Regarding Anglicans: Have I got this right?

[manualman]

This surely isn’t the first time that myself and other Protestants here have been asked to produce copyright information for sources that seem to hit too close to home for some Catholics. But, the funny thing is that Catholics seemingly never produce any of theirs in similar cases. Hmmm, does a double standard seem obvious here?

Truth matters you realize. For years, I referred to Luther’s story of the righteousness of Christ ‘covering’ the sinner like new fallen snow covering a dung heap. It so neatly conveyed what I felt was the problem with one particular kind of protestant theology. There was just one problem: Luther never said it or wrote it. I got challenged on it right here at CAF and searched high and low. Didn’t exist. I got humbled. There’s still no doubt in my mind that some protestants have an unbiblical idea of the ‘total depravity of man’ (versus the catholic understanding of good, but fallen) and the reality of genuine Sanctification (versus legally imputed righteousness), but it isn’t as neat and tidy as I had previously believed.

Hopefully, you’ll eventually come to the same realization. You goofed, big deal. Learn and grow. You don’t have to convert because you trusted the wrong people, just recognize that humans are messy critters prone to misunderstanding one another and becoming bitter.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I’m not going to entertain your game of hide and go seek with quoted information. If I were to quote Luke from Scripture where the angel Gabriel called Mary highly favoured one instead of Hail Mary full of grace, Catholics would be attacking me for using a flawed Protestant Bible and the continued scrutiny over sources that they do not like would most asuredly continue. This all becomes circular reasoning and I’m not playing the game. As for your continued attacks upon Anglicanism, I’ll say it again. There’s the door, use it. I had the integrity to leave the Catholic church after three and a half decades and it was the only church that I knew at the time. Where’s your integrity Mark? Instead of attacking the African diocese and the Southern Cone and Archbishop Duncan, Venables and anyone else that comes into your cross hairs, make your move and stop sitting on the fence.

Fr. Mark is not making an unreasonable request, Justy. He is asking you to back up your outrageous claims - that is not only common scholarship, it is also common decency, common logic, and common sense.

You cannot expect to be taken seriously by anyone if you are going to use disreputable sources for your information, refuse to provide reputable ones when you are caught, and then have the audacity to insult and dismiss those whom you deny the courtesy of a reasoned and defensible argument.

Honestly, with all due respect, you are embarrassing yourself. You really ought to retract the statement you backed up with reference to the “New York Catechism” if you aren’t able or willing to back it up with reputable sources.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Javl]

Overall I agree with you, but there HAVE been problems in Eastern Catholic Churches with being pushed to give up Eastern practices/attitudes etc. So although Justy seems excessively angry and paranoid, I would not assume the Anglicans that take the CC up on this proposal will have a smooth ride.

I don’t think this is so. For if it were, these Churches would leave communion with Rome in a second. They joined the CC with the guarantee of keeping and using their Liturgy Rites, etc. If the Anglican Use has been in effect for more than 30 years in the CC without problems, I so no reason why Anglicans that come into the CC now with the Anglican Rite should have any problems.

P.S. Jews that convert to Catholicism are encouraged by the Church to retain their cultural heritage and remain Jewish. Viz: hebrewcatholic.org.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

Justy90:

Just a quick note FYI: The only Catechism that Catholics use is the Official Catechism of the Catholic Church ( CCC ). any other catechism is considered either spurious or just a repetitiom of what is in the CCC.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I don’t think this is so. For if it were, these Churches would leave communion with Rome in a second. They joined the CC with the guarantee of keeping and using their Liturgy Rites, etc. If the Anglican Use has been in effect for more than 30 years in the CC without problems, I so no reason why Anglicans that come into the CC now with the Anglican Rite should have any problems.

P.S. Jews that convert to Catholicism are encouraged by the Church to retain their cultural heritage and remain Jewish. Viz: hebrewcatholic.org.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Actually in the early part of the last century the Byzantine Catholic Churches were forced to change and latinize and many did leave for the Orthodox Churches. The biggest issues then were the celibate priesthood and the removal of the iconstasis from the Churches.

I think Pope John XXIII was the first to call us to return to our traditions and then it was Pope John Paul II that removed the restriction on a married secular clergy.

 

[Javl]

Actually in the early part of the last century the Byzantine Catholic Churches were forced to change and latinize and many did leave for the Orthodox Churches. The biggest issues then were the celibate priesthood and the removal of the iconstasis from the Churches.

I think Pope John XXIII was the first to call us to return to our traditions and then it was Pope John Paul II that removed the restriction on a married secular clergy.

Thank you for reminding me of that. I had forgotten about it. If I remeber rightly, it was one of the subjects brought up in Vatican II.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Padrej]

I don’t think this is so. For if it were, these Churches would leave communion with Rome in a second. They joined the CC with the guarantee of keeping and using their Liturgy Rites, etc. If the Anglican Use has been in effect for more than 30 years in the CC without problems, I so no reason why Anglicans that come into the CC now with the Anglican Rite should have any problems.

P.S. Jews that convert to Catholicism are encouraged by the Church to retain their cultural heritage and remain Jewish. Viz: hebrewcatholic.org.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

It is my understanding that If I an Anglican bishop crossed to Rome that I could keep the rights and ceremonies under the conditions currently offered by Benedict XVI. They had a word for it but we would come in rather like a military chaplain would because a chaplain needs some broader latitude in conducting the services, sacraments etc. We could come in as others have under John Paul II if we are already married and stay married, but if we became separated for any reason the celibacy clause would “kick in.” No re-marriage. We would be considered Anglican use. If an entire diocese came in then those diocese could remain as all Anglican use under the same bishop, if he swam the Tiber too.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It is my understanding that If I an Anglican bishop crossed to Rome that I could keep the rights and ceremonies under the conditions currently offered by Benedict XVI. They had a word for it but we would come in rather like a military chaplain would because a chaplain needs some broader latitude in conducting the services, sacraments etc. We could come in as others have under John Paul II if we are already married and stay married, but if we became separated for any reason the celibacy clause would “kick in.” No re-marriage. We would be considered Anglican use. If an entire diocese came in then those diocese could remain as all Anglican use under the same bishop, if he swam the Tiber too.

The Anglican Bishop could not be a Bishop in the Catholic Church if he is married, hence the rules for an ordinary that is not a bishop. He would still run the personal ordinate as an ordinary but would not be a bishop.

 

[Padrej]

The Anglican Bishop could not be a Bishop in the Catholic Church if he is married, hence the rules for an ordinary that is not a bishop. He would still run the personal ordinate as an ordinary but would not be a bishop.

You are correct, thank you for the clarification.
There are some like myself though who do fall under the Order of Corporate Reunion, whose orders have had a recognition by Rome as “Valid but irregular.” Also one of my consecrators was a Roman Catholic bishop.

Many Anglicans will not jump to Rome because they would have to give up too much “Power” that they feel they have. They feel I worked all my life to get my personal kingdom and not I have to give it up to be part of a larger church? WHY?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Great post, manualman. I have done the same thing. When I was sympathetic and arguing in FAVOR of Anglicanism in the past, I brought up the argument about “the Celtic Church” in England predating the Roman Church. Anglicans love to quote the mythical Celtic Church that was ‘usurped’ by the evil Pope. I loved using that in arguments. The problem was, it’s boloney! I also got challenged on it, researched it, and had egg on my face, too! It is humbling! But intellectually honest people seeking the truth will submit to humility. People full of hate and loathing who want to make a square peg fit into a round one will not yield to the evidence. Great post.

Truth matters you realize. For years, I referred to Luther’s story of the righteousness of Christ ‘covering’ the sinner like new fallen snow covering a dung heap. It so neatly conveyed what I felt was the problem with one particular kind of protestant theology. There was just one problem: Luther never said it or wrote it. I got challenged on it right here at CAF and searched high and low. Didn’t exist. I got humbled. There’s still no doubt in my mind that some protestants have an unbiblical idea of the ‘total depravity of man’ (versus the catholic understanding of good, but fallen) and the reality of genuine Sanctification (versus legally imputed righteousness), but it isn’t as neat and tidy as I had previously believed.

Hopefully, you’ll eventually come to the same realization. You goofed, big deal. Learn and grow. You don’t have to convert because you trusted the wrong people, just recognize that humans are messy critters prone to misunderstanding one another and becoming bitter.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Justy, just produce the ISBN number or citations and imprimatur, evidence, etc. and you win the argument. Easy as that. Father Mark has you painted into a corner. You refuse to produce the source of this mythical catechism. Your argument wouldn’t hold up in any debate. You shouldn’t get so defensive about someone with whom you disagree asking you for citation. It’s standard procedure among intelligent people. You’re basically saying, “Hey, I hate Catholicism, found a spurrious, dubious, phony catechism from an evangelical anti-Catholic, can’t produce any evidence it even exists and it probably doesn’t BUT because you’re calling me to the carpet, I’ll just invoke the old “circular reasoning” accusation.” You remember in high school on term papers where we had to have a bibliography and show where we found our source data? Remember in college when we wrote a thesis or any research paper it had footnotes and bibliography? Why if it’s good enough for junior high, high school, and college, is it unreasonable and petty here among intelligent adults?

If you’d just eat crow, be honest and say, “bottom line, I screwed up. It doesn’t exist,” people (especially me) would respect it. But when you say, “look, I could look it up and produce it if I wanted, but I’m not going to!” then that’s an eye-roller.

It reminds me of “My Cousin Vinnie.” Do you remember that flick? While Vinnie was in court, his girlfriend (Marissa Tomei) played pool in a seedy bar against this redneck. They both bet like $500 on the game. She won, he welched on the deal. Vinnie showed up wanting the money and the guy wouldn’t give it to him. Vinnie then said, “I’ll fight you, kick the _________ out of you, and then can I have my money?” The hillbilly replies, “you kick my butt? Yeah right!” to which Vinnie says, “I don’t think you’ll fight me because you don’t have the money!” Hick: “Oh trust me, I have the money!”

When Vinnie comes back two days later, the redneck flashes a wad of $$$. Vinnie says, “that’s not the money.” The redneck says, “yes it is!”

Vinnie replies, “how do I know that that isn’t just a huge wad of one dollar bills with a twenty on top making it look like $500 bucks?”

The guy gets caught…

Your New York Catechism is a one dollar bill with a counterfeit twenty on top. If you can’t produce it, Mark is basically Vinny for ya…

Also, how do you know Father Mark is “sitting on the fence?”

I’m not going to entertain your game of hide and go seek with quoted information. If I were to quote Luke from Scripture where the angel Gabriel called Mary highly favoured one instead of Hail Mary full of grace, Catholics would be attacking me for using a flawed Protestant Bible and the continued scrutiny over sources that they do not like would most asuredly continue. This all becomes circular reasoning and I’m not playing the game. As for your continued attacks upon Anglicanism, I’ll say it again. There’s the door, use it. I had the integrity to leave the Catholic church after three and a half decades and it was the only church that I knew at the time. Where’s your integrity Mark? Instead of attacking the African diocese and the Southern Cone and Archbishop Duncan, Venables and anyone else that comes into your cross hairs, make your move and stop sitting on the fence.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Great post, manualman. I have done the same thing. When I was sympathetic and arguing in FAVOR of Anglicanism in the past, I brought up the argument about “the Celtic Church” in England predating the Roman Church. Anglicans love to quote the mythical Celtic Church that was ‘usurped’ by the evil Pope. I loved using that in arguments. The problem was, it’s boloney! I also got challenged on it, researched it, and had egg on my face, too! It is humbling! But intellectually honest people seeking the truth will submit to humility. People full of hate and loathing who want to make a square peg fit into a round one will not yield to the evidence. Great post.

**You interest me, what was ,‘mythical,’ about the Celtic Church? It was a well attested part of the Catholic Church! Tertullian mentions it, as does a host of other people of the first four centuries, including Dorotheus of Tyre, [Bishop and Martyr] as well as mentions by Athenasius and the Emperor Constantine! Bede tells us about it and I reckon there is as much about the Church in Britain, as there is about the early Church in Rome! In 2007, a Fr, Eastell, a Roman scholar, writing in the ,‘Catholic Messenger,’ writes that at least one Bishop was present at Nice from Britain.One of your early scholars, [can’t remember his name, but will find it when the workmen leave,] claimed that Aristobulos was the first Bishop in Britain. Sent, by S.Paul, while Dorotheus, claimed Aristobulous was martyred here! It is only refered to as Celtic, because the political and social control of this country was held by Celtic Chiefs.Later when then Saxon’s gained control it was referred to as the Saxon Church.

**

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Justy,

I notice you are back to your old habits of insulting and dodging questions and request.

**Is this how an Anglican priest passes judgement on a Bishop during a theological debate,“foriegn " and African?” Is this the criteria ACNA recommends?
**

 

[Padrej]

**Is this how an Anglican priest passes judgement on a Bishop during a theological debate,“foriegn " and African?” Is this the criteria ACNA recommends?
**

I don’t know if Fr.Mark will answer that one directly but I will. That is not the way that Anglicans SHOULD be acting towards one another. One of the things that I eschew about the Traditional Anglicans in the US is the inbred fighting and name-calling that they have for one another. They look at one another and say, “you are not of us so you are “X”” and you fill in the “X” with whatever derogatory label that you want to place on them. It is certainly not what Christ taught when he said “they will know that you are my disciples by your love.”

I would be VERY suspect of ANY group or individual of a group that labels as person as the way you describe. It shows that they they tend to be more concerned with earthly kingdom building than Heavenly Kingdom building or edifying the Body of Christ which should have been their #1 goal to start with.

 

[Padrej]

Justy, just produce the ISBN number or citations and imprimatur, evidence, etc. and you win the argument. Easy as that. Father Mark has you painted into a corner. You refuse to produce the source of this mythical catechism. Your argument wouldn’t hold up in any debate. You shouldn’t get so defensive about someone with whom you disagree asking you for citation. It’s standard procedure among intelligent people. You’re basically saying, “Hey, I hate Catholicism, found a spurrious, dubious, phony catechism from an evangelical anti-Catholic, can’t produce any evidence it even exists and it probably doesn’t BUT because you’re calling me to the carpet, I’ll just invoke the old “circular reasoning” accusation.” You remember in high school on term papers where we had to have a bibliography and show where we found our source data? Remember in college when we wrote a thesis or any research paper it had footnotes and bibliography? Why if it’s good enough for junior high, high school, and college, is it unreasonable and petty here among intelligent adults?

If you’d just eat crow, be honest and say, “bottom line, I screwed up. It doesn’t exist,” people (especially me) would respect it. But when you say, “look, I could look it up and produce it if I wanted, but I’m not going to!” then that’s an eye-roller.

It reminds me of “My Cousin Vinnie.” Do you remember that flick? While Vinnie was in court, his girlfriend (Marissa Tomei) played pool in a seedy bar against this redneck. They both bet like $500 on the game. She won, he welched on the deal. Vinnie showed up wanting the money and the guy wouldn’t give it to him. Vinnie then said, “I’ll fight you, kick the _________ out of you, and then can I have my money?” The hillbilly replies, “you kick my butt? Yeah right!” to which Vinnie says, “I don’t think you’ll fight me because you don’t have the money!” Hick: “Oh trust me, I have the money!”

When Vinnie comes back two days later, the redneck flashes a wad of $$$. Vinnie says, “that’s not the money.” The redneck says, “yes it is!”

Vinnie replies, “how do I know that that isn’t just a huge wad of one dollar bills with a twenty on top making it look like $500 bucks?”

The guy gets caught…

Your New York Catechism is a one dollar bill with a counterfeit twenty on top. If you can’t produce it, Mark is basically Vinny for ya…

Also, how do you know Father Mark is “sitting on the fence?”

If I am reading this correctly you are looking for the existence of the “New York Catechism” The New York Catechism was published in 1817 by Holy Trinity Church in New York as a way to teach children the catechism. It was later superseded by other catechisms.
It is mentioned in the books:
A Century of Achievement Volume I - The History of the New York Bible
By Arthur Lowndes on Page 118
Also in:
A history of the parish of Trinity Church in the city of New York, Volume 4
By Morgan Dix Page 117
It also appears as a mention in:
Archives of the General convention, Volume 3
By Episcopal Church. General Convention. Commission on Archives, J. H. Hobart Page 195
The section mentions that it was “used extensively in Connecticut and New York.”
It is mentioned in:
The Nature of salvation: theological consensus in the Episcopal Church, 1801-73
By Robert W. Prichard Pages 82-84

The catechism was originally set forth by John Henry Hobart who was the 3rd Episcopal Bishop of New York. It is believed that Hobart got his catechism from Bishop Samuel Seabury as it mirrors much of his works but he never attributed the work to him. Being that the catechism was produced in 1817 I highly doubt an ISBN exists for it. I have seen references to it as being fairly anti-Roman Catholic in its stance. Sadly few copies are still in existence.

 

[GKC]

This is more detail than I was familiar with, on the Episcopal-produced New York Catechism, though the connection with Seabury I have seen before. I would not expect to see an ISBN for it, either, unless it was reprinted in the past 40 + years or so.

Now, what does that volume say about the office of the Pope? Anything like the following?

"The pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth. By divine right, the pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the TRUE VICAR OF CHRIST, the Head of the entire Church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils, the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, THE SUPREME JUDGE OF HEAVEN AND EARTH, the judge of ALL, being judged by no one, GOD HIMSELF ON EARTH."

If not, it’s not the New York Catechism referenced on p. 127 pf Boettner’s ROMAN CATHOLICISM, and not the source of the quote under discussion here, which is self-evidently intended to be represented as a Catechism of the RCC. Its the RCC New York Catechism for which information is sought.

GKC

If I am reading this correctly you are looking for the existence of the “New York Catechism” The New York Catechism was published in 1817 by Holy Trinity Church in New York as a way to teach children the catechism. It was later superseded by other catechisms.
It is mentioned in the books:
A Century of Achievement Volume I - The History of the New York Bible
By Arthur Lowndes on Page 118
Also in:
A history of the parish of Trinity Church in the city of New York, Volume 4
By Morgan Dix Page 117
It also appears as a mention in:
Archives of the General convention, Volume 3
By Episcopal Church. General Convention. Commission on Archives, J. H. Hobart Page 195
The section mentions that it was “used extensively in Connecticut and New York.”
It is mentioned in:
The Nature of salvation: theological consensus in the Episcopal Church, 1801-73
By Robert W. Prichard Pages 82-84

The catechism was originally set forth by John Henry Hobart who was the 3rd Episcopal Bishop of New York. It is believed that Hobart got his catechism from Bishop Samuel Seabury as it mirrors much of his works but he never attributed the work to him. Being that the catechism was produced in 1817 I highly doubt an ISBN exists for it. I have seen references to it as being fairly anti-Roman Catholic in its stance. Sadly few copies are still in existence.

 

[Padrej]

This is more detail than I was familiar with, on the Episcopal-produced New York Catechism, though the connection with Seabury I have seen before. I would not expect to see an ISBN for it, either, unless it was reprinted in the past 40 + years or so.

Now, what does that volume say about the office of the Pope? Anything like the following?

"The pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth. By divine right, the pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the TRUE VICAR OF CHRIST, the Head of the entire Church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils, the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, THE SUPREME JUDGE OF HEAVEN AND EARTH, the judge of ALL, being judged by no one, GOD HIMSELF ON EARTH."

If not, it’s not the New York Catechism referenced on p. 127 pf Boettner’s ROMAN CATHOLICISM, and not the source of the quote under discussion here, which is self-evidently intended to be represented as a Catechism of the RCC. Its the RCC New York Catechism for which information is sought.

GKC

It is also supposed to say this:
“I must tell my sins to the priest so that he will give me absolution. A person who knowingly keeps back a mortal sin in confession commits a dreadful sacrilege, and he must repeat his confession.” As referenced in Catholic Chronicles III
According to another section it states:
The New York catechism states: “The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth… by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.”
To a Protestant, Many would have a problem with only the first line “The Pope taking the place of Christ on earth” As we would see this as not in line with our teachings. It would also not be in line with what is in the 39 Articles of Anglican which is a historic document of the Anglican faith that Seabury would have rejected the Primacy of Peter on. So IF this quote is genuinely in the New York catechism produced by the Episcopal Church I can see why it got pulled as it did not stand in line with the teachings of the Episcopal Church.
I know that I have stated that I have seen references to It being Anti-Catholic but these two references that I have just pulled seem to fit into Catholic doctrine as I know it.

I have also seen reference to a Roman Catholic New York Catechism that was produced around the same time. Could this be in response to the Episcopal version???
It is believed that the Reference to the Pope that you cite is from the RC version however, check this site out.
corkfpc.com/pope.html

Point #5 So my question is did the author of Catholic Chronicles use BOTH the Episcopal version AND the Catholic?

 

[GKC]

I think there is a simpler explanation. There is an Episcopal Catechism, as you outlined, which may be referred to as the New York Catechism. If you think it contains the quote I cited, about the Pope, as an expression of Episcopal belief, you are mistaken. This Episcopal catechism is not in question here.

What this thread has discussed is the putative existence of a Roman Catholic catechism, referred to in Boettner, p. 127, as the New York Catechism. It is this supposed Roman Catholic catechism which is the reputed source of the “quote” on the Pope that I gave. It is this Roman Catholic catechism that is being discussed here. The question is what is the source of the quote, as from a Roman Catholic cathechism, referred to by Boettner as the New York Catechism.

GKC

It is also supposed to say this:
“I must tell my sins to the priest so that he will give me absolution. A person who knowingly keeps back a mortal sin in confession commits a dreadful sacrilege, and he must repeat his confession.” As referenced in Catholic Chronicles III
According to another section it states:
The New York catechism states: “The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth… by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.”
To a Protestant, Many would have a problem with only the first line “The Pope taking the place of Christ on earth” As we would see this as not in line with our teachings. It would also not be in line with what is in the 39 Articles of Anglican which is a historic document of the Anglican faith that Seabury would have rejected the Primacy of Peter on. So IF this quote is genuinely in the New York catechism produced by the Episcopal Church I can see why it got pulled as it did not stand in line with the teachings of the Episcopal Church.
I know that I have stated that I have seen references to It being Anti-Catholic but these two references that I have just pulled seem to fit into Catholic doctrine as I know it.

I have also seen reference to a Roman Catholic New York Catechism that was produced around the same time. Could this be in response to the Episcopal version???
It is believed that the Reference to the Pope that you cite is from the RC version however, check this site out.
corkfpc.com/pope.html

Point #5 So my question is did the author of Catholic Chronicles use BOTH the Episcopal version AND the Catholic?

 

[Justy90]

Truth matters you realize. For years, I referred to Luther’s story of the righteousness of Christ ‘covering’ the sinner like new fallen snow covering a dung heap. It so neatly conveyed what I felt was the problem with one particular kind of protestant theology. There was just one problem: Luther never said it or wrote it. I got challenged on it right here at CAF and searched high and low. Didn’t exist. I got humbled. There’s still no doubt in my mind that some protestants have an unbiblical idea of the ‘total depravity of man’ (versus the catholic understanding of good, but fallen) and the reality of genuine Sanctification (versus legally imputed righteousness), but it isn’t as neat and tidy as I had previously believed.

Hopefully, you’ll eventually come to the same realization. You goofed, big deal. Learn and grow. You don’t have to convert because you trusted the wrong people, just recognize that humans are messy critters prone to misunderstanding one another and becoming bitter.

I goofed? No. I quoted from a source which some folks here seem to have alot of heartburn with. Big difference between that and making up something out of thin air.

 

[Justy90]

**Is this how an Anglican priest passes judgement on a Bishop during a theological debate,“foriegn " and African?” Is this the criteria ACNA recommends?
**

He absolutely does not speak for the ACNA and thank God for that.