G
GKC
Guest
If you get enough Anglicans talking, on enough subjects, for long enough, it is not impossible to find something that some of them agree, to some degree, on. Carefully nuanced, to be sure.
GKC
- Status
GKC
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Amazing how condescending and nasty you can get. You would benefit from taking the approach of just the facts (a la Joe Friday) and casting out the tisk-tisks and pedestal superiority complex. The Bishop of Rome was given this title by nature of his being the successor of Peter, pure and simple. And the Bishop of Contantinople being second in place of honor was given in council. So what’s your point?
You are totally out-there, Lucky. You want to believe you’re a catholic without the pesky obedience factor. I’m well aware of the numbers of priests on that board but that general statement of faith was by Father Hart if you take the time to look. You talk about how you’ll leave the error to we Catholics. But let’s look at your “church’s” recent track record: gays, women’s ordination, overlapping boundaries, floating bishops, the collapsing of the Church of England, lay consecrations in Sydney Australia, women’s ordination starting up in Africa, the TEC suing the ACNA, defections to Rome way from Anglicanism, TEC touting abortion as a blessing and ordaining openly-gay men and women and bisexuals, attendance numbers in all areas of Anglicanism collapsing, realignment going down the toilet, and mass chaos. Anglicanism isn’t a tad bit relevent in the world we live in and on the global stage your ecclesiastical band is on the side of irrelevence. Yep, you got me! We’re the ones full of error. As Dr. Phil would say, “how’s that workin’ for ya!?” Just look at the fruits of each church and it’s a no-brainer. The Catholic Church is leading the charge against moral relativism, contraception, the gay agenda, euthanasia, medically unethical practices, just/unjust war, health care, immigration, life issues, and morality in general. It’s not the Anglican Church that brought Christianity to Europe and it won’t be the Anglican Church that re-christianizes it and brings the Gospel to the world anew. Because your Gospel is a mixed hodgepodge of pseudo-Protestant musings and Catholic mitres with a touch of holy water here and there. Don’t speak to me of “errors.” I do not wish to continue this debate so I, for my part, am done…Note the Bishop of Rome was given this title by the Church and the patriarchy of the East was settled on the Bishop of New Rome some time after! *The Gift of the Church!
*
Even now, you haven’t managed to get things quite right, have you?
Can you cut the personal b.s. and snide quips? Just make your points without the rudeness.
The Anglican Church considers the adoption of any dogma, by the whole Catholic Church to be of the faith, also they accept the teachings of Ecumenical Councils after their acceptance by the whole Church of God. This of course cuts out the Robber Council of Trent and the latin Councils of the Middle ages .
*** As if I and everyone else on this board didn’t already know this, Lucky? You miss my point. Your “church” considers dogma only valid when made by the entire catholic church as it existed pre-1054 with all churches united in council. Knowing this is never going to happen and rejecting the infallible papacy, your ‘church’ puts itself in the easy situation of never having any doctrine or dogma then, doesn’t it? Father Hart contradicts himself, as usual, trying to stradle the idea of being catholic with the polar opposite existence of protestantism. He states the pope is the primus and head of the table and deserves respect and honor yet deliberately isolates himself from the pope as you do. He talks of councils yet is part of no council. So you make my point for me–that Anglicanism is free of councils and the papacy and thus can not exist for itself in the now only living off the past. It cannot determine the truths of today for itself or make deliberations about controversies so it shies away from them or just plain adopts heresy***
The Anglican Church , does not reject the pope, you are parading your lack of knowledge, neither do they reject his primacy of place, which was given him by the fathers in Council! Where do you get you facts from, ,‘Billie’s Weekly Liar,’? What we do not accept is the additions to the Deposit of Faith that have occured over the Years. First in line is the transmission of the Petrine Claims on to the shoulders of the papacy! Again you can produce neither theology or history to cover these gross assertions.
Parading my lack of knowledge, eh? Again, your barbed tongue works its magic, Lucky. Thanks for the vote of confidence and warm wishes, my brother in Christ!I never said they reject his primacy, I said they reject him. Notice the commas? I was simply stating my belief in his primus stature. Punctuation is a beautiful thing. I am simply stating that Anglicans like you and Hart contradict yourselves. You talk up the pope’s status as primus inter pares and that he is the bishop of Rome, chair of Peter, yada yada, and then you go on to talk of his heresies and “robber councils” and how far the pope has fallen from truth. It’s ridiculous. What history or theology do I need to produce? It’s all there in bold print in Anglican beliefs by Father Hart? Gross assertions? You actually had me laughing out loud on that one!?
.
Note! Father Hart has his opinions, these are in line with traditionaal Anglican opinion. He is not a pope, ther are ffour other Anglican priests on that blog.We don’t have papal infallibility! We leave the errors to you!
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
We finally agree on something, Padre! I’ll have to write this in the journal 
. I find Father Hart puzzling at times myself. I have emailed with him extensively before and his views are like putting triangles in square pegs for me. He’s very intelligent and heart-felt in his beliefs but I believe, very wrong. He did help me realize my Catholic heart though, in some discussions we had, and helped me to see I didn’t believe in Anglicanism. I agree with you about the 39 Articles comments. They are a contradiction to his beliefs. And I have this problem with Anglicans in general of the Anglo-Catholic persuasion. They view the 39 Articles as something an Anglican can jettison or ignore or piece-meal grab a hold of. When I was in the Anglican Church I viewed the Articles as the core statements of belief along with the councils and scripture. The articles helped me define my Anglican identity at that time. And the way Anglo-Catholics could take-or-leave the articles still puzzles me. I respect more the Anglicans of the evangelical approach (even though I detest evangelicalism and the Packer/Stott belief system) who can call a spade a spade and not claim to be catholic but just lay it out that they’re evangelicals and they respect and follow the articles, stick to their guns. The Oxford Movement was self-defeating and like a dog chasing its tail. It was an attempt to define Anglicans as something they never were—catholic.
. I find Father Hart puzzling at times myself. I have emailed with him extensively before and his views are like putting triangles in square pegs for me. He’s very intelligent and heart-felt in his beliefs but I believe, very wrong. He did help me realize my Catholic heart though, in some discussions we had, and helped me to see I didn’t believe in Anglicanism. I agree with you about the 39 Articles comments. They are a contradiction to his beliefs. And I have this problem with Anglicans in general of the Anglo-Catholic persuasion. They view the 39 Articles as something an Anglican can jettison or ignore or piece-meal grab a hold of. When I was in the Anglican Church I viewed the Articles as the core statements of belief along with the councils and scripture. The articles helped me define my Anglican identity at that time. And the way Anglo-Catholics could take-or-leave the articles still puzzles me. I respect more the Anglicans of the evangelical approach (even though I detest evangelicalism and the Packer/Stott belief system) who can call a spade a spade and not claim to be catholic but just lay it out that they’re evangelicals and they respect and follow the articles, stick to their guns. The Oxford Movement was self-defeating and like a dog chasing its tail. It was an attempt to define Anglicans as something they never were—catholic.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I don’t think the 39 articles can be jettisoned, but they simply aren’t meant to be taken in the same way as, say, scripture, or even the Creeds. I tend to agree that many Anglo-Catholics simply ignore them in a way that is not true to Anglicanism, especially in that they simply fail to engage with them. But they were never meant to be an everlasting, unchanging expression of Anglicanism.We finally agree on something, Padre! I’ll have to write this in the journal
P
Padrej
Guest
Once again I agree with you. The Anglicans of Luckfredsdad’s ilk like to point to the Oxford movement and say how Catholic the Anglican Church became with Laud, Hooker and the like but fail to mention the the pendulum swings both ways and swung back after that movement came to an end. are pieces of it still there? You could say in pockets, and I like to call them the Anglo Catholic party, but that would be a falsehood to say altogether, as there are some low churchmen who can do the high church dance too. But that begs the question what do you do with those in between that are the middle of the road Anglicans that are neither High nor Low? They have a touch of the Oxfordness (If that is a word) if you will but the lowness of the reformed church. Sadly a great deal of the continuum tends to congregational in “nature” and government (having small groups) worshiping in Anglican style whereas the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox have not splintered.We finally agree on something, Padre! I’ll have to write this in the journal
I think the reason some Anglicans like to poke at the Roman Catholic Church with “this is wrong because” as it tries to lower them to their level of errors. If they would leave them alone and follow Christ and make disciples as Christ commanded their churches would be overflowing.
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
Right on, as they do say!
The 39 Articles were a preventive, a wall, or mark, past which the wild men of the English Reformation, the idiot fringe, both Anglo Papalist or Calvinist could not, or should not pass. They were to be viewed, according to Kidd, through the prism of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. It was Councils and Creeds that were the bench mark of English catholicism. Seven Ecumenical Councils.
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
**Luckily for me, I am a Catholic and have been all my life and it is not a matter of choice, certainly not yours! I do not depend on your favour or the ,‘Bishop’s,’ who attacks other Anglican’s to curry favour!Funnily enough your approach to Anglicanism, doesn’t offend me, it is desperation. I won’t be drawn in to it because we should look at scripture and tradition, you can’t do that because your case falls apart and you are left with heartburn and frustration!
**
G
GKC
Guest
Which is precisely why Anglo-Catholics can ignore how Elizabeth chose to rule her fractious Church.
GKC
Anglicanus-Catholicus
M
Masters_Servant
Guest
You have a good point highlighted above. I have been here a short while and this place is fascinating to say the least. Is FR a “Friar” and if so, can you tell me what that means in laymen terms; I am ignorant on this. If it offends anyone because of the topic, then it can wait. thanks.
P
Padrej
Guest
Your last line puzzles me. If they were not meant to be unchanging, then why do some in the Anglo Catholic party ignore sections of them. Why not do what the reformed Episcopal Church did and change them here and there to suit their theology. For example, the article on Scripture and the Apocrypha in a Reformed Episcopal Church prayer book is completely different than say one in a 1928 or 1979 BCP. They deleted the section on the Apocrypha and said they were not cannonical at all and had no part of the Bible. Hence, they would only use a 66 book King James versus the rest of the Anglican world that uses the same version as the Catholic church containing the Apocrypha.
That is why I say why not change them to suit you if you are going to ignore them anyhow?
G
GKC
Guest
Because there is no need to do anything with them at all. They are not normative for Anglicans except, in the technical, erastian sense, for the clergy of the CoE. Otherwise, Anglicans may affirm, ignore, or do either, selectively (many of them are simply mere Christianity, of course). But as a document, Anglicans, generally, may do with them as they will. Such as cutting them from the BCP and using them to kindle the new fire at Easter. Or putting them into a section for historical documents. For those who do not affirm them, they are nugatory, where they are not redundant to the creeds.
GKC
GKC
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Seeing as how much of the 39 Articles were highly protestant, even Calvinistic with a touch of occasional Lutheranism, it’s tough to view them through the prism of the Seven Councils that were very catholic in character and by no means protestant.
B
BernadetteM
Guest
I have followed this post only occasionally, but have a few comments. As a lifelong Episcopalian, until my entering into the Catholic Church, I was taught and it also states in the 39 articles that there are only two sacraments that are recognized as sacraments by the church. Yes they list the others, but do not feel they are fully sacraments. The comments from posters saying the Episcopal church had seven sacraments is why I decided to respond.
When I attended an Anglo Catholic parish of course they accepted all seven sacraments.
Also my mother and father would have been horrified to know that they belonged to a Catholic Church, they were both under the impression all their lives that they were Protestants.
The only priest and he was Anglo Catholic that called himself a priest when I was young was an assistant to the Rector. The Rector called himself a minister. Can someone explain the confusion among Episcopalians/Anglicans on whether they are Catholic or protestant. What has changed since I left the Episcopal church, as even in a high church setting we didn’t consider ourselves Catholic.
It seems to me that all this back and forth posting whether Anglicans are Catholic in the true sense is something quite new, at least within the last 25 years or so.
Maybe the reason I never felt truely Catholic as an Episcoplian is because I was never informed that I was one, but told I was Protestant.
Also why is it so important to Anglicans to be recognized as Catholic? Until Newman and the Oxford movement I think that Anglicans were all pretty low church. I don’t claim to be very knowledgeable about the theology of the Anglican Communion, but can only go by what I experienced as an Episcopalian.
I would say that you can’t have it two ways. Either all Anglicans are taught that they are Catholic or all Anglicans are taught that they are Protestant. If I were looking into the church and got such different answers as to whether the church was Catholic or Protestant I think I would run to the nearest exit.
I won’t be debating this, but think that no one is going to ever be in agreement over this issue. Good luck with your posts, please keep charitable towards one another as in the end it doesn’t really matter, no one will win and each will still have the same opinion as when this post was started.
God Bless you all
Bernadette
When I attended an Anglo Catholic parish of course they accepted all seven sacraments.
Also my mother and father would have been horrified to know that they belonged to a Catholic Church, they were both under the impression all their lives that they were Protestants.
The only priest and he was Anglo Catholic that called himself a priest when I was young was an assistant to the Rector. The Rector called himself a minister. Can someone explain the confusion among Episcopalians/Anglicans on whether they are Catholic or protestant. What has changed since I left the Episcopal church, as even in a high church setting we didn’t consider ourselves Catholic.
It seems to me that all this back and forth posting whether Anglicans are Catholic in the true sense is something quite new, at least within the last 25 years or so.
Maybe the reason I never felt truely Catholic as an Episcoplian is because I was never informed that I was one, but told I was Protestant.
Also why is it so important to Anglicans to be recognized as Catholic? Until Newman and the Oxford movement I think that Anglicans were all pretty low church. I don’t claim to be very knowledgeable about the theology of the Anglican Communion, but can only go by what I experienced as an Episcopalian.
I would say that you can’t have it two ways. Either all Anglicans are taught that they are Catholic or all Anglicans are taught that they are Protestant. If I were looking into the church and got such different answers as to whether the church was Catholic or Protestant I think I would run to the nearest exit.
I won’t be debating this, but think that no one is going to ever be in agreement over this issue. Good luck with your posts, please keep charitable towards one another as in the end it doesn’t really matter, no one will win and each will still have the same opinion as when this post was started.
God Bless you all
Bernadette
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
You always speak in generalities with a deliberate vagueness. I never said you depend on me, did I? You are drawing inferences that were not there. I never said that I had nor do I want control over your choices, Lucky. Again, you’re assuming and you do remember the old addage about the word assume…right? And also, what about me is “desperate?” Desperation implies a need I have and that there is something you want or that there’s something I feel lacking or that I am trying so hard to attain something. Being a Catholic, I have it all. I’m spiritually satisfied. You are perfectly welcome to call yourself a Catholic, you are not. You are a Protestant. If that leaves a bitter taste, I’m sorry. You are part of a Protestant sect founded in the 16th Century that fancies itself Catholic. No offense intended at all. It’s just how I and many other Catholics see it. I have no heartburn, no need for Prilosec or Rolaids. I’m just fine. And I’m not frustrated per se. I am sad to see that you are so off the wall and full of strange anecdotes, bizarre and questionable reading, and your points don’t connect the dots. I don’t have an “approach to Anglicanism” that is different than any other Catholic view. I think it is you who is desperate and frustrated. I’m in a Catholic forum, and I’m a Catholic. You are a Protestant considering himself a Catholic on a Roman Catholic forum trying desperately to appeal to a host of people and even your Anglican cohorts consider your views Section-8. Why don’t you try an Anglican board? But then again, getting a few Anglicans into a forum, I’ve watched that online. Isn’t pretty. They can’t agree if it’s raining outside. But for you I highly recommend it.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
LOL…Yeah, drawing and quartering, ripping apart Catholic bishops who wouldn’t yield to Protestant theology and sell-out…the English Deformation was full of blood. Interesting how “Bloody” Mary Tudor was a joke when compared to the carnage from Henry to Edward to Elizabeth. Heads were rollin’…It was a bloody time for religion everywhere sadly. And you’re sure right about the smell…pretty rancid…
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
The idea of being an Anglo-Catholic didn’t crop up until the 19th Century when Newman and company and the whole Tractarian movement gained steam. It later fizzled and sputtered dead but it left a few innovations for Anglicanism. The idea of being Catholic again, the idea that there were seven sacraments, and that the 39 Articles (that don’t fit into the Anglo-Catholic view) could be deep-sixed when it’s obvious that they are a core part of the confession of what Anglicanism truly is. The idea that only clergy in the CofE have to follow it isn’t something I buy. And common sense says, if it’s good enough for the clergy, why isn’t it good enough for the laity? Crazy stuff…not buyin’ it. My experience in the Episcopal Church was much like yours. And the view of the 39 Articles was one of respect by my rector, bishop, and every Anglican I knew. And my understanding of it was one of respect and I felt that I couldn’t agree with the Articles so thus I couldn’t be an Anglican. I wasn’t willing to throw out the Articles. It reminds me of Jehova’s Witnesses how they don’t like certain Bible verses that don’t jive with their crazy talk so they rip out those pages or Mormons not liking what Christ said to the Sadducees about marriage in heaven so they rip out that verse. If it doesn’t fit, throw it out, try to fit a square peg into a triangular hole. Push hard enough and it’ll fit. Rewrite history and fashion one’s own religion. I have trouble with who is a better Anglican, a guy like John Stott or a man like Vernon Staley? As it was said in an earlier post, Anglicanism is like a pendulum swinging. I think John Stott is truer to what original Anglicanism was–Protestant, more inclined toward Calvinism, with liturgy and a threefold ministry, few Catholic “trappings left.” The Newman Anglo-Catholic religion was a 19th Century religion and Newman himself knew it wasn’t tenable or really in line with history so he bailed to the Catholic Church. In many ways I have more respect for Evangelical lowchurch to mid church polity in the Anglican world because it’s less pretentious and it doesn’t seek to rewrite the past. It also stays true to the Articles and the prayer book. I just don’t happen to agree with it anymore than you do.
I think your post sums up my views and we share a common opinion about the nature of Anglicanism. If someone were to just say, “I’m an Anglican, I’m a Protestant,” I don’t have a problem with that one bit. I still don’t believe in their denomination but I appreciate the truth and the viewpoint more. Few in my old Anglican parish would appreciate being called a “catholic” of any type!
I think your post sums up my views and we share a common opinion about the nature of Anglicanism. If someone were to just say, “I’m an Anglican, I’m a Protestant,” I don’t have a problem with that one bit. I still don’t believe in their denomination but I appreciate the truth and the viewpoint more. Few in my old Anglican parish would appreciate being called a “catholic” of any type!
G
GKC
Guest
Perhaps you don’t know enough Anglicans. Of the right sort, that is.
And yes, it’s only the clergy of the CoE who are required to affirm the Artilcles. Who else do you think Parliament could require to do it?
GKC
And yes, it’s only the clergy of the CoE who are required to affirm the Artilcles. Who else do you think Parliament could require to do it?
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Well I haven’t kept a tally of Anglican acquaintances but I’m sure your list is larger than mine 
…but a simple reading of history shows the real Anglo-Catholic phenomenon to be a modern one. It certainly isn’t rooted in the Elizabethan times. I do know some folks who claim to be Anglo-Catholic and have many online acquaintances who make the same claim. I tried to straddle the truth behind the Protestantism of the Anglican Church and the Catholicism I wished it had but realized the Anglican Church is Protestant. And I say that not because they reject the papacy but because their core beliefs, their history, their reformers, their Articles, their theology, and essential beliefs are Protestant. I don’t mean that in a derogatory way. I just read it that way. And if you ask the majority of the ACNA membership if they’re Catholics, the “right” Catholics that you speak of are a pretty thin “yes” vote and have a pretty tiny voice.
…but a simple reading of history shows the real Anglo-Catholic phenomenon to be a modern one. It certainly isn’t rooted in the Elizabethan times. I do know some folks who claim to be Anglo-Catholic and have many online acquaintances who make the same claim. I tried to straddle the truth behind the Protestantism of the Anglican Church and the Catholicism I wished it had but realized the Anglican Church is Protestant. And I say that not because they reject the papacy but because their core beliefs, their history, their reformers, their Articles, their theology, and essential beliefs are Protestant. I don’t mean that in a derogatory way. I just read it that way. And if you ask the majority of the ACNA membership if they’re Catholics, the “right” Catholics that you speak of are a pretty thin “yes” vote and have a pretty tiny voice.- Status