Need support in discussion about Anglicanism

[CutlerB]

Dear friends,

we had our parish Bible Study yesterday, and somehow the topic of women’s ordination came up. My priest said that the Anglican Church believes it is guided by the Holy Spirit, or in his words: God is speaking to it through the Bible. I didn’t jump into that, because we were already well over our time and that would have gone one for ages. My question was not about women’s ordination, because we have a female minister at our parish and she is so lovely that I did not want to bring false impressions of my attitude up.

The matter was much more: The Catholic Church has stated, and I believe infallibly under John Paul II, that women cannot be ordained priests. I have therefore now asked by email: “So the Anglican Church says it is guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore that the Catholic Church is wrong.”

I received this as part of the answer:

Many years of prayer and searching have reached a point where a majority of Anglicans were able to accept the ordination of women as something ‘ordained’ by God. Rome has the problem that many women feel called to be priests but are simply not allowed because the Pope says no. One stroke of the pontifical pen and these things can be reversed. I think many are hoping a future Pope will do just that. Over time the church has struggled to determine what is the will of God and how do we know the Holy Spirit is calling in a certain direction.

My reply was along this line: That just makes the Catholic case better. She has been around longer, and has certainly prayed and searched the Scriptures intensively. So if one regards one’s own decision as God’s guidance, then it automatically results in having to say that the others are wrong.

My priest’s reply also included a reference to Acts 5:33-42, saying that he holds that if something is of God, it will prevail, if not, it will not be sustained. And I agree with that! The question is therefore, which position is of God? So I asked: “And to be honest: How many people are leaving Anglicanism because of this issue? Will it last?”

My issue is not women’s ordination, as I stated. I do not want to debate the topic itself with him, because of said reasons, but I want to address the larger topic of authority and the True Church. I most kindly ask you for assistance and some points I could make.

However, I do not want to come across like “I’m right, and you’re wrong” and neither as “I am going to be converting to the Catholic Church.” The reason for the latter is that that direct statement will cause massive problems. It is not the time to say that just yet, but I will, trust me. I want to nudge our parish into the direction of the Catholic Church, and that is better done in a questioning format that an aggressive one. It gets people’s defences up immediately if you say certain things, so I’d rather take the subtle but more effective route.

Thank you so much for your help. God bless.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

This might not be the answer you’re looking for, but I highly suggest you read Apostolicae Curae, which is Pope Leo’s XIII super famous Encyclical on the Nullity of Anglican Holy Orders. This encyclical gets to the root of the ordination problem (be it female ordination or otherwise) by pointing out that the Anglican notion of the Priesthood has (at the time of Henry VIII) abandoned the ancient Christian connection between Priesthood and Sacrifice. Basically, if there is anything an Anglican should be worried about, it’s that Rome does not consider them to have valid Holy Orders (and for a very fair and honest reason), while Rome does consider the Eastern Orthodox to have valid Orders.

Also, check out this quote from the main decree of the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus, if you’ve never see it you will be impressed. This is what St Cyril of Alexandria said against Nestorius at the Council:

“Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the Only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the Unbloody Sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his Holy Flesh and the Precious Blood of Christ the Saviour of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the Life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the Life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his Flesh, he made it also to be Life-giving, as also he said to us: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood.”
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.viii.html

Look at what is affirmed here:

1. The Mass is a Sacrifice.
2. Jesus is substantially present.
3. John 6 was seen as the Eucharist.

This quote basically condemns all of Protestant worship, since Protestant worship has formally abandoned these elements of the Priesthood and Liturgy. From a Protestant point of view, what was said here is unBiblical and very blasphemous and not part of true Christianity, yet the historical record says otherwise.

 

[CutlerB]

This might not be the answer you’re looking for, but I highly suggest you read Apostolicae Curae, which is Pope Leo’s XIII super famous Encyclical on the Nullity of Anglican Holy Orders. This encyclical gets to the root of the ordination problem (be it female ordination or otherwise) by pointing out that the Anglican notion of the Priesthood has (at the time of Henry VIII) abandoned the ancient Christian connection between Priesthood and Sacrifice. Basically, if there is anything an Anglican should be worried about, it’s that Rome does not consider them to have valid Holy Orders (and for a very fair and honest reason), while Rome does consider the Eastern Orthodox to have valid Orders.

Also, check out this quote from the main decree of the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus, if you’ve never see it you will be impressed. This is what St Cyril of Alexandria said against Nestorius at the Council:

“Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the Only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the Unbloody Sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his Holy Flesh and the Precious Blood of Christ the Saviour of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the Life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the Life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his Flesh, he made it also to be Life-giving, as also he said to us: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood.”
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.viii.html

Look at what is affirmed here:

1. The Mass is a Sacrifice.
2. Jesus is substantially present.
3. John 6 was seen as the Eucharist.

This quote basically condemns all of Protestant worship, since Protestant worship has formally abandoned these elements of the Priesthood and Liturgy. From a Protestant point of view, what was said here is unBiblical and very blasphemous and not part of true Christianity, yet the historical record says otherwise.

While it is interesting, you’re right, it’s not quite the answer I am looking for

I can’t go and tell my priest “Hey, did you know you’re not a priest because you aren’t validly ordained?” I won’t be making friends that way. I have read Leo XIII’s encyclical, so I know what you mean.

About the Council of Ephesus: If it doesn’t fit them, Protestants will simply reject the council. I’m not sure if the Anglicans do, but it’s possible. Besides that, I guess the response simply is: “I don’t care whether Rome considers my Orders valid.”

It might be of help to say that my priest seems to adhere to the branch-theory. That is, the Church of England is “part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church”. He says it “didn’t break off, but diverged.” What the difference is has yet to be explained to me. Those points are related to the matter at hand and could be useful.

 

[GKC]

This might not be the answer you’re looking for, but I highly suggest you read Apostolicae Curae, which is Pope Leo’s XIII super famous Encyclical on the Nullity of Anglican Holy Orders. This encyclical gets to the root of the ordination problem (be it female ordination or otherwise) by pointing out that the Anglican notion of the Priesthood has (at the time of Henry VIII) abandoned the ancient Christian connection between Priesthood and Sacrifice. Basically, if there is anything an Anglican should be worried about, it’s that Rome does not consider them to have valid Holy Orders (and for a very fair and honest reason), while Rome does consider the Eastern Orthodox to have valid Orders.

Also, check out this quote from the main decree of the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus, if you’ve never see it you will be impressed. This is what St Cyril of Alexandria said against Nestorius at the Council:

“Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the Only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the Unbloody Sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his Holy Flesh and the Precious Blood of Christ the Saviour of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the Life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the Life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his Flesh, he made it also to be Life-giving, as also he said to us: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood.”
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.viii.html

Look at what is affirmed here:

1. The Mass is a Sacrifice.
2. Jesus is substantially present.
3. John 6 was seen as the Eucharist.

This quote basically condemns all of Protestant worship, since Protestant worship has formally abandoned these elements of the Priesthood and Liturgy. From a Protestant point of view, what was said here is unBiblical and very blasphemous and not part of true Christianity, yet the historical record says otherwise.

The judgment in Apostolicae Curae was based, not on the Henrician Church, but on the conditions under Edward VI. And it was a judgment based on the inter-twined issues of the form for ordination/consecration, in the Edwardine Ordinal, and the sacramental intent of those who used that form, usually (though not specified in AC) considered to be at the consecration of Archbishop Parker in 1559. It is not formally an infallible statement, but as (then) Cardinal Ratzinger said, referring to it in passing, in the Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, it is to be held, definitively.

It’s a complicated issue, one that’s been a hobby of mine for 10 years or so. It is not something that worries the normal Anglican (if there is such a thing), most of whom (generalizing about Anglicans is hazardous) affirm both the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, and the Real Presence, in some form, including as stated in Trent, Session XXIV.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Catholic_Dude]

While it is interesting, you’re right, it’s not quite the answer I am looking for

I can’t go and tell my priest “Hey, did you know you’re not a priest because you aren’t validly ordained?” I won’t be making friends that way. I have read Leo XIII’s encyclical, so I know what you mean.

About the Council of Ephesus: If it doesn’t fit them, Protestants will simply reject the council. I’m not sure if the Anglicans do, but it’s possible. Besides that, I guess the response simply is: “I don’t care whether Rome considers my Orders valid.”

It might be of help to say that my priest seems to adhere to the branch-theory. That is, the Church of England is “part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church”. He says it “didn’t break off, but diverged.” What the difference is has yet to be explained to me. Those points are related to the matter at hand and could be useful.

I see your point, it would most often not go well to declare someone’s orders to be invalid, but it’s a ‘cold hard truth’ that cannot be forgotten or swept under the rug either. In my experience, the biggest problem with Anglicanism is that it’s a movement more tied to English nationalism than any objective standard of truth (that’s why the Oxford Movement even flopped).

The most fair evaluation of “classical” Anglicanism should be done by a personal study of comparing the 39 Articles to what Scripture and Tradition teach. The objective student will see the 39 Articles fail the test. As you already one, as one gets into this study, they will see that “modern” Anglicanism doesn’t officially really follow anything, and has scandalously abandoned many central Christian tenets of Christology and Morality.

The judgment in Apostolciae Curae was based, not on the Henrician Church, but on the conditions under Edward VI. And it was a judgement based on the inter-twined issues of the form for ordination/consecration, in the Edwardine Ordinal, and the sacramental intent of those who used that form, usually (though not specified in AC) considered to be at the consecration of Archbishop Parker in 1559. It is not formally an infallible statement, but as (then) Cardinal Ratzinger said, referring to it in passing, in the Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, it is to be held, definitively.

It’s a complicated issue, one that’s been a hobby of mine for 10 years or so. It is not something that worried the normal Anglican (if there is such a thing), most of whom (generalizing about Anglicans is hazardous) affirm both the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, and the Real Presence, in some form, including as stated in Trent, Session XXIV.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

The reason why it is not “infallible,” to my understanding, is because it’s a legislative judgment upon specific facts of a historical situation, and thus not dogma. For example, it’s theoretically possible that after this Encyclical that some Anglicans somehow recovered valid Orders (e.g. by a schismatic Catholic Bishop).

When you say “most of whom” affirm the traditional Christian teaching on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, that’s not the impression I get from a variety of sources. Really, only a tiny minority, the so-called Anglo-Catholics (which you know quite well about), are the only ones who take that to heart. Generally speaking, the “low-church” Anglicans have high orthodox Calvinist leanings and look down upon Liturgy and the Mass, while the “high-church” Anglicans love the pomp and ceremonies but generally reject the traditional teachings of Christianity in terms of Christology and morality. Each of these camps, if they’re trying to be open to hearing God speak, should be troubled by this formal confusion in Anglicanism. As I said above, the only thing I can see keeping anyone in Anglicanism is due to reasons of English nationalism and not some universal and objective standard.

 

[pablope]

Dear friends,

My issue is not women’s ordination, as I stated. I do not want to debate the topic itself with him, because of said reasons, but I want to address the larger topic of authority and the True Church. I most kindly ask you for assistance and some points I could make.

However, I do not want to come across like “I’m right, and you’re wrong” and neither as “I am going to be converting to the Catholic Church.” The reason for the latter is that that direct statement will cause massive problems. It is not the time to say that just yet, but I will, trust me. I want to nudge our parish into the direction of the Catholic Church, and that is better done in a questioning format that an aggressive one. It gets people’s defences up immediately if you say certain things, so I’d rather take the subtle but more effective route.

Thank you so much for your help. God bless.

This is what I would say:

Let us look at Paul’s example:

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.
Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Paul had a direct revelation from Christ. Yet, from the two passages above, he goes to visit Cephas/Peter and submits himself to Peter.

Gal 2: 2…Paul has a revelation by the HS…and it is to go to Jerusalem and meet and confer the Apostles…not decide for himself…his purpose…to present his gospel/message to make sure it is in line with the Apostles and what they were handed down from Christ.

Citing Paul’s example…the HS will not contradict what has been handed down before…but will instead, ask for your humility to submit to an authority…an apostolic authority.

This is further reinforced by this passage from 1John…from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

So I would ask…citing the above passages (you can formulate your own questions)…and the example of Paul’s revelation…who are we (The AC) to decide if indeed the ordination of women is from God? How do we know, or how can we know and determine it is really the HS that is guiding the ordination of women?

Why is it guiding the CC (and the Orthodox, for that matter) differently? Would it be foolhardy to say…the AC is being guided and the CC is not?

And just additional thoughts…from 1sam15…22 But Samuel replied:

“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

From the passage above, how can we admit the HS is guiding us…if AC broke and rebelled communion with the CC?

 

[CutlerB]

This is what I would say:

Let us look at Paul’s example:

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.
Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Paul had a direct revelation from Christ. Yet, from the two passages above, he goes to visit Cephas/Peter and submits himself to Peter.

Gal 2: 2…Paul has a revelation by the HS…and it is to go to Jerusalem and meet and confer the Apostles…not decide for himself…his purpose…to present his gospel/message to make sure it is in line with the Apostles and what they were handed down from Christ.

Citing Paul’s example…the HS will not contradict what has been handed down before…but will instead, ask for your humility to submit to an authority…an apostolic authority.

This is further reinforced by this passage from 1John…from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

So I would ask…citing the above passages (you can formulate your own questions)…and the example of Paul’s revelation…who are we (The AC) to decide if indeed the ordination of women is from God? How do we know, or how can we know and determine it is really the HS that is guiding the ordination of women?

Why is it guiding the CC (and the Orthodox, for that matter) differently? Would it be foolhardy to say…the AC is being guided and the CC is not?

And just additional thoughts…from 1sam15…22 But Samuel replied:

“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

From the passage above, how can we admit the HS is guiding us…if AC broke and rebelled communion with the CC?

Good points! But I guess it will just go back to “We have Apostolic Succession!” I will still note them and formulate some questions with them.

 

[pablope]

Good points! But I guess it will just go back to “We have Apostolic Succession!” I will still note them and formulate some questions with them.

But if the AC does indeed have apostolic succession…why is it going against the Orthodox and the CC on the ordination of women, the two ancient churches? Should AC not be in line with both?

Anyway, just some more thoughts. Hope this helps.

 

[CutlerB]

But if the AC does indeed have apostolic succession…why is it going against the Orthodox and the CC on the ordination of women, the two ancient churches? Should AC not be in line with both?

Anyway, just some more thoughts. Hope this helps.

Thanks.

While I understand it partly, doesn’t that apply to the Orthodox too, then? There are doctrinal differences, but they have valid succession.

I was just going to formulate some questions, but now I’m confused.

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.
Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Paul had a direct revelation from Christ. Yet, from the two passages above, he goes to visit Cephas/Peter and submits himself to Peter.

It doesn’t say that he submitted himself to Peter, does it? As for the Apostles, he’ll just say: Yes, and that is the bishops in our church. They make that decision, not someone on his own.

 

[GKC]

I see your point, it would most often not go well to declare someone’s orders to be invalid, but it’s a ‘cold hard truth’ that cannot be forgotten or swept under the rug either. In my experience, the biggest problem with Anglicanism is that it’s a movement more tied to English nationalism than any objective standard of truth (that’s why the Oxford Movement even flopped).

The most fair evaluation of “classical” Anglicanism should be done by a personal study of comparing the 39 Articles to what Scripture and Tradition teach. The objective student will see the 39 Articles fail the test. As you already one, as one gets into this study, they will see that “modern” Anglicanism doesn’t officially really follow anything, and has scandalously abandoned many central Christian tenets of Christology and Morality.

The reason why it is not “infallible,” to my understanding, is because it’s a legislative judgment upon specific facts of a historical situation, and thus not dogma. For example, it’s theoretically possible that after this Encyclical that some Anglicans somehow recovered valid Orders (e.g. by a schismatic Catholic Bishop).

When you say “most of whom” affirm the traditional Christian teaching on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, that’s not the impression I get from a variety of sources. Really, only a tiny minority, the so-called Anglo-Catholics (which you know quite well about), are the only ones who take that to heart. Generally speaking, the “low-church” Anglicans have high orthodox Calvinist leanings and look down upon Liturgy and the Mass, while the “high-church” Anglicans love the pomp and ceremonies but generally reject the traditional teachings of Christianity in terms of Christology and morality. Each of these camps, if they’re trying to be open to hearing God speak, should be troubled by this formal confusion in Anglicanism. As I said above, the only thing I can see keeping anyone in Anglicanism is due to reasons of English nationalism and not some universal and objective standard.

As I suggested, it is difficult to generalize about Anglicans. My experiences are not as you suggest, but there is certainly a range of beliefs, and has been (though less basically), historically…

And English nationalism plays no part in the views of those Anglicans not English. Your experience of Anglo-Catholicism is not in line with my own, but I can imagine how you reach your conclusion.

Not in your reply to me, but the Articles are in no sense normative for Anglicans, in general. They are, technically, to be subscribed to by the Ordinands, not the laity, necessarily, of the Church of England, IAW the Parliamentary Act of Subscription/1577. They are not an Anglican Confession (though nothing prevents any jurisdiction, or indeed, any individual, from treating them as such), but how Elizabeth I chose to structure and control her fractious Church.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus-Catholius

 

[pablope]

Thanks.

But if the AC does indeed have apostolic succession…why is it going against the Orthodox and the CC on the ordination of women, the two ancient churches? Should AC not be in line with both?

While I understand it partly, doesn’t that apply to the Orthodox too, then? There are doctrinal differences, but they have valid succession.

The Orthodox have valid succession too…on account their sees were founded by apostles too. There are actually no doctrinal differences…it is their view of Peter’s role and church goverment that remains the main issue to reconciliation.

I was just going to formulate some questions, but now I’m confused.

Maybe omit the Orthodox…if it causes confusion.

It doesn’t say that he submitted himself to Peter, does it? QUOTE]

Paul met Peter separately…as the passage from Gal 1 says…meeting him for 15 days. This implicates his submission to Peter…and besides, Paul calls him Cephas/Peter, not Simon…an acknowledgement of Peter’s authority.

As for the Apostles, he’ll just say: Yes, and that is the bishops in our church. They make that decision, not someone on his own./

Ahh…in the Ecumenical councils, which I think the AC recognizes some…the bishops sat in council…and the final promulgation of the councils were submitted and approved by the bishop of Rome.

A bishop, or group of bishops, do not decide on their own such an important decision and change as in the ordination of women…a higher authority has to give assent.

 

[CutlerB]

The Orthodox have valid succession too…on account their sees were founded by apostles too. There are actually no doctrinal differences…it is their view of Peter’s role and church goverment that remains the main issue to reconciliation.

Maybe omit the Orthodox…if it causes confusion.

But isn’t exactly that “view of Peter and government” doctrine? After all, it is Catholic doctrine and they don’t recognise it?

Paul met Peter separately…as the passage from Gal 1 says…meeting him for 15 days. This implicates his submission to Peter…and besides, Paul calls him Cephas/Peter, not Simon…an acknowledgement of Peter’s authority.

I personally believe all of this, but hypothetically: They could just be having a meeting and chat. Spend some time, coordinate… Who knows. About the name: Calling someone by his name doesn’t make you acknowledge authority, does it? Jesus had renamed him, so that’s what Paul would know him by.

Ahh…in the Ecumenical councils, which I think the AC recognizes some…the bishops sat in council…and the final promulgation of the councils were submitted and approved by the bishop of Rome.

A bishop, or group of bishops, do not decide on their own such an important decision and change as in the ordination of women…a higher authority has to give assent.

Yes, they do recognise some. Certainly Nicaea I. I don’t know about the others. I assume the answer is: The Archbishop or the Queen approve it, but I guess it’s easy to address: Where do they have their authority from?

 

[GKC]

Most do recognize at least 4 Councils, some 7.

GKC

[/QUOTE]

 

[Catholic_Dude]

the Articles are in no sense normative for Anglicans, in general. They are, technically, to be subscribed to by the Ordinands, not the laity, necessarily, of the Church of England

The 39 Articles are in no sense normative? Then what’s the point? What is the “official” Confession of Faith so to speak that a person can see what is official Anglican teaching and what is not? If there is nothing, then the doctrinal relativism today is simply an outworking of that, which doesn’t look good for Anglicanism’s credibility.

Most do recognize at least 4 Councils, some 7.

As with the 39 Articles issue, if the Anglicans cannot tell what Ecumenical Councils are binding and such related questions, then why trust such a body?

I don’t say this to be rude, but what is the logical appeal to Anglicanism? I can understand being born into it, but doctrinally speaking I see no way for a person to ‘think’ their way in, unless they like the anything goes mentality.

 

[pablope]

But isn’t exactly that “view of Peter and government” doctrine? After all, it is Catholic doctrine and they don’t recognise it?

It is not that they do not recognize it…they have issues with it…the hierarchal model of the CC vs the decentralized model of the Orthodox.

I personally believe all of this, but hypothetically: They could just be having a meeting and chat. Spend some time, coordinate… Who knows. About the name: Calling someone by his name doesn’t make you acknowledge authority, does it? Jesus had renamed him, so that’s what Paul would know him by.

 

[GKC]

The 39 Articles are in no sense normative? Then what’s the point? What is the “official” Confession of Faith so to speak that a person can see what is official Anglican teaching and what is not? If there is nothing, then the doctrinal relativism today is simply an outworking of that, which doesn’t look good for Anglicanism’s credibility.

As with the 39 Articles issue, if the Anglicans cannot tell what Ecumenical Councils are binding and such related questions, then why trust such a body?

I don’t say this to be rude, but what is the logical appeal to Anglicanism? I can understand being born into it, but doctrinally speaking I see no way for a person to ‘think’ their way in, unless they like the anything goes mentality.

There is no official confession of faith in Anglicanism. Anglicanism is (was, I cannot speak to the decay of the current day) creedal, grounded in the 3 main creeds of Christendom. The Articles were the manner in which Elizabeth chose to control her erastian Church. They are Parliamentary law, sort of a job description, for ordinands in the CoE, not in Anglicanism in general. And are partially such as any Trinitarian Christian would affirm, partially not. But they were never designed to be a defintive confession.

And it is possible to think oneself into Anglicanism. I did, moving from Baptist, through a study of history, stopping short of the Roman Catholic position since I could not affirm all that was required. It is like Orthodoxy, in its appeal to me, but culturally more familiar.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Mystophilus]

So if one regards one’s own decision as God’s guidance, then it automatically results in having to say that the others are wrong.

Yes, and that is as true for anyone who believes that the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church as it is for anyone who believes that the Holy Spirit guides the Anglican Communion. Indeed, what you are saying throughout this post is that you believe your church to be wrong, presumably on the basis of an understanding which you hope God has guided you to.

I want to nudge our parish into the direction of the Catholic Church

In that case, I would suggest avoiding the competing claims of authority, and focusing instead upon what Anglicanism can learn from Catholicism. That was what worked so well for Newman, after all.

 

[Mystophilus]

What is the “official” Confession of Faith so to speak that a person can see what is official Anglican teaching and what is not?

There can be many differences between individual Anglican churches, but all Anglicans hold these in common:
The Holy Bible, comprising the Old and New Testament, as a basis of our faith;
The Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds as the basic statements of Christian belief;
Recognition of the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion; and
The Historic Episcopate—ours is a Christian tradition with bishops.
This quadrilateral, drawn up in the 19th Century, is one of the definitions of Anglican faith and ministry. Another is a style of worship which has its roots in the Book of Common Prayer and the Services of Ordination (the Ordinal). Anglicans also celebrate the Eucharist (also known as the Holy Communion, the Lord’s Supper or the Mass), the Sacrament of Baptism and other rites including Confirmation, Reconciliation, Marriage, Anointing of the Sick, and Ordination.
Anglicanism rests on the three pillars of Scripture, Tradition and Reason as it seeks to chart ‘a middle way’ among the other Christian traditions.

From the Anglican Communion website, although I have to say that I hold very grave doubts regarding the usage of “all” in the opening line.

As with the 39 Articles issue, if the Anglicans cannot tell what Ecumenical Councils are binding and such related questions, then why trust such a body?

Trusting the Anglican Communion is not about trusting them to hand us The Answers, but about trusting them to be sincerely working to do God’s will as best they understand it.

 

[CutlerB]

Yes, and that is as true for anyone who believes that the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church as it is for anyone who believes that the Holy Spirit guides the Anglican Communion. Indeed, what you are saying throughout this post is that you believe your church to be wrong, presumably on the basis of an understanding which you hope God has guided you to.

In that case, I would suggest avoiding the competing claims of authority, and focusing instead upon what Anglicanism can learn from Catholicism. That was what worked so well for Newman, after all.

I wish there were more Newmans.

 

[guanophore]

The matter was much more: The Catholic Church has stated, and I believe infallibly under John Paul II, that women cannot be ordained priests. I have therefore now asked by email: “So the Anglican Church says it is guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore that the Catholic Church is wrong.”

I received this as part of the answer:
Anglican:

Many years of prayer and searching have reached a point where a majority of Anglicans were able to accept the ordination of women as something ‘ordained’ by God. Rome has the problem that many women feel called to be priests but are simply not allowed because the Pope says no. One stroke of the pontifical pen and these things can be reversed. I think many are hoping a future Pope will do just that. Over time the church has struggled to determine what is the will of God and how do we know the Holy Spirit is calling in a certain direction.

My reply was along this line: That just makes the Catholic case better. She has been around longer, and has certainly prayed and searched the Scriptures intensively. So if one regards one’s own decision as God’s guidance, then it automatically results in having to say that the others are wrong.

My priest’s reply also included a reference to Acts 5:33-42, saying that he holds that if something is of God, it will prevail, if not, it will not be sustained. And I agree with that! The question is therefore, which position is of God? So I asked: “And to be honest: How many people are leaving Anglicanism because of this issue? Will it last?”

My issue is not women’s ordination, as I stated. I do not want to debate the topic itself with him, because of said reasons, but I want to address the larger topic of authority and the True Church. I most kindly ask you for assistance and some points I could make.

However, I do not want to come across like “I’m right, and you’re wrong” and neither as “I am going to be converting to the Catholic Church.” The reason for the latter is that that direct statement will cause massive problems. It is not the time to say that just yet, but I will, trust me. I want to nudge our parish into the direction of the Catholic Church, and that is better done in a questioning format that an aggressive one. It gets people’s defences up immediately if you say certain things, so I’d rather take the subtle but more effective route.

Thank you so much for your help. God bless.

One point that might help your argument is that his foundation is false. Yes, JPII did make a statement (which would be helpful for you to read and share with your priest) but it is not the statement that created the conditions, only a recognition that they exist. In that statement, he proclaims that the Church has always believed that we do not have the authority from Christ to ordain women. This fact will not change even if another pope comes along and decides differently.

He is basing his objection on a misunderstanding of the Church’s position, and the source of it. The source of the position does not come from the Pope’s opinion, but the Teaching of Jesus that was passed down to us through the Apostles. It is part of the Divine Deposit of Faith that was once for all given to the Church. No one has the authority to change it.