Oh I am feeling so squeezed!

[Contarini]

Are Catholics and Anglicans that close? Justification through imputation vs. infusion is a key difference IMO.

But many Anglicans–not just Anglo-Catholics but even some self-professed evangelicals like N.T. Wright–think that the classical Protestant view of imputation is wrong or at least inadequate. I don’t think this is a key difference between Anglicans in general and RC’s, only between the hardline evangelical wing and RCs (and between those evangelicals and other Anglicans). Imputation has not been the common teaching of Anglicanism since the late seventeenth century (see Allison’s The Rise of Moralism).

Edwin

 

[benidict]

Are Catholics and Anglicans that close? Justification through imputation vs. infusion is a key difference IMO. The Calvinist elements with Anglicanism, the views on the Eucharist, the views on the papacy, the views on purgatory and indulgences, the view of Scripture, the lack of a pantheon of saints for each occasion, the views on confession/penance, papal claims, I think Anglicanism is farther away from Catholicism than you think…

yes your right overall gurney. but when it comes to individual Anglican/Episcipalians, it sure does not seem that way. Peace

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think the problem with what you say here is summarized in four words in your paragraph: common teaching of Anglicanism Whenever Anglicanism developes a "common teaching, "email me and let me know!! By the way, in your previous post, to answer your question, no, I have not read N.T. Wright. I have indeed heard of him and read some blurbs but never anything of substance. You got me curious about him though, and I’ll have to give his stuff a look. Thanks!

But many Anglicans–not just Anglo-Catholics but even some self-professed evangelicals like N.T. Wright–think that the classical Protestant view of imputation is wrong or at least inadequate. I don’t think this is a key difference between Anglicans in general and RC’s, only between the hardline evangelical wing and RCs (and between those evangelicals and other Anglicans). Imputation has not been the common teaching of Anglicanism since the late seventeenth century (see Allison’s The Rise of Moralism).

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t follow, Benedict, please explain…

yes your right overall gurney. but when it comes to individual Anglican/Episcipalians, it sure does not seem that way. Peace

 

[larkin31]

Honestly, I don’t see the big deal about all this.

Yes, I am an agnostic now.

But while I was a believer, I attended many places of worship (I had a variety of friends and we traveled). In every house of worship I entered I had the same feeling of presence and connection with God. Synagogue, church, mosque (only once). Even the Universalist Unitarian! (haha). Sure, staying in one place I would give more thought, but isn’t God there with you no matter where you are and are worshiping that spirit? Even my Protestant parents took me to other places of worship. And I married in a Catholic church!

 

[PRmerger]

but isn’t God there with you no matter where you are and are worshiping that spirit?

Well, yes, God is with us no matter where you are, in the same way that my family is “with me” even when I’m at work.

But God is only *physically *present in the churches that have the Eucharist. Just like my family is only truly physically present to me when we’re together in the same room.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, yes, God is with us no matter where you are, in the same way that my family is “with me” even when I’m at work.

But God is only *physically *present in the churches that have the Eucharist. Just like my family is only truly physically present to me when we’re together in the same room.

 

[eucharisteo]

Well, yes, God is with us no matter where you are, in the same way that my family is “with me” even when I’m at work.

But God is only *physically *present in the churches that have the Eucharist. Just like my family is only truly physically present to me when we’re together in the same room.

Amen.

 

[Contarini]

I think the problem with what you say here is summarized in four words in your paragraph: common teaching of Anglicanism Whenever Anglicanism developes a "common teaching, "email me and let me know!!

Indeed. My point is that in the late sixteenth century, and (if Allison is right) throughout the earlier seventeenth century at least with regard to soteriology, there was a common teaching. It was broader and vaguer than that of the Lutherans or the Scots or some of the Continental Reformed churches (which is what the Puritans didn’t like, of course), but it was there.

This consensus largely dissolved in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and the Anglo-Catholics of the nineteenth gave it the coup de grace, in my opinion.

By the way, in your previous post, to answer your question, no, I have not read N.T. Wright. I have indeed heard of him and read some blurbs but never anything of substance. You got me curious about him though, and I’ll have to give his stuff a look. Thanks!

I think he’s worth reading, though his tone of “I’ve got it all figured out” can be extremely off-putting, and he has an overly adoring following in some evangelical circles (I probably contribute to this at my college, because he’s one of the contemporary Biblical scholars whom I have read the most and whose work I find the most congenial, so I often quote him in class!).

Of course, to keep up with everything he writes would be a full-time job–how he manages to write so much is a puzzling question, especially since he’s a bishop as well! (Though I understand that he’s “retiring” as bishop and returning to academia.) He wrote his book on justification during the last Lambeth Conference, for instance!

Edwin

 

[Anna_Scott]

I feel your pain not only as someone who was in your shoes, but someone who was seeking Holy Orders many years ago in the Episcopal Diocese of Delaware and was refused on the basis of not being female, black or homosexual. I am now one of those conservative Anglicans that you and others like to refer to as being a “schismatic.” By definition, in order to be thus you would have to be doing something that is breaking away from sacred tradition or going into outright apostasy. When it was explained to me that way, I saw that it was those who were pointing the fingers within the Episcopal church at the conservatives and Bibles believers who were the true schismatics.

I am now ordained in one of those groups and very happy. You must know that there are NO perfect churches or else none of us could belong. We only have a perfect savior. What it boils down to is that only YOU with the guidance of the Holy Spirit can make this decision. I wish I could make it for you. whatever you choose, God will be in it.

. . . . .I just don’t want to be pushed into the RCC because it is the only option in terms of Anglican “style” churches. If I come in, I want it to be because I believe in its claims. . . .I want to believe the RCC is the authentically chartered church that Christ founded. I’m just not seeing it that way right now.

I am an Episcopalian who is becoming increasingly conservative in my reading of scripture, and as I posted some months ago, I just don’t see any way that “gay marriage” can be justified in scripture or tradition.

OK. The Episcopal Church is getting increasingly liberal, having thrown off any caution regarding consecration of bishops in same-sex relationships.

Now, the alternative is several small groups of conservative Anglicans who seem to all disagree with each other regarding this or that doctrinal issue. I don’t see joining a small dissident group. My principle is “less schism is better than more schism” and probably “no schism is better than any schism”.

So, we now have the prospect of Roman Catholic personal ordinariates for Anglican Use Catholics. This is very attractive, but I don’t want to simply become Roman Catholic because I have nowhere else to go. And at this point, frankly, the Roman church has not been doing its best to appear like the exclusive church Jesus founded.

So, here am I, typing these words, squeezed without a place to go. Argh!

Usbek de Perse,

This is a difficult situation for all in TEC and the Anglican Communion. While I have great respect for the Catholic Church; I would not be inclined to convert because there is no where else to go. Though, as I write these words; I wonder if the opposite is true. Perhaps truth is found in the only Church left standing–the only Church holding fast to orthodox/traditional Christianity.

As many of you know, I have had serious struggles in my Christian journey. After leaving the Baptist Church, I began visiting a conservative Episcopal Church in my community. I’ve been there about 4 months now. I have not been Confirmed and have not officially joined the congregation. There is an Anglican Church in my area that has broken with TEC over the liberal views on marriage and ordination of those in same-sex relationships. So, I do have a place to go, if I decide not to continue in TEC.

Since I am against the ordination of those in same-sex relationships, one would think it would be easy for me to leave TEC altogether. I could avoid all the controversy. Sadly, it is not so easy to leave. The Rector in my particular parish is a strong leader and his teachings are really quite exceptional.

In this Episcopal Church, I received the Eucharist for the first time. I experienced the “Real Presence” of Christ for the first time. As I told the Rector, the Eucharist opened a door I did not know existed.

I’ve witnessed infant Baptisms for the first time. I’ve witnessed Confirmations for the first time; and I have experienced all these as Sacraments. Now, I know, without a doubt, that Graces are truly imparted in the Sacraments.

In four months, I have formed friendships in this wonderful congregation. I am amazed by the ministries of this church and the many outreach programs that touch lives in our community and beyond. I see the love of Christ demonstrated by actions. This is a picture of the Episcopal Church that is not demonstrated in the news. Yet, this is one of many conservative Episcopal Parishes that remain true to the Anglican Communion.

The clash between conservatives and liberals within TEC dredges up that terrible “s” word: “schism.” As one, still technically on the outside of TEC looking in, it does appear that those who have departed from orthodoxy have created the schism, not those who have left TEC to continue the Anglican Christian tradition. So, I agree with Padrej on this one. In Padrej’s case, I do not see how he could have stayed in TEC.

By definition, in order to be thus you would have to be doing something that is breaking away from sacred tradition or going into outright apostasy. When it was explained to me that way, I saw that it was those who were pointing the fingers within the Episcopal church at the conservatives and Bibles believers who were the true schismatics.

Still, however unavoidable, “schisms” have had a tragic effect on Christendom throughout the centuries. I hate to see more divisions. I think TEC is in great need of prayer. There are serious consequences for either decision, whether one leaves or stays. I continue to pray for TEC, and the Anglican Communion.

Usbek de Perse, I pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in your decision.
Anna

 

[Contarini]

The clash between conservatives and liberals within TEC dredges up that terrible “s” word: “schism.” As one, still technically on the outside of TEC looking in, it does appear that those who have departed from orthodoxy have created the schism, not those who have left TEC to continue the Anglican Christian tradition.

But why are they so set on “continuing the Anglican Christian tradition”?

We are supposed to care about the Body of Christ, not primarily our own parochial tradition.

There is no schism in leaving the Episcopal Church in order to unite with one of the ancient and venerable Churches already in existence (I am thinking primarily of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but of course some more low-church Anglicans may go in a different direction). But to create just one more new church? Haven’t we done enough of this?

And make no mistake, the emerging conservative Anglicanism *is *a new church. It is not simply a continuation of historic Anglicanism, insofar as there has ever been such a thing in the first place.

Edwin

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

I disagree. The continuing churches are indeed part of the continuity of historic Anglicanism. Just as we don’t say that the church established by our post-Revolutionary forbears did not cease to be when the Oxford movement started, we cannot say that either the American/Canadian continuing churches or the African churches are radically different from “historic Anglicanism”. I have sympathy with these churches, but I don’t want to join them. I’m either Episcopalian or I am going to bite the bullet and go over to a comfortable Anglican style Roman Catholic Church.

But why are they so set on “continuing the Anglican Christian tradition”?

…

And make no mistake, the emerging conservative Anglicanism *is *a new church. It is not simply a continuation of historic Anglicanism, insofar as there has ever been such a thing in the first place.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I disagree. The continuing churches are indeed part of the continuity of historic Anglicanism. Just as we don’t say that the church established by our post-Revolutionary forbears did not cease to be when the Oxford movement started, we cannot say that either the American/Canadian continuing churches or the African churches are radically different from “historic Anglicanism”. I have sympathy with these churches, but I don’t want to join them. I’m either Episcopalian or I am going to bite the bullet and go over to a comfortable Anglican style Roman Catholic Church.

What I said is that they are not simply a continuation.

The Oxford movement is not a good parallel, because they didn’t leave the Episcopal Church (or the C of E–well, individuals did to become RCs). A better parallel would be the Reformed Episcopal Church, founded by low-church Episcopalians who thought the Oxford Movement was turning Anglicanism into something different. They saw themselves as continuers, but I think most of us would say that they did in fact found a new church/denomination.

When the governing bodies of your church do things you don’t like, and you (a minority) break from them in order to keep doing what you think the church has been doing all along, then you are founding a new religious body whether you want to admit it or not.

Clearly this is not necessarily an act of schism, except perhaps in Roman Catholicism from the Roman Catholic point of view (though even there, some traditional RCs think a Pope could become heretical, and a few think he already has). In other words, if the dominant faction is heretical, then leaving them is not necessarily schismatic.

However, in the case of Anglicans and other heirs of the Reformation, we all recognize that our particular communion is not simply *the *True Church. That complicates the picture considerably. If our “branch” falls into heresy and we are forced to leave, then our “continuing” as a separate body *is *an act of schism–not from the heretics but from the other orthodox Christians out there with whom we could unite ourselves. That’s my objection to the Continuers. While I don’t draw the lines quite where they do (I find the theological arguments for women’s ordination convincing, for instance), I respect their adherence to tradition and certainly can’t deny that the Episcopal Church over the past decades has drifted farther and farther from orthodoxy. I don’t call them schismatics because they left the Episcopal Church–I call them schismatics because they left the Episcopal Church and continued on their own instead of uniting with an existing orthodox Church.

Edwin

 

[Anna_Scott]

But why are they so set on “continuing the Anglican Christian tradition”?

We are supposed to care about the Body of Christ, not primarily our own parochial tradition.

There is no schism in leaving the Episcopal Church in order to unite with one of the ancient and venerable Churches already in existence (I am thinking primarily of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but of course some more low-church Anglicans may go in a different direction). But to create just one more new church? Haven’t we done enough of this?

And make no mistake, the emerging conservative Anglicanism *is *a new church. It is not simply a continuation of historic Anglicanism, insofar as there has ever been such a thing in the first place.

Edwin

Edwin,

I agree that we are to care about the Body of Christ. I also agree with your statement, “There is no schism in leaving the Episcopal Church in order to unite with one of the ancient and venerable Churches already in existence.”

I always appreciate your comments. You bring much to the table as a Church historian. I’ll defer to you and Usbek de Perse regarding the definition of “schism” and the issue of which group is creating a “schism.”

I agree that we have done quite enough of starting new Churches. In a previous thread (I think it was deleted); some Catholics were telling Episcopal forum members to leave TEC. I commented on the fact that Protestants are criticized for starting new Churches, when disagreements arise. Yet, in the case of TEC, Catholics were telling us to bail.

Regarding the issue of remaining in TEC or leaving TEC; I don’t think there is one answer for everyone. I see very good reasons to stay. At the same time, I think Padrej had very good reasons for leaving TEC.

I met with our Rector last week to discuss this issue. As I said before, he is conservative. He does welcome all to the Parish, but is not in agreement with unions or ordinations of those in same-sex relationships. He will continue to uphold the Sacrament of Marriage, and does not believe an additional Sacrament should be added to accommodate those in same-sex relationships.

The life of our conservative Episcopal Parish continues, as it should. I’m sure there is much going on behind the scenes regarding conservatives aligning with other conservatives. I trust that our Rector will fight for Christian orthodoxy.

I do think there are serious negative consequences when congregations break away from TEC. Whole communities are torn apart. This has already happened in a Parish that was located in a small town near us. The Rector broke with TEC; but many in his congregation did not follow. The Church was divided. The group that broke away had to relinquish the Church property, and meet in a School until they were able to buy a Church. Yet, the Church they purchased was not in the same town or community. It is not far from our Parish. I respect the Rector for doing what he believed was the right thing to do. Still, there are inescapable consequences in division. If I leave TEC, I could attend this “breakaway” Anglican Church. Yet, I’m not entirely convinced that I would be going to something better.

In only four months, I have built relationships in my Parish. The Rectors sermon’s and classes are exceptional. This is a vibrant Body of Christ, serving the community and beyond. If I would have difficulty leaving after only four months; I can’t imagine how it would be for those who have spent decades of their lives in this Episcopal Church. I do not see that any great good would be accomplished, if our Rector decided to break with TEC. In fact, I think it would be very sad if all the conservative Christians left TEC.

Your question: “But to create just one more new church? Haven’t we done enough of this?”

Indeed we have done enough of forming new Churches; but I don’t think one can make a blanket statement regarding whether or not a “new” Church is formed, when breaking from TEC and continuing in the Anglican Communion. I’ll let you and Usbek de Perse deal with the issues regarding what constitutes a “new” Church.

I disagree. The continuing churches are indeed part of the continuity of historic Anglicanism. Just as we don’t say that the church established by our post-Revolutionary forbears did not cease to be when the Oxford movement started, we cannot say that either the American/Canadian continuing churches or the African churches are radically different from “historic Anglicanism”. I have sympathy with these churches, but I don’t want to join them. I’m either Episcopalian or I am going to bite the bullet and go over to a comfortable Anglican style Roman Catholic Church.

Usbek de Perse,

I don’t think the answer regarding leaving or staying in TEC is the same for every Episcopalian. I can see benefits and problems with either solution. I think we must continue to pray for TEC and for the decisions of its members. I’m sure you are doing this already.

I still don’t know what I will do. It’s not an easy decision.

In Christ,
Anna

 

[Bluegoat]

What if there is never an Anglican Catholic congregation near you? Or you moved to a place where there wasn’t one? If you believe the Catholic Church is what it says, than that shouldn’t matter (though having to sing that folk music stuff might give you an stroke!)

I did what a previous poster said and read more about Catholisism. At one time I considered it a possibility, but these days I can’t see it as such at any level - my research pretty much confirmed that for me (rather unexpectedly I might add.)

I understand not wanting to join any of the small Anglican groups - they seem to be moving further away from being a Church, not toward it. Bishops bishops everywhere. But I also think it is completely unfair that TEC (and the ACC) get to remain the “official” Anglican Church, when they are the ones departing from any kind of orthodoxy.

 

[Bluegoat]

Of course, to keep up with everything he writes would be a full-time job–how he manages to write so much is a puzzling question, especially since he’s a bishop as well! (Though I understand that he’s “retiring” as bishop and returning to academia.) He wrote his book on justification during the last Lambeth Conference, for instance!

Edwin

Perhaps this says something about the Lambeth conference.

 

[jmcrae]

What if there is never an Anglican Catholic congregation near you? Or you moved to a place where there wasn’t one? If you believe the Catholic Church is what it says, than that shouldn’t matter (though having to sing that folk music stuff might give you an stroke!)

Keep in mind that the folk music is only used at the Youth masses, in the evenings - the regular Sunday morning “family” Masses typically use classical music and Gregorian chant.

I had also been under the impression that Catholics used folk music all the time during my “seeking” phase, because I had never attended a Sunday morning Mass before, because I had been attending my Protestant church at that time.

But if you convert (or don’t) it shouldn’t be about the music, either way (although obviously you will want to go to the Masses where the music you like is being used, most of the time) - let it be because Jesus is calling you.

 

[Bluegoat]

Keep in mind that the folk music is only used at the Youth masses, in the evenings - the regular Sunday morning “family” Masses typically use classical music and Gregorian chant.

I had also been under the impression that Catholics used folk music all the time during my “seeking” phase, because I had never attended a Sunday morning Mass before, because I had been attending my Protestant church at that time.

But if you convert (or don’t) it shouldn’t be about the music, either way (although obviously you will want to go to the Masses where the music you like is being used, most of the time) - let it be because Jesus is calling you.

Around here I’ve only found the more classical music regularly at the Cathedral. (Although they still truncate their hymns for some reason.) I don’t think it’s a very traditional diocese, from what I can gather.