The Episcapol Church and the Eucharist

[GKC]

Catholic_Girl 9:

Just to be fair, here are some abominations at catholic churches. This is one more reason to be united and put and end to this stuff.

stalphonsusrock.org
-horrible, worst church ever.

stjosephsmen.com/letters/clownmass.htm
-clown mass, what an embarrasment. That priest dosn’t know if he’s a girl or guy let alone a clown.

stjoan.com/default2.htm
-terrible, terrible, terrible

Greetings, Catholic_Girl 9.

Thanks for the balance. I was thinking of looking up a clown mass myself. There are even worse examples on line.

St. Joan of Arc is a notorious parish, even reaching the ears of Anglo-Catholics. Why in the world isn’t it disciplined? (I know why ECUSA does the sort of things it does; it’s run by apostates, but the RCC isn’t).

GKC

 

[Serafin]

Hi there:

see Vatican II again …unacceptable to Anglicans and others:

VATICAN II
This is the **infallibility **which the Roman Pontiff, … Therefore his definitions, of themselves, are not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in
blessed Peter. Therefore they need no approval of others, nor
do they allow an appeal to any other judgment…

See current Anglican Roman-Catholic talks…more hopeful!

About primacy…it is acknowledged!

ARCIC … Historically, the Bishop of Rome has exercised such a ministry either for the benefit of the whole Church

, as when Leo contributed to the Council of Chalcedon, or for the benefit of a local church … This gift has been welcomed and the ministry of these Bishops of Rome continues to be celebrated liturgically by Anglicans as well as Roman Catholics

About infallibility…

Within his wider ministry, the Bishop of Rome offers a specific ministry concerning the discernment of truth, as an expression of universal primacy. This particular service has been the source of difficulties and misunderstandings among the churches

. Every solemn definition pronounced from the chair of Peter in the church of Peter and Paul may, however, express only the faith of the Church. Any such definition is pronounced within the college of those who exercise episcope and not outside that college. … In solemnly formulating such teaching, the universal primate must discern and declare, with the assured assistance and guidance of the Holy Spirit, in fidelity to Scripture and Tradition, the authentic faith of the whole Church, that is, the faith proclaimed from the beginning…It is this faith which the Bishop of Rome in certain circumstances has a duty to discern and make explicit. This form of authoritative teaching has no stronger guarantee from the Spirit than have the solemn definitions of ecumenical councils. The reception of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome entails the recognition of this specific ministry of the universal primate. We believe that this is a gift to be received by all the churches.
Blessings

Serafin

 

[Serafin]

http://www.iccec-sea.org/galleries/cecfound2003/morepic3.jpg
Cathedral Church of the King- CEC - Agnus Dei!

http://www.iccec-sea.org/galleries/cecfound2003/people1.jpg

But…oh no…liturgical dancers…Oh well!

Let me guess the clown mass was valid although tasteless? WE all need much help…Lord have mercy!

Blessings

Serafin

 

[Catholic_Girl_9]

St. Joan of Arc is a notorious parish, even reaching the ears of Anglo-Catholics. Why in the world isn’t it disciplined?

I found out about it from some forum here. I never knew that a catholic church could be so awful. I imagine it’s full of anti-authoritative hippies from the 60’s. What do you know about it? The catholic church is part of society, only it’s teachings remain pure. I still don’t know if we hit rock bottom yet. I think if morals in this country keep going down the tubes, it’ll force the church underground. So you’ll have a state approved catholic church and a underground orthodox catholic church, kind of like china.

If you accept councils as teaching infallibly, then you must accept that ultimately someone has ultimate jurisdiction. All chrisitans must accept papal infallibility in matters of faith and morals or you’ll never have unity. People will question everything the church teaches, just like in protestantism. Look at the orthodox churches, they can’t organize anything. They are basically autonomous.
helleniccomserve.com/panorthadoxsynod.html

By the way, I hear that the So. Baptist have split into two. Sola scriptura does an outstanding job splitting up christian churches.

 

[GKC]

[Greetings, Catholic_Girl 9,

The little I know about St. JoA parish suggests that it seems to be heavily involved in feminist issues, social activism and lots of sexual agendas, and does all this with impunity. What’s the Ordinary doing up there (rhetorical question; I don’t expect you to know)?

Generally I do think that some “one” has authority, in the sense you mean. It’s those councils. Ecumenical Councils, that is, which have been hard to come by for 550 years.

As to Southern Baptists (I was born one, surprise), I’m not sure what you mean. About 5 years ago, there was a split from the SB Convention, by a group *of slightly more liberal Baptists, formed as (I believe) the Southern Baptist Fellowship (don’t hold me to the name, I’d have to look it up, and I’m in a hurry). Doctrinally, they were only slightly more “progressive” than your basic urban SB, maybe more accepting of some sexual issues, more likely to have female pastors, differing on Bible interpretation. But remember that the Southern Baptists are an organization of *totally * independent member churches. There is no Southern Baptist identity, analagous to the RCC or the Anglican Communion. Every Southern Baptist church is an independent entity, affiliated in the SBC for various mutual support stuff. Baptist churches drop out whenever they wish.

Also remember that, like the old Southern Methodists, the Southern Baptists as an organisation exist because of the slavery issue, which caused a split in Baptists in the 1840s.

Added:

Ok, I looked it up. It’s Southern Baptist Alliance, and it happened in 1987. Oops. And, in 1997, the Texas Baptist Convention opted out of the SBC. Could either of these be what you are thinking of?

GKC

 

[Catholic_Girl_9]

This is what I’m referring to: wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1942489&nav=0Ra7NvPY

I have to say that the thing I love most about Catholicism is how truth doesn’t change. We only define it when the church has to. Like transubstantiation during the council of trent, or papal infallibility during VI: a response to Gallicanism. My personal favorite is humane vitae. It’s so counter-culture it has to be true. Nobody who wasn’t safeguarded by the Holy Spirit could come up with that.

As bad as our liturgy may be here or there, we will always have the truth, which is more important than externals. I go to a Tridentine or Byzantine Liturgy in general. Which church celebrates the most reverent Anglican Liturgy?

 

[GKC]

Catholic_Girl 9:

This is what I’m referring to: wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1942489&nav=0Ra7NvPY

I have to say that the thing I love most about Catholicism is how truth doesn’t change. We only define it when the church has to. Like transubstantiation during the council of trent, or papal infallibility during VI: a response to Gallicanism. My personal favorite is humane vitae. It’s so counter-culture it has to be true. Nobody who wasn’t safeguarded by the Holy Spirit could come up with that.

As bad as our liturgy may be here or there, we will always have the truth, which is more important than externals. I go to a Tridentine or Byzantine Liturgy in general. Which church celebrates the most reverent Anglican Liturgy?

Oh, yeah. I should have recalled that. That’s another example of the same thing as the splits in the SBC. It’s not schism in the sense you are thinking of. It’s like not belonging to a professional association. Baptists, as I said, have no hierarchical eccelsiological unit that is higher than the local church.

I understand what you are saying about dogmatic definition, though I think transubstantiation was first dogmatically proclaimed in canon 1 of 4th Lateran. Could be wrong. You last statement about it has to be true because it’s so counter culture reminds me a little bit about of Belloc’s statement that the RCC was so badly run, it must be protected by the Holy Spirit to have survived.

Truth certainly is more important than the externals, though I prefer not to settle for one or the other. I have attended a number of Tridentine Masses, including in Latin, and find them both easy to follow and quite beautiful. I’m not quite sure what you mean by the closing question; are you asking which liturgical rite I find most beautiful in the Anglicin Church? if so, any Mass from the 1928 Prayer Book, assisted by the Anglican Missal, with smoke, bells, the Minor Propers chanted, in Latin if possible, hymns of the “St. Patrick’s Breast Plate” or “Sing of Mary” (written by a Traditional Anglican priest, BTW) type, ending with the Angelus sung. That’ll do nicely.

GKC

 

[walter]

There is only one church. It is either the Catholic church or it not. If it is then that is the church one should belong to. If not then I guess we all belong to that mystical church no matter what we believe. What a fool I was for upsetting people (particularly my wife) to convert to the Catholic church
It is quite simple - someone is wrong here.I guess I choose to follow those much brighter than I like Ronald Knox, Chesterton, John Henry Newman etc.
By the way have a look at the thirty nine articles in the Anglican prayer book to see what they think of some of the Catholic doctrines.Of course someone will say - they don’t believe all that anymore. Well if you don’t like it - change it - why not.
You need an Authority and Christ left that to the Catholic church
If that is not true then we are all free to go our way.
nuf said for now

 

[GKC]

walter:

There is only one church. It is either the Catholic church or it not. If it is then that is the church one should belong to. If not then I guess we all belong to that mystical church no matter what we believe. What a fool I was for upsetting people (particularly my wife) to convert to the Catholic church
It is quite simple - someone is wrong here.I guess I choose to follow those much brighter than I like Ronald Knox, Chesterton, John Henry Newman etc.
By the way have a look at the thirty nine articles in the Anglican prayer book to see what they think of some of the Catholic doctrines.Of course someone will say - they don’t believe all that anymore. Well if you don’t like it - change it - why not.
You need an Authority and Christ left that to the Catholic church
If that is not true then we are all free to go our way.
nuf said for now

Greetings, Walter,

Not sure if this was addressed to me, but it had Chesterton’s name in it, which always catches my eye. I have said somewhere else on this board that I have collected Chesterton for about 40 years, and if he didn’t get me to Rome, probably no one could. Me, I find in hind sight that I have followed others I find equally wise: Lewis, Williams, Sayers. Not that I have anythinga gainst Knox or Newman; Knox is another author I collect, Newman I read in college, starting on the Catholic path.

As to the 39 articles, not to worry. It was never required that any Anglican affirm them, save for the priests of the CoE, in a very narrow sense, due to the Erastian nature of that church. Anglicanism is creedal, not confessional, and the Articles are politics as religion, part of the Elizabethan compromise that determined how Elizabeth I was to govern her realm and church. Some Anglicans certainly affirm them, some ignore them, some cut them out of the Book of Common Prayer and burn them. Heck, I’ll bet you can find more than one of the articles that you would agree with. But no Anglican must, just because they are in the 39.

GKC.

 

[Holly3278]

The liturgy of the Episcopal church is similar to the Catholic liturgy, and they do believe in the real presence, but they do not have it; because they do not have valid holy orders.

I hate to bump up an old thread but I am wanting to discuss this.

Anyway, I disagree with you. I believe that the Episcopal Church does have valid sacraments, including the Eucharist.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I absolutely adore the Anglican liturgy and think the language of it is FAR superior to that of the very poorly-done Vatican II English liturgy we have.

Anglicans have great music, beautiful liturgical language from the Book of Common Prayer (especially rite I), great fellowship, caring parishoners, and some outstanding priests.

The validity of their orders is always questioned but the “Dutch Touch” of the Old Catholic Church at least makes them valid even if the RCC considers them licit.

The reason I stay Roman Catholic (despite my fondness and truly missing the Anglican Church at times) is this (and I am a former Anglican):

1. One church on one side of town might be “high church” with a tabernacle, incense, Marian devotions, rosaries, and confessionals. One would almost mistake it for a Roman Catholic building! Meanwhile on the other side of town there is another Anglican church that is “low church” where, literally and I have read many accounts of this, the Anglicans there believe that the spirit leaves the Eucharist after Mass so they feed the old “wafers” to the birds out behind the church! This dicotomy is extremely troublesome to me.
2. The idea of the Mass being a complete sacrifice that is a total re-presentation and anamnesis of the exact same sacrifice at Calvary is not usually the understanding Anglican priests have (at least broad and low priests). It is more memorial in nature.
3. Divorce is highly-tolerated in even high church parishes. Divorce and cohabitation, I observed in my ‘conservative’ parish are absolutely accepted or at bare minimum, tolerated.
4. The Anglican Church in general is quiet about abortion. They have some groups that are pro-life but generally they are quiet and the nature of most episcopal churches is to not make waves.
5. Confession is ‘optional.’ The Anglican saying about confession is: all may, some should, none must**** The idea of a priest forgiving sins through confession and penance being optional just never made sense to me. Auricular confession is a rich part of the Christian heritage. I can’t find anywhere in the early church where a private, quiet, personal confession in the confines of a person’s heart is sufficient. The apostles were given the power to forgive sins. The Anglicans believe the general absolution during Mass serves that purpose. Catholics believe that the general confession only forgives venial sins. I happen to agree there.
6. Anglicanism is fragmented and chaotic. The only real “voice” of Anglicanism that is high profile is the Archbishop of Canterbury who, for decades, have been cowards, wimps, and concessionists, not leaders. Most Anglicans are embarrassed of the ABC’s.
7. Anglicans do not have any hard and fast theology. That bothers me.
8. The real definition for me of “priest” is literally a SACRIFICER. In the roman catholic, orthodox, oriental catholic, etc. tradition, a priest is sacerdotal, a sacrificer. Anglicans do not believe in a real sacrifice of the Eucharist, only a sacrifice of “praise and thanksgiving.” I just don’t see that priestly nature that I believe in expressed in Anglicanism.
9. A big thing that drove me insane as an Anglican was that our parish as with most parishes, anyone who is baptized may approach the rail and take the Eucharist. I remember one guy who bragged to me that he was a unitarian and didn’t even believe in the Eucharist, and he went up for communion every service. The priest knew it and everything. People twice-divorced, people cohabitating, baptists, calvinists, you name it, anyone goes up for communion. The early church would never have permitted this. It goes against the grain of orthodox catholic thought to allow a person who has not “discerned the body,” a person who doesn’t even understand or believe in the doctrines of catholicism, to approach such a sublime sacrament.

There are things about Catholicism that absolutely drive me crazy. I could write a laundry list. And historically the Church has behaved horrifically at times full of misdeeds, intolerance to science/Jews/protestants/native peoples that resulted in mass murder, pedophilia, etc. etc. But doctrinally the Catholic Church still is on the right side of tradition and morality to me.

And if someone in Catholicism comes along like Shelby Spong, BAMMMM excommunicated. I love it. Anglicans need that special little feature!

Now I’ve listed why I stay Catholic but I have to say, I miss the kindness of the priests I knew as an Anglican, the beautiful worship, the togetherness, fellowship, pastoral care, sympathetic ear of the priests and congregation, outreach, and the music. They had a great setup for kids, too. If they were in union with Rome, I’d go back to my local parish in a heartbeat (as long as they purge themselves of some of the things I mentioned!)

 

[GKC]

I absolutely adore the Anglican liturgy and think the language of it is FAR superior to that of the very poorly-done Vatican II English liturgy we have.

Anglicans have great music, beautiful liturgical language from the Book of Common Prayer (especially rite I), great fellowship, caring parishoners, and some outstanding priests.

The validity of their orders is always questioned but the “Dutch Touch” of the Old Catholic Church at least makes them valid even if the RCC considers them licit.

The reason I stay Roman Catholic (despite my fondness and truly missing the Anglican Church at times) is this (and I am a former Anglican):

1. One church on one side of town might be “high church” with a tabernacle, incense, Marian devotions, rosaries, and confessionals. One would almost mistake it for a Roman Catholic building! Meanwhile on the other side of town there is another Anglican church that is “low church” where, literally and I have read many accounts of this, the Anglicans there believe that the spirit leaves the Eucharist after Mass so they feed the old “wafers” to the birds out behind the church! This dicotomy is extremely troublesome to me.
2. The idea of the Mass being a complete sacrifice that is a total re-presentation and anamnesis of the exact same sacrifice at Calvary is not usually the understanding Anglican priests have (at least broad and low priests). It is more memorial in nature.
3. Divorce is highly-tolerated in even high church parishes. Divorce and cohabitation, I observed in my ‘conservative’ parish are absolutely accepted or at bare minimum, tolerated.
4. The Anglican Church in general is quiet about abortion. They have some groups that are pro-life but generally they are quiet and the nature of most episcopal churches is to not make waves.
5. Confession is ‘optional.’ The Anglican saying about confession is: all may, some should, none must**** The idea of a priest forgiving sins through confession and penance being optional just never made sense to me. Auricular confession is a rich part of the Christian heritage. I can’t find anywhere in the early church where a private, quiet, personal confession in the confines of a person’s heart is sufficient. The apostles were given the power to forgive sins. The Anglicans believe the general absolution during Mass serves that purpose. Catholics believe that the general confession only forgives venial sins. I happen to agree there.
6. Anglicanism is fragmented and chaotic. The only real “voice” of Anglicanism that is high profile is the Archbishop of Canterbury who, for decades, have been cowards, wimps, and concessionists, not leaders. Most Anglicans are embarrassed of the ABC’s.
7. Anglicans do not have any hard and fast theology. That bothers me.
8. The real definition for me of “priest” is literally a SACRIFICER. In the roman catholic, orthodox, oriental catholic, etc. tradition, a priest is sacerdotal, a sacrificer. Anglicans do not believe in a real sacrifice of the Eucharist, only a sacrifice of “praise and thanksgiving.” I just don’t see that priestly nature that I believe in expressed in Anglicanism.
9. A big thing that drove me insane as an Anglican was that our parish as with most parishes, anyone who is baptized may approach the rail and take the Eucharist. I remember one guy who bragged to me that he was a unitarian and didn’t even believe in the Eucharist, and he went up for communion every service. The priest knew it and everything. People twice-divorced, people cohabitating, baptists, calvinists, you name it, anyone goes up for communion. The early church would never have permitted this. It goes against the grain of orthodox catholic thought to allow a person who has not “discerned the body,” a person who doesn’t even understand or believe in the doctrines of catholicism, to approach such a sublime sacrament.

There are things about Catholicism that absolutely drive me crazy. I could write a laundry list. And historically the Church has behaved horrifically at times full of misdeeds, intolerance to science/Jews/protestants/native peoples that resulted in mass murder, pedophilia, etc. etc. But doctrinally the Catholic Church still is on the right side of tradition and morality to me.

And if someone in Catholicism comes along like Shelby Spong, BAMMMM excommunicated. I love it. Anglicans need that special little feature!

Now I’ve listed why I stay Catholic but I have to say, I miss the kindness of the priests I knew as an Anglican, the beautiful worship, the togetherness, fellowship, pastoral care, sympathetic ear of the priests and congregation, outreach, and the music. They had a great setup for kids, too. If they were in union with Rome, I’d go back to my local parish in a heartbeat (as long as they purge themselves of some of the things I mentioned!)

Two points only, on a fair post.

Don’t underestimate the diversity in Anglican thought. Re: point 8. Just as with point 2, you’ll find a difference of opinion. In my parish, with our priests, it’s the re-presentation of the one Sacrifice offered once and forever on Calvary, made present on the altar, at the hands of the alter Christus, as time and eternity intersect before us. (and, of course, in the Real Presence).

On point 9, our priests, and our jurisdiction generally, holds to baptised, and confirmed by a bishop in apostolic succession, as requisites for receiving. But, as our rector says, he won’t hold an inquisition at the altar rail (which we still use).

As you well know, Anglicans are all over the lot. I’d find a use for that special little feature you mentioned.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Two points only, on a fair post.

Don’t underestimate the diversity in Anglican thought. Re: point 8. Just as with point 2, you’ll find a difference of opinion. In my parish, with our priests, it’s the re-presentation of the one Sacrifice offered once and forever on Calvary, made present on the altar, at the hands of the alter Christus, as time and eternity intersect before us. (and, of course, in the Real Presence).

On point 9, our priests, and our jurisdiction generally, holds to baptised, and confirmed by a bishop in apostolic succession, as requisites for receiving. But, as our rector says, he won’t hold an inquisition at the altar rail (which we still use).

As you well know, Anglicans are all over the lot. I’d find a use for that special little feature you mentioned.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

Hi GKC,

Always great to read your stuff! The “diversity of thought” is actually what turned me off from Anglicanism and it’s what keeps me from going back honestly. Seeing how a church can have such drastic polar opposite modes of thinking baffles me. The Elizabethan Settlement bothered me the most. It is a political solution to keep two parties quiet and happy. It would be like having Obama, McCain, Bush, or Clinton intervene into a religion and draft a settlement. I don’t trust secular authorities, especially royals!

And when I read the 39 Articles it talks about how the Eucharist should NOT be paraded about and adored. It also talks about the follies of purgatory and silliness of praying to saints for intercession. So, given those statements, I don’t understand how Anglicans can have adoration, devotions to saints, rosaries, and purgatorial views? And I know many high church Anglicans do! So how can a person profess the BOCP, which incidentally, is a gorgeous piece of literature in its own right stylistically, which takes a VERY low church approach to the Eucharist and the Church and yet live a High Church lifestyle?

What bugs me also is the fact that bishops aren’t really accountable to anyone else. That is why the Episcopal Church in the U.S. is nuttier than a fruitcake. Many respond, “well my church isn’t a member of them! We broke off and joined with Africa, Asia, or South America.” My problem still is, who is really in charge? What happens when those bishops let secular humanism and the worldly trends seep in?

Anyway, just points that keep me Catholic. Like I said, when it comes to style, class, fellowship, and pastoral care, my old Anglican parish blows my Catholic parish away. And the Anglican bishop, John David Schofield, here in our diocese is ten times better than the Roman Catholic bishop. But I go with dogma and doctrine, not the other issues. If the local Anglican parish joined with Rome, I’d jump back there in a New York minute!

 

[GKC]

Hi GKC,

Always great to read your stuff! The “diversity of thought” is actually what turned me off from Anglicanism and it’s what keeps me from going back honestly. Seeing how a church can have such drastic polar opposite modes of thinking baffles me. The Elizabethan Settlement bothered me the most. It is a political solution to keep two parties quiet and happy. It would be like having Obama, McCain, Bush, or Clinton intervene into a religion and draft a settlement. I don’t trust secular authorities, especially royals!

And when I read the 39 Articles it talks about how the Eucharist should NOT be paraded about and adored. It also talks about the follies of purgatory and silliness of praying to saints for intercession. So, given those statements, I don’t understand how Anglicans can have adoration, devotions to saints, rosaries, and purgatorial views? And I know many high church Anglicans do! So how can a person profess the BOCP, which incidentally, is a gorgeous piece of literature in its own right stylistically, which takes a VERY low church approach to the Eucharist and the Church and yet live a High Church lifestyle?

What bugs me also is the fact that bishops aren’t really accountable to anyone else. That is why the Episcopal Church in the U.S. is nuttier than a fruitcake. Many respond, “well my church isn’t a member of them! We broke off and joined with Africa, Asia, or South America.” My problem still is, who is really in charge? What happens when those bishops let secular humanism and the worldly trends seep in?

Anyway, just points that keep me Catholic. Like I said, when it comes to style, class, fellowship, and pastoral care, my old Anglican parish blows my Catholic parish away. And the Anglican bishop, John David Schofield, here in our diocese is ten times better than the Roman Catholic bishop. But I go with dogma and doctrine, not the other issues. If the local Anglican parish joined with Rome, I’d jump back there in a New York minute!

I’m in a rush, right now. But don’t let the Articles bother you. They are not binding on Anglicans generally, but only (due to the Erastian nature of the Church of England) on ordinands of the CoE, and that only technically. It is a residue of the Eliz. Settlement. For all other Anglcains, one may affirm them, deny them ( a little difficult, for those which only reflect a sort of Lewisian Mere Christianity), igonre them, in the form they are presented, or cut them from the book and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter. They are not a form of Anglican confession.

Maybe more later.

P. S. No one’s in charge.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m in a rush, right now. But don’t let the Articles bother you. They are not binding on Anglicans generally, but only (due to the Erastian nature of the Church of England) on ordinands of the CoE, and that only technically. It is a residue of the Eliz. Settlement. For all other Anglcains, one may affirm them, deny them ( a little difficult, for those which only reflect a sort of Lewisian Mere Christianity), igonre them, in the form they are presented, or cut them from the book and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter. They are not a form of Anglican confession.

Maybe more later.

P. S. No one’s in charge.

GKC

That’s exactly my point, no one is in charge. With no pilot on a plane, crashes take place. That’s what we’re seeing in the Anglican world right now. Anglicanism as a philosophy is making itself irrelevent in world affairs except in Africa. Your point about the 39 Articles being a non-essential, follow-them-if you like type of theological code troubles me as well. It seems there is nothing to grab onto for Anglicans. At least I felt that way. When I was Anglican, I thought, "yeah, we claim to hold fast to the Nicene Creed, the first early ecumenical councils, and the scriptures. But where do I go to make sure those beliefs are enforced and respected and kept as the norm for our faith? There is no pope, no magesterium, no ability to excommunicate or admonish, no code of canon law, no rules, everything is optional and individualized, as the mean old broad used to say on the Wendy’s commercial, Where’s the beef!!?****** I know that Catholics internally have many differences, arguments, and there are many rogue priests, etc. But officially and doctrinally the RCC has a tight, orderly, ancient, reliable method for keeping out heresy and encouraging holy teaching. It’s tough to argue against it. If the 39 articles are optional, what’s next? Some Anglicans in Syndey, Australia are making a LAITY-based Mass!! The lay folks actually “conduct” the Mass and consecrate the Eucharist, etc. etc.? That’s absolutely nutsoid. That’s what happens with that open-ended theology. Just my two cents.

Make no mistake, I’m not thrilled with several Catholic teachings, I grow weary of the corny Vatican II junk at Mass where every Tom, ****, and Harry touches the Eucharist, there are 1,000 lay folks passing out the Host, we have to hear cheesy part English/part Spanish tunes like “Pan de vida” (puke!), the wording is cheesy, guitars are flying, people walk in wearing burmuda shorts, and the priest gives an urbane, dull, uninspiring homily. I’d much rather be back in the Anglican church where I was happier with worship. But the problem was, I was happy with worship but uneasy and uncomfortable doctrinally.

I am not one of those Catholics, however, that trash Anglicans as devoid of validity, truth, holiness, and a total joke. I still feel an affinity to them, respect them, and see them as valid. IA real Catholic knows that there is truth in most of Christianity. There are grains, kernels, and even huge bursts of truth. Anglicans, conservative, high church ones at least, hold great bales of truth, IMO, and they are truly brothers in Christ.

I still get sentimental and miss my Anglican days…alas, but…

 

[GKC]

That’s exactly my point, no one is in charge. With no pilot on a plane, crashes take place. That’s what we’re seeing in the Anglican world right now. Anglicanism as a philosophy is making itself irrelevent in world affairs except in Africa. Your point about the 39 Articles being a non-essential, follow-them-if you like type of theological code troubles me as well. It seems there is nothing to grab onto for Anglicans. At least I felt that way. When I was Anglican, I thought, "yeah, we claim to hold fast to the Nicene Creed, the first early ecumenical councils, and the scriptures. But where do I go to make sure those beliefs are enforced and respected and kept as the norm for our faith? There is no pope, no magesterium, no ability to excommunicate or admonish, no code of canon law, no rules, everything is optional and individualized, as the mean old broad used to say on the Wendy’s commercial, Where’s the beef!!?****** I know that Catholics internally have many differences, arguments, and there are many rogue priests, etc. But officially and doctrinally the RCC has a tight, orderly, ancient, reliable method for keeping out heresy and encouraging holy teaching. It’s tough to argue against it. If the 39 articles are optional, what’s next? Some Anglicans in Syndey, Australia are making a LAITY-based Mass!! The lay folks actually “conduct” the Mass and consecrate the Eucharist, etc. etc.? That’s absolutely nutsoid. That’s what happens with that open-ended theology. Just my two cents.

Make no mistake, I’m not thrilled with several Catholic teachings, I grow weary of the corny Vatican II junk at Mass where every Tom, ****, and Harry touches the Eucharist, there are 1,000 lay folks passing out the Host, we have to hear cheesy part English/part Spanish tunes like “Pan de vida” (puke!), the wording is cheesy, guitars are flying, people walk in wearing burmuda shorts, and the priest gives an urbane, dull, uninspiring homily. I’d much rather be back in the Anglican church where I was happier with worship. But the problem was, I was happy with worship but uneasy and uncomfortable doctrinally.

I am not one of those Catholics, however, that trash Anglicans as devoid of validity, truth, holiness, and a total joke. I still feel an affinity to them, respect them, and see them as valid. IA real Catholic knows that there is truth in most of Christianity. There are grains, kernels, and even huge bursts of truth. Anglicans, conservative, high church ones at least, hold great bales of truth, IMO, and they are truly brothers in Christ.

I still get sentimental and miss my Anglican days…alas, but…

Again, I’m out the door. But I think you are right where you should be.

If I want defined doctrine, I look to the 7 general councils. Else, reason, scripture and tradition. If I wnt somene to enforce that, I’m in the wrong place.

Keep in mind, I’m not in communion with Canterbury.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Again, I’m out the door. But I think you are right where you should be.

If I want defined doctrine, I look to the 7 general councils. Else, reason, scripture and tradition. If I wnt somene to enforce that, I’m in the wrong place.

Keep in mind, I’m not in communion with Canterbury.

GKC

Not being in communion with Canterbury is a real plus to be sure! But I think that if we believe the seven great councils are indeed orthodox truths of Christ, how could we not want them enforced? The truth, at least within the confines of one’s church, must be enforced if it is to remain relevent I would think. I guess my wife and I erred on the side of caution. The RCC is conservative and often overly so but we felt better to be too conservative than too “open.” Just IMO. Your church where you attend sounds great, though. Not being in communion with good ole’ Rowan and company is definitely not detrimental! lol

 

[GKC]

Not being in communion with Canterbury is a real plus to be sure! But I think that if we believe the seven great councils are indeed orthodox truths of Christ, how could we not want them enforced? The truth, at least within the confines of one’s church, must be enforced if it is to remain relevent I would think. I guess my wife and I erred on the side of caution. The RCC is conservative and often overly so but we felt better to be too conservative than too “open.” Just IMO. Your church where you attend sounds great, though. Not being in communion with good ole’ Rowan and company is definitely not detrimental! lol

I’m one of those sort of Anglicans who took a hike 30 years ago, after the St. Louis meeting. That’s how we enforced the verities.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m one of those sort of Anglicans who took a hike 30 years ago, after the St. Louis meeting. That’s how we enforced the verities.

GKC

Those Anglicans who could see the writing on the wall 30 years ago when women were first “ordained” at least had the foresight and brains to get out of dodge and preserve their dignity!! Good call! “women priests” is a laughable farce. Hard to believe so many folks fall for that silliness and don’t understand how a priest stands in persona christi during the liturgy. Social justice seems to reign supreme in the Episcopal Church, not moral values or tradition and especially not the Gospels!!

You’re a good guy, GKC!!

Scott

 

[GKC]

Those Anglicans who could see the writing on the wall 30 years ago when women were first “ordained” at least had the foresight and brains to get out of dodge and preserve their dignity!! Good call! “women priests” is a laughable farce. Hard to believe so many folks fall for that silliness and don’t understand how a priest stands in persona christi during the liturgy. Social justice seems to reign supreme in the Episcopal Church, not moral values or tradition and especially not the Gospels!!

You’re a good guy, GKC!!

Scott

And you’re a kind one.

The femmes in sacerdotal garments were not the original cause of the St. Louis meeting, and the origin of the Anglican Church in North America, the first of the modern Continuing Anglican Churches (a nod there to the Reformed Episcopal Church). The handwriting on that was on the wall, re: hands on hairspray, but the immediate impetus was the liturgy, and what was done to the 1928 BCP, and what was obviously going to follow. And did.

GKC