Question for Episcopalians

[Writer]

Anglo-catholic:

To ABalsh - How I left:

I took out a book on the Marian doctrines from the parish library - Was asked if I was trying to convert someone. I said no that I had doubts about these dogmas. The person informed the pastor and I was told that I could not teach CCD or participate in the Evangelization Committee any longer.

I never violated my oath to teach nothing but Church doctrine to CCD classes as I was teaching Old Testament and I am well aware of what the doctrines are. I did not share my doubts with anyone other than that mention to that person in the library.

Realizing that to “pretend” I was a Catholic was not being honest so I left. Leaving was a great struggle over more than a year. I read many books by Protestants that converted to Catholicism to see how they dealt with this dogma. Basically it is on Papal/ Church authority.

I do not advise anyone who is Catholic and believes the papal declarations to leave. I think one must recognize that the Church is the authority on scripture, etc and you cannot ignore 2000 years of belief when reading scripture, But I am still not ready to accept this on papal authority since I don’t see this matter as a fundamental of salvation and others (such as St Thomas Moore had similar doubts). I am not bitter over this event as I feel I am now more honest to myself.

So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; - Phil 2:12

If we take are salvation seriously - we will always be questioning if we got it right. God Bless!

Thank you for sharing this sad experience. I am sorry your questions were met with such a harsh response. I also had many questions concerning the Marian doctrines before we converted from the Episcopal Church–at least we felt like we were Episcopalians still, but we had not attended for a year, or so, at that point. I wrote an article on some of these Marian issues last year. Although I am thinking about streamlining it for publication, it remains a work in progress. If it would be any assistance to you, I’d be happy to forward a copy. What I found was that the things that troubled me the most concerning some aspects of Marian devotion were less associated directly with the Church than they were examples of Catholic culture–ie. the stumbling blocks to our family were not so much doctrines or dogmas, but the interpretation of these dogmas by lay people in the Church.

 

[Contarini]

THutch04:

Why I left- I really did not care for the direction in which the Episcopal Church was going, and I decided that I could not really get around the 39 Articles. I know they’re not binding, and you can, in theory, get around that if you really work at it, but it didn’t feel right that I would have to try to look for a loophole to stay in the Episcopal Church. So, I went the Continuing Anglican route and found a TAC parish, which I have been a member of for a few years.

I find this baffling. If you know they are not binding, why do you even have to “work at it” to get around them “in theory”? This makes no sense at all. There’s no loophole necessary, simply the plain fact that one is not asked to subscribe to the Articles when one is confirmed as an Episcopalian.

I’m also confused as to why you would find the Continuing Anglicans less plagued by this problem. The 1928 BCP, used by the Continuers, gives a far more prominent place to the Articles than ECUSA’s 1979 BCP. Indeed, one of the grievances of the Continuers was that the Articles were moved to a “Historical Documents” section. If your reason for not being Anglican was the Articles, that was a far bigger reason for not being a Continuer than not being an Episcopalian.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Contarini:

I find this baffling. If you know they are not binding, why do you even have to “work at it” to get around them “in theory”? This makes no sense at all. There’s no loophole necessary, simply the plain fact that one is not asked to subscribe to the Articles when one is confirmed as an Episcopalian.

I’m also confused as to why you would find the Continuing Anglicans less plagued by this problem. The 1928 BCP, used by the Continuers, gives a far more prominent place to the Articles than ECUSA’s 1979 BCP. Indeed, one of the grievances of the Continuers was that the Articles were moved to a “Historical Documents” section. If your reason for not being Anglican was the Articles, that was a far bigger reason for not being a Continuer than not being an Episcopalian.

Edwin

Edwin,

Continuers, in the classic sense (those who left after the St. Louis get-together) are more on the Anglo-Catholic side, generally, since the first thorns were the liturgy and females in vestments. The later the groups leaving ECUSA, the more toward the evangelical, generally. Until you get to groups like the AMIA (not classical Continuers, I know, but disaffected by now, anyway), which is liberal-central, by the standards of groups like the TAC, ACC or APCK. Believe me, there are Continuers who cut the Articles out of the 28 book and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter. That is, classic Continuers are not likely to be overly enamoured of the Articles. I have never heard them mentioned, referred to or referenced, in my time as a Continuer, in any positive sense. With the single exception that my rector pointed out that one of the few things he liked about the 79 book was precisely that the Articles were properly identified as historical in nauture; how Liz chose to govern her Church, not much to do with us. For all that, there are Articles that are totally noncontroversial for any here, as you know. But they are not binding, as we know.

GKC

 

[GKC]

THutch04,

“I would say in my experience that the biggest difference is the issue of the Pope. There are other differences, but this is the only one that I can say generally goes across the Anglican spectrum, from high churches to low churches.”

I agree.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Contarini]

GKC:

Edwin,

Continuers, in the classic sense (those who left after the St. Louis get-together) are more on the Anglo-Catholic side, generally, since the first thorns were the liturgy and females in vestments. The later the groups leaving ECUSA, the more toward the evangelical, generally. Until you get to groups like the AMIA (not classical Continuers, I know, but disaffected by now, anyway), which is liberal-central, by the standards of groups like the TAC, ACC or APCK. Believe me, there are Continuers who cut the Articles out of the 28 book and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter. That is, classic Continuers are not likely to be overly enamoured of the Articles. I have never heard them mentioned, referred to or referenced, in my time as a Continuer, in any positive sense. With the single exception that my rector pointed out that one of the few things he liked about the 79 book was precisely that the Articles were properly identified as historical in nauture; how Liz chose to govern her Church, not much to do with us. For all that, there are Articles that are totally noncontroversial for any here, as you know. But they are not binding, as we know.

GKC

GKC,

Does the TAC as a whole renounce the Articles? My point was simply that the 1928 BCP gives them a more exalted status than the 1979 does, so discomfort with the Articles is not a reason to move to the Continuum. I wasn’t making any claims about Continuing reverence for the Articles, except that however low it might be, Episcopalian attitudes are going to be as low or lower. Shucks, it’s hard enough to get Episcopalians to treat the Nicene Creed as binding, as you know!

Edwin

 

[puzzleannie]

mikew262:

In theology, the Episcopal Church and the Catholic Church are very close, except the Episcopal Church does not recognize the Pope as their spiritual leader. There may be other minor differences as well.

!

ordaining women as priests and active gays as bishops are more than minor differences.

 

[GKC]

Contarini:

GKC,

Does the TAC as a whole renounce the Articles? My point was simply that the 1928 BCP gives them a more exalted status than the 1979 does, so discomfort with the Articles is not a reason to move to the Continuum. I wasn’t making any claims about Continuing reverence for the Articles, except that however low it might be, Episcopalian attitudes are going to be as low or lower. Shucks, it’s hard enough to get Episcopalians to treat the Nicene Creed as binding, as you know!

Edwin

Edwin,

I doubt that the TAC is, generally, as AC/high as the mainstream of the Continuum, though I think the ACA is on par with the ACC or APCK. It’s the nature of third world orthodox Anglicanism; more on the evangelical side. And renounce is too active a term. Unless the issue comes up, as here, they are more commonly ignored, sort of like the Six Articles or the Ten Articles, or other historical snapshots of politics as religion from the era. That they are still in the 28 Book is as much from as inertia as it is anything else, for such . Certainly, I know of no Continuer who thought it *lese majestie * or less than accurate to categorize them as historical. One of the few things I can look at in the 70 book and say well done.

Re: the Creed, yeah, I know. It makes it harder to explain, when I make the distinction in discussing the Articles, that Anglicanism is creedal, not confessional, when the largest Anglican shaped group in sight isn’t either.

Pax tecum frater.

GKC