adept poster here made comments about CCC841 being horrible doctrine and I heartily concur on that as well. I’m living in contradiction and right now just trying my best to make sense of it all.

The one appealing thing for sure about Anglicanism for me was this----I could feel that ALL three of the major apostolic succession churches (Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Anglicanism) are flawed and I wasn’t a heretic with them. I have always felt that they each maintain defects and not one of them is perfect in doctrine or theology. But if you ask a Catholic, he’ll tell you they’re infallible, ask the Orthodox and they’ll tell you they’re infallible and the Catholics are schismatics and lost souls, but ask the Anglicans and they admit they’re imperfect. Sometimes I found that appealing—a refreshing honesty. They seemed to be just earnestly trying to discern the Truth and admitting that they don’t have all the finer points hammered out but the fundamentals they have indeed. I liked that.

My wife is not happy as a Catholic. Despite being born and raised one in the Philippines, she finds the Church flawed, the education and homilies and didactic side banal and empty, doesn’t see a heck of a lot of value in confession like I do, and she’s not into the sacramentals much either. Since going back to the CC she has been lackluster with motivation but while Anglican she was motivated, excited, into it. My parents the same thing. My mom and dad were really jazzed up about Mass on weekends with St. Paul’s Anglican. St. Mary’s now? They don’t even go to Mass three times a month. They hit it here and there. Motivation low as all getout.

And I feel a little caught in between. My kids were really excited about St. Paul’s too. We loved the rector and people and the worship was great. It had its shortcomings and banality at times too but overall I enjoyed it.

I could easily go there the rest of my days but honestly extra ecclesiam non sallus scares the bejeaminies out of me. Outside the Catholic Church no salvation…I get shivers.

When my grandma died the day after Christmas, we had to watch a woman steadily die and drift away. It made me think, almost obsessively, what will become of her? Death…death…wow…death over and over. And I think my fear of hell and the fundamentals of just wondering if I turned my back on Christ’s real true Church kicked in?

Intellectually at this point I can defend MUCH of Catholicism but intellectually honest-wise I cannot defend several areas that I personally don’t like or agree with in my core—lumen gentium, ccc841, NFP, indulgences (still hate 'em), infallibility (my reading of the Fathers and history precludes this but Matt 16:18 does make sense), co-redemptrix language, and the sex scandals and how they were dealt with bothers me tremendously…so at this point, I’m just trying to be faithful on an almost emotional level.

Intellectually I cannot be fully on board either Catholicism or Orthodoxy I think. And I’m tired of ping-pongin’ my family. We need some stability.

If God came to me tonight and said “be an Anglican!” I’d be so happy! LOL because I genuinely enjoyed it.

So yes, Anna, you know me all too well my sister…

Gurney,
You’ve got to be one of the most open and honest people on the forums. You speak of your struggles openly, and it takes courage to do that.

The idea of yielding to the Magisterium certainly has merit and many times I think it would be a welcome relief.

I was just talking to my sister recently about the irony of my feelings about Anglicanism. I love being able to openly disagree in a discussion or study at Church—and we are allowed to disagree, even with a Priest. Ironically, it is that very freedom to disagree that has opened the door to the abandonment of much of Christian orthodoxy. Kind of a “catch 22.” IOW: I like it when I can disagree; but I don’t like it when others disagree with what I believe to be orthodoxy. Makes me a hypocrite right out of the gate.

Anglicanism’s Three-Legged Stool is supposed to be “Scripture, Tradition, Reason.” But now it seems more like “Scripture held hostage by private interpretation,” “Tradition redefined to suit human desire,” and “Reason that doesn’t seem so reasonable.” At least that’s the way it feels on an emotional level.

Of course there is the argument that Anglicanism’s Three-Legged Stool has always prevented any absolutes in theology, and the gate to the “stalls” has always been open. It just took the horses awhile to realize the gate was open. Now the horses have bolted (“crazy granny” is the jockey, front and center, calling press conferences-eh Gurney?), the race is on, and no one is slowing down, except maybe the ABofC.

I don’t know. . . .It’s all giving me a headache. :blackeye: And that’s not because I’m a dumb blond.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

But we need you (name removed by moderator).
Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Diary of a Madman, Bark at the Moon, Blizzard of Oz, classics all!

I can just picture Father Mark cruisin’ down the road to the tune of “Mr. Crowley!”

Let us not forget Ozzie and no not the guy with Harriet!

I am not allowed to pick the station or Cd in the car anymore!

And yes the priest is still in therapy!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Blonde yes, dumb, not by a longshot!

What Anglicanism used to be about ‘back in the day’ was an understood common agreement between Calvinists and Anglo-Catholics about the fundamentals–Jesus is Lord, Salvation through Christ alone, justification through faith in Christ, marriage, holy orders, etc. Regarding the sacraments or ideas like the immaculate conception or transubstantiation or how one is justified, devotions, kneel or bow or sit, blah blah all that stuff was negotiable and each could hold his own opinion with respect. But over time, the fundamentals were called into question like “is Jesus really Lord or is he some archetype?” “Is Jesus THE way to Christ or one way amongst many?” “Men pastors only? How 'bout women?” “one man and one woman marrying? Why not homosexuals?” and the floodgates opened and bursted…(now I want to listen to the Zeppelin song “When the Levee Breaks!” )

Anglicanism seemed for the first few hundred years to have an understood common agreement about the essentials, the foundation, but vast and varied opinions about lots of other things some would consider adiaphora. Now, nobody can agree on the weather it seems. Anglicanism lost sight of the fundamentals and has chased after too much. And in the mix even “conservatives” in ACNA can’t all agree on things.

In Catholicism it seems that all agree, for the most part, on the fundamentals but the whole infallibility thing is really up in the air. So many Catholics can’t pin down what infallible statements there have been? Our priests at my parish alone disagree amongst each other as to what has been infallibly taught and what has not.

Your point about liking latitude to disagree but then not liking it when others disagree with you is the refreshing honesty, Anna, that you lauded me for. You show it in spades as well as I any day. You and I both try to be honest. And usually, nine times out of ten, the folks in here are pretty cool about not bashing us for it. It’s hard to work through things and travel a spiritual past if one is not honest. But you’re correct that when you’re in that environment of Anglicanism where dissent is ok (Father James, my rector, was ALWAYS ok with me disagreeing. He would challenge me like crazy, try to call me out, and when I’d retort with a good counter-argument, all the people at the Bible study would look at him and he’d move to another topic! LOL)…he’s told me many times that he admires my desire to get things right, my amount of study in the Fathers and Scripture and history, etc. He’s a good man. He’s an evangelical and doesn’t agree with anglo-catholicism but always respects my view and says I argue it well. I always appreciated his warmth and openness…

I already told you about the Alexander the Great’s horse challenge he gave me right during coffee hour, right? I thought I did…Father James really thought he had me locked down looking caught lame, started to walk away and I shouted “Bucephalous!” and he turned around just cracking up. He tried to get me on a bunch of classical and ancient history questions. I’m tough to crack!

I honestly miss him. Like I said, there’s an emotional component to religion people in here don’t talk about. In CAF we all talk theology, logic, debate, rhetoric, but we neglect to mention the x-factor of faith. There’s a nagging feeling in the gut that’s not easy to discern. And I have “gut” checks that pull me in both directions. Intangiables. And perhaps those are vehicles for the Holy Spirit.

It isn’t easy to walk away from a church you like, not easy indeed. I was thinking the other day about how Father James let my kids pull on the Church bell to call everyone to Mass. It was at vacation bible school. The kids really got a bang out of it. Veronica actually got scared by the bell and cried! Father James was really neat to the kids.

And he was generous with his time. I came to his office one day and we talked for the better part of an hour and a half. Another time he came to our home about an hour, times after coffee hour, etc. etc. A good guy. Catholicism is very anonymous at times. Tougher to build that rapport or comraderie. We have a parish with 7,000 registered families (not individuals, families!) and that doesn’t take into account all the unregistered! It’s tough.

Gurney,
You’ve got to be one of the most open and honest people on the forums. You speak of your struggles openly, and it takes courage to do that.

The idea of yielding to the Magisterium certainly has merit and many times I think it would be a welcome relief.

I was just talking to my sister recently about the irony of my feelings about Anglicanism. I love being able to openly disagree in a discussion or study at Church—and we are allowed to disagree, even with a Priest. Ironically, it is that very freedom to disagree that has opened the door to the abandonment of much of Christian orthodoxy. Kind of a “catch 22.” IOW: I like it when I can disagree; but I don’t like it when others disagree with what I believe to be orthodoxy. Makes me a hypocrite right out of the gate.

Anglicanism’s Three-Legged Stool is supposed to be “Scripture, Tradition, Reason.” But now it seems more like “Scripture held hostage by private interpretation,” “Tradition redefined to suit human desire,” and “Reason that doesn’t seem so reasonable.” At least that’s the way it feels on an emotional level.

?), the race is on, and no one is slowing down, except maybe the ABofC.

I don’t know. . . .It’s all giving me a headache. :blackeye: And that’s not because I’m a dumb blond.

Anna

 

[JohnnyReb]

the Anglican Communion was wrong from its very beginnings, a house built on sand will get washed away in the tide, while the Catholic Church build soundly on the rock of of our Lord Jesus Christ will weather the storms of man’s vain inclinations.

Well I might be behind things a bit. I understand from the Catholic perspective that is true and don’t fault you for pointing that out. However, other non Catholic groups do not have some of the issues that are found in Anglicanism, and then it is debatable how big of an issue these issues are.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Very refreshing to hear someone in here call the Orthodox schismatics and consider them defective as the Pope has declared they are. Many folks in here feel they are somehow “another” Catholic Church and they give them a free pass.

I don’t agree with the Orthodox views on the papacy nor do I agree with their views on the Atonement/Original Sin and I generally feel they are in schism.

And Vatican II was quite a disaster. Whatever intentions were there at the time materialized into a mess.

Well here at CAF the Orthodox seem to be given more of a pass because in the eyes of the RCC, they maintain Apostolic succession, the Anglicans do not. However, both groups are schismatic and represent direct breaks from the Catholic church, in the Catholic view of things. I have heard Catholics speak of the Catholic and Orthodox churches like two lungs, but this is very close to the idea of branch theory from the Anglican Church, just leaving the Anglicans out of the mix.

 

[JohnnyReb]

I am 46 and still listen. Though not as loud now. How is your head banging? The youth group did it fairly poorly. I showed them how to do it properly…though my hair is very short…left over from the Marines and thin. My mojo increased greatly as I head banged.
And yes my neck does hurt today!

Most church groups headbang poorly, and the moshing is more laughable. Sigh. I’m very rusty, I haven’t been to a good show in a couple of years now.

Oh I got some looks and one rabid fundie tried to save me! It was not pretty. I use to be a rabid fundie for about 5 minutes. As rabid fundie was going on about so much silliness, I turned to the group and said…this is what happens when you cut yourself off from the true vine. We then prayed for him, right there at the entrance. I then asked St Michael the ArchAngel to protect us from the wiles of the devil. When I was done, the kids made a sign of the Cross and people just stared. I gave a big grin and said “see working already. Let’s go have some fun.”

Yea, I can be confrontational when needed. I try to use humor if possible.

Sounds like you handled it well. I bet their “Catholic alert” alarms were going off as soon as they saw you. Even my family needs more understanding that Roman/Latin Rite Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans all wear clericals. Its almost like they think its more Biblical to more ministers to dress like business executives or something.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Hi Anna,

Of course I know you’re joking. We’ve been friends long enough!! And you’ve come to know me like an open book. Of course LG (not the cellphone company! ) still troubles me indeed. And another adept poster here made comments about CCC841 being horrible doctrine and I heartily concur on that as well. I’m living in contradiction and right now just trying my best to make sense of it all.

The one appealing thing for sure about Anglicanism for me was this----I could feel that ALL three of the major apostolic succession churches (Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Anglicanism) are flawed and I wasn’t a heretic with them. I have always felt that they each maintain defects and not one of them is perfect in doctrine or theology. But if you ask a Catholic, he’ll tell you they’re infallible, ask the Orthodox and they’ll tell you they’re infallible and the Catholics are schismatics and lost souls, but ask the Anglicans and they admit they’re imperfect. Sometimes I found that appealing—a refreshing honesty. They seemed to be just earnestly trying to discern the Truth and admitting that they don’t have all the finer points hammered out but the fundamentals they have indeed. I liked that.

My wife is not happy as a Catholic. Despite being born and raised one in the Philippines, she finds the Church flawed, the education and homilies and didactic side banal and empty, doesn’t see a heck of a lot of value in confession like I do, and she’s not into the sacramentals much either. Since going back to the CC she has been lackluster with motivation but while Anglican she was motivated, excited, into it. My parents the same thing. My mom and dad were really jazzed up about Mass on weekends with St. Paul’s Anglican. St. Mary’s now? They don’t even go to Mass three times a month. They hit it here and there. Motivation low as all getout.

And I feel a little caught in between. My kids were really excited about St. Paul’s too. We loved the rector and people and the worship was great. It had its shortcomings and banality at times too but overall I enjoyed it.

I could easily go there the rest of my days but honestly extra ecclesiam non sallus scares the bejeaminies out of me. Outside the Catholic Church no salvation…I get shivers.

When my grandma died the day after Christmas, we had to watch a woman steadily die and drift away. It made me think, almost obsessively, what will become of her? Death…death…wow…death over and over. And I think my fear of hell and the fundamentals of just wondering if I turned my back on Christ’s real true Church kicked in?

Intellectually at this point I can defend MUCH of Catholicism but intellectually honest-wise I cannot defend several areas that I personally don’t like or agree with in my core—lumen gentium, ccc841, NFP, indulgences (still hate 'em), infallibility (my reading of the Fathers and history precludes this but Matt 16:18 does make sense), co-redemptrix language, and the sex scandals and how they were dealt with bothers me tremendously…so at this point, I’m just trying to be faithful on an almost emotional level.

Intellectually I cannot be fully on board either Catholicism or Orthodoxy I think. And I’m tired of ping-pongin’ my family. We need some stability.

If God came to me tonight and said “be an Anglican!” I’d be so happy! LOL because I genuinely enjoyed it.

So yes, Anna, you know me all too well my sister…

Please forgive me for posting like four posts, but I have to say I find your honesty refreshing. I concur with some of your points, highlighted. “Outside the Church there is not salvation” scares me too, frankly. I can relate somewhat to how your grandmothers death impacted you. That certainly makes it hit home. I appreciate you so much.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks, Johnny. I just hope the Lord will be merciful on me.

And regarding your earlier post, I agree as to your analysis. The Orthodox view the Catholics with ??? basically. Their position is “we don’t know” (Ronald Reagan style!) if their (Catholic) sacraments convey grace or exist at all because they’re outside the true church in schism. They might or might not?" So they don’t respect the Catholics with that. Then the Catholics do the same thing to the Anglicans only in spades. “We KNOW you don’t have sacraments!” And only the Anglicans seem to respect both East and West. That’s what I always liked about the Anglicans. The Catholics reject the Anglican branch theory but accept the two lungs theory and the Orthodox reject lungs and branches. They don’t like lungs or branches—no breathing or photosynthesis as a result

Incidentally I appreciate you on here a great deal as well. Along with GKC, Anna, Sentry, Jharek, and a group of others, you are always one of the posters I take the time to look up and read. Always good thoughts.

As an aside, the nursing program is really frustrating my wife. She’s doing fine but so fed up with the lame questions on the tests that have NOTHING to do with the book and info they’re given! Here’s an example:

Test question she had today:

What is the best way to establish a helping relationship with a client?

a) knock on the door before entering their room

b) hold the patient’s hand

c) call them by their first name

d) being assertive

Which would you choose?

Please forgive me for posting like four posts, but I have to say I find your honesty refreshing. I concur with some of your points, highlighted. “Outside the Church there is not salvation” scares me too, frankly. I can relate somewhat to how your grandmothers death impacted you. That certainly makes it hit home. I appreciate you so much.

 

[PRmerger]

Test question she had today:

What is the best way to establish a helping relationship with a client?

a) knock on the door before entering their room

b) hold the patient’s hand

c) call them by their first name

d) being assertive

Which would you choose?

*A. Knocking is a way to show respect for their space.

NOT:
B. Do not touch a patient without her permission.

C. Many, especially the elderly and those of other cultures, do not appreciate being called by their first name.

D. Assertive? That’s not a great way to start a client relationship.*

So, did I give the correct answer?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’ll wait to give the answer until Johnny answers, too, PR.

*A. Knocking is a way to show respect for their space.

NOT:
B. Do not touch a patient without her permission.

C. Many, especially the elderly and those of other cultures, do not appreciate being called by their first name.

D. Assertive? That’s not a great way to start a client relationship.*

So, did I give the correct answer?