Why Don't "Traditional Anglicans" Become Catholic

[Philip_Bitsco]

Dear IAGLADFELTER

I ask your indulgence if I have got your name incorrectly. Maybe it would be closer to the spirit of our brother the Lord Jesus to concentrate on his gospel of divine love than to concern ourselves with who is or is not a heretic. When you look back to the Gospels as a historian, I think you would have to admit that Jesus himself, the son of God, was executed for heresy – religious heresy and political heresy. But nobody could make his Gospel go away, not even the churches which concentrated on explaining him rather than on following him. Peace to you and your household. Please pray for me; I may be guilty of heresy myself.

Philip Bitsco

 

[BernadetteM]

I don’t believe as one poster said that the current Pope has closed the door to TAC. We have no idea of the problems associated with TAC as a group entering the Church.

Apparently it seems they would like to stay Anglican in a sense, but be Catholic. More or less be independent of Rome. If offered to come in as part of a global “Pastoral Provision” Bishop Hepworth won’t speculate on it.

From my understanding there are problems with divorced priests who have remarried and also bishops within TAC.

On VirtueOnline many of the posters seemed very negative about being part of the Catholic Church. They appeared to be part of TAC.

No one really knows what has gone on behind the scenes and we should not speculate. If Rome offered a global Pastoral Provision and it was accepted by members of TAC I feel that sometime in the future if it proves to be a viable solution and the members are loyal to the Church there could be some form of a Personal Prelature. Yes there are Bishops in the Church who are against this movement and against the Pastoral Provision, but some are now opening up to the AU parishes. It has been slow, but the acceptance of offering the TLM in some dioceses was also slow. Although the Pastoral Provision is not global at this time, it may be in the future, but I get the impression that many in TAC would not be happy with this and only they know what their objections are. Maybe fear plays a part, but I have no AU parish to attend where I am and yes I miss the Anglican liturgy, but what is most important to me is being Catholic, not the form of the Mass or the beautiful buildings, the material things don’t lead you to Christ. The Bible says to take up your cross and follow Me. Well I think material things sometimes must be given up. Of course it is a sacrifice to leave behind some of our Anglican heritage, but in the end the Lord will reward us.

It took over 300 years to produce the Holy Bible, the Church is cautious and should be. The Anglican church is very diverse in belief and even it is diverse within TAC.

Coming from the Episcopal church I know that many did not accept the Real Presence, devotion to the saints, confession and many other doctrines of the Catholic Church. Even as an Anglo Catholic many wanted to be considered Catholic but without the authority of the Catholic Church.

We should continue to pray that those within TAC who truely accept all things Catholic will be allowed to enter the Church with what is now the Anglican Use liturgy and at a later date I am sure that revisions can be made to the liturgy if needed. The more Anglican Use parishes there are the stronger the acceptance by Bishops will be. Many of them really have no idea of what the Pastoral Provision or an Anglican Use parish is.

We cannot judge what is happening at this time and should not speculate why this event has been delayed. We as Catholics should trust in the wisdom of Holy Mother Church.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[emeraldcoast]

Hey, I have enjoyed reading this thread.

I am an Anglican, and have been thinking of the Roman Catholic Church for a little while now.

I heard what emeraldcoast said, about running through the street until you get there, but I do not think it is that simple.

There is a lot to think about when changing “religion”, or just “church/faith/denomination”.

I have been to Roman Catholic services, and there are things that I do not like.

One example (I am in South Africa, so I do not know how different it is around the world) is that Roman Catholics do not seem to kneel when they receive communion. But I have grown up kneeling, and it’s what I see as being right.

After church this last Sunday, a few of us where discussing a few things about the Mass. It seems some people (in the parish I go to anyway) at least do not have the same belief that I do, regarding the Eucharist. This scared me. I always thought Anglicans believed they were receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. I am still under the impression that most do.

Does anyone know what the “Official” belief is, in the Church of England, Anglican Communion, Episcopalian, etc?

Nobody else said anything, but the one person seemed quite shocked that I actually believed this, and yet I am shocked that people don’t.

(It may seem I have gone off-topic, but this is a huge part of my belief, and if the rest of the church I go to do not believe this, then can I really stay)

If “official” belief is different to what the people know, then what is wrong with the teaching? This is a very vital part of the service, the Mass, Eucharist, Communion, whatever you call it…

Sorry, I feel I’m rambling, so I’m going to end now.

Hi JonathanMichael,

This is from the Episcopal Church Website…
episcopalchurch.org/visitors_11764_ENG_HTM.htm

The Holy Eucharist

Q: What is the Holy Eucharist?
A: The Holy Eucharist is the sacrament commanded by Christ for the continual remembrance of his life, death, and resurrection, until his coming again.

Q: Why is the Eucharist called a sacrifice?
A: Because the Eucharist, the Church’s sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself.

Q: By what other names is this service known?
A: The Holy Eucharist is called the Lord’s Supper, and Holy Communion; it is also known as the Divine Liturgy, the Mass, and the Great Offering.

Q: What is the outward and visible sign in the Eucharist?
A: The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, given and received according to Christ’s command.

Q: What is the inward and spiritual grace given in the Eucharist?
A: The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ give to his people, and received by faith.

Q: What are the benefits which we receive in the Lord’s Supper?
A: The benefits we receive are the forgiveness of our sins, the strengthening of our union with Christ and one another, and the foretaste of the heavenly banquet which is our nourishment in eternal life.

Q: What is required of us when we come to the Eucharist?
A: It is required that we should examine our lives, repent of our sins, and be in love and charity with all people.

The following information link…
episcopalchurch.org/19625_14314_ENG_HTM.htm

Eucharist

The sacrament of Christ’s body and blood, and the principal act of Christian worship. The term is from the Greek, “thanksgiving.” Jesus instituted the eucharist “on the night when he was betrayed.” At the Last Supper he shared the bread and cup of wine at a sacred meal with his disciples. He identified the bread with his body and the wine with his blood of the new covenant. Jesus commanded his disciples to “do this” in remembrance of him (see 1 Cor 11:23-26; Mk 14:22-25; Mt 26:26-29; Lk 22:14-20). Christ’s sacrifice is made present by the eucharist, and in it we are united to his one self-offering (BCP, p. 859). The Last Supper provides the basis for the fourfold eucharistic action of taking, blessing, breaking, and sharing. Christ’s body and blood are really present in the sacrament of the eucharist and received by faith. Christ’s presence is also known in the gathered eucharistic community.
In the BCP, the whole service is entitled the Holy Eucharist. The first part of the service is designated the Word of God. It usually includes the entrance rite, the lessons and gradual psalm, the gospel, the sermon, the Nicene Creed, the prayers of the people, the confession of sin and absolution, and the peace. The second portion of the service is designated the Holy Communion. It includes the offertory, the consecration of the bread and wine in the Great Thanksgiving, the communion of the people, and the concluding prayers of thanksgiving and dismissal. A blessing may be given prior to the dismissal.

The eucharist is also called the Lord’s Supper, Holy Communion, the Divine Liturgy, the Mass, and the Great Offertory (BCP, p. 859). The Hymnal 1982 includes a section with a variety of hymns for the Holy Eucharist (300-347), including “Come, risen Lord, and deign to be our guest” (305-306), “My God, thy table now is spread” (321), “Now, my tongue, the mystery telling” (329-331), and “I am the bread of life” (335).

Welcome to the forum!

God Bless!

 

[Padrej]

Some Continuing Anglican Churches dearly want that - notably the Anglican Catholic Church - but their leadership has just about given up on that as a realistic possibility. The reasons that will not happen seem to be a combination of theologyical, cultural, historical, and political, with the emphasis on the first three of those. The Eastern Orthodox attitude seems to be that the Anglicans broke away from the Latin Rite so that is where they must return. Then they, (the Eastern Orthodox) will deal with Rome.

In an informal discussion at an Ecumenical Meeting, Greek Orthodox Bishop (and Oxford Don) + Timothy (Kallistus) Ware once told a Swedish Lutheran Bishop, “I know a heretic when when I see one, and you, sir, are a heretic.” In my humble opinion that would also apply to Anglicans equally, and that is a big part of the problem.

It is Awfully funny that the OCA (Orthodox Church in America) has no problem with most Anglican churches in the US and regularly meets with Anglicna bishops. Considering that Orthodox are not supposed to do such with “heritics” I would think that your opinion would be flawed. Further, if you would talk to a staunch Russian Orthodox, most would think that the Greek Orthodox were not true Orthodox because they have pews in their churches to begin with. Even amonst the Orthodox there is division as to who is correct and who doing a herritical thing.
Funny I have also known some Episcopal/ Anglicans who have goine the Antiochian Orthodox route East so it is not unheard of as you are suggesting.

 

[IAGladfelter]

And I certainly know of no traditional Anglican (in the sense I was using it, creedally orthodox), who blame the current chaos on the ACs. GKC

This is frequently expressed by Continuing Anglican priests and bishops on the website “Apostacy of the Episcopal Church” (groups.yahoo.com/group/apostasy/).

The Anglican Missions in America (AMiA - theamia.org) has published for trial use the strongly Calvinistic 1662 BCP in updated language. Here is a link to a review of its new Book of Common Prayer - the 1662 BCP, “black rubric” (forbidding the reserving of the Eucharist, etc.,) , set in modern language: associate.com/groups/faithandlife/0::15643read.html . This website also notes that the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) also has a new Book of Common Prayer based on the 1662 BCP.

Blessings,
Irl

 

[IAGladfelter]

It is Awfully funny that the OCA (Orthodox Church in America) has no problem with most Anglican churches in the US and regularly meets with Anglicna bishops. Considering that Orthodox are not supposed to do such with “heritics” I would think that your opinion would be flawed. Further, if you would talk to a staunch Russian Orthodox, most would think that the Greek Orthodox were not true Orthodox because they have pews in their churches to begin with. Even amonst the Orthodox there is division as to who is correct and who doing a herritical thing.
Funny I have also known some Episcopal/ Anglicans who have goine the Antiochian Orthodox route East so it is not unheard of as you are suggesting.

Well, the Sytian Antiochian Orthodox Church has a Western Rite which uses what it calls the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon. I have a copy of it, which is obviously based on the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, and hence well within the “comfort zone” of Anglicans and even of Missouri Synod Lutherans like the late LCMS theologian, Jaroslav Pelikan who have “crossed the Bosphorous” into that Church.

As for the OCA? Personally, I like them - at least the clergy I have met, and they seem more open to dialogue than, say some of the Greeks, “staunch Russians” and Serbs I have met.

I still consider Rome to be Home.

 

[GKC]

This is frequently expressed by Continuing Anglican priests and bishops on the website “Apostacy of the Episcopal Church” (groups.yahoo.com/group/apostasy/).

The Anglican Missions in America (AMiA - theamia.org) has published for trial use the strongly Calvinistic 1662 BCP in updated language. Here is a link to a review of its new Book of Common Prayer - the 1662 BCP, “black rubric” (forbidding the reserving of the Eucharist, etc.,) , set in modern language: associate.com/groups/faithandlife/0::15643read.html . This website also notes that the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) also has a new Book of Common Prayer based on the 1662 BCP.

Blessings,
Irl

The AMIA is not a part of the Continuum, but represents one of the groupings of the Episcopalians who lately have moved under the episcopal guidance of other, Anglican Communion, prelates;i.e. who are still in communion with Canterbury. The REC, while occasionally grouped with the Continuum, predates it by over 100 years, having broken from the old Episcopal Church precisely over the issue of the Episcopal Church becoming too Catholic-oriented. It should be noted that the REC has been moving slightly away from the reformed side of Anglicanism lately.

The Continuing movement, tracing back to the St. Louis Conference in 1978, was overwhelmingly Anglo-Catholic in nature. The first departures from TEC, that formed the original Anglican Church in North America, in 1979, were heavily Anglo-Catholic. The contentious issues at that time were the liturgy/Prayer Book (1928 vs.1979), followed shortly by the idea of female ordination. These were points that the Anglo-Catholics were much more likely to find unacceptable than the otherwise orthodox, but reformed-inclined side of the historical Anglican spectrum. The major portions of the fractured Continuing movement (the Anglican Province of Christ the King, the Anglican Catholic Church, the Anglican Church in America, the Diocese of the Holy Cross) are heavily, but not exclusively, Anglo-Catholic. But the historic division of Anglican flavors does carry over into the Continuum, mainly in the Anglican Province in America, and, to the extent that one classifies them as a part, the REC. I doubt that this will ever change, though one reason why the fractured Continuum is fractured is the intent of each jurisdiction to get it right this time, and not recreate the Elizabethan Compromise. I am dubious about the prospects of the new grouping being attempted, centered on the four dioceses who left TEC. It’s going to be the Compromise revisited, I fear.

The 1662 Book is certainly one that the more reformed side of Anglicanism finds congenial, even considering the Black Rubric was an interloper, never passed by Convocation. It’s in there anyway.

What you are seeing is the time honored tradition of one side of (orthodox) Anglicans griping about the other side. It will never change. But, overall, the Continuing Anglican movement is heavily weighted toward Anglo-Catholicism. The rump of Christian orthodoxy recently separated from TEC and attempting to organize itself, and all other Anglicans who will join, is not so filtered.

GKC

Added:

The first site you list requires joining, I am not interested. The second says about what I expected, and concludes thusly:

"The book is theologically solid, if one is an Anglican
of that tradition. There is nothing offensive to basic
Christianity. It stands solidly within the 1662
Anglican BCP tradition.
The complete lack of any traditional historic Anglican
idiom, dominating low-church philosophy, rather
dubious page layout decision, and clearly a rather
protestant idealism and there just isn’t much for me
to embrace here. Careful use of the 1979 BCP (gasp!)
would be a much better option for me personally.

(Emphasis added)

I’m with the reviewer. And so the schizoid mind of Anglicanism marches on.

 

[kotek]

It is Awfully funny that the OCA (Orthodox Church in America) has no problem with most Anglican churches in the US and regularly meets with Anglicna bishops. Considering that Orthodox are not supposed to do such with “heritics” I would think that your opinion would be flawed. Further, if you would talk to a staunch Russian Orthodox, most would think that the Greek Orthodox were not true Orthodox because they have pews in their churches to begin with. Even amonst the Orthodox there is division as to who is correct and who doing a herritical thing.
Funny I have also known some Episcopal/ Anglicans who have goine the Antiochian Orthodox route East so it is not unheard of as you are suggesting.

I am a member of the new emerging Anglican Province in the U.S., “the Anglican Church in North America” and this June, next week as a matter of fact we will be holding our first Council and the Keynote speaker is the Primate/Arch Bishop of the OCA (Orthodox Church of America) . I hardly think think that if we were regarded as “heretics” the Patriarch of the OCA would be the keynote speaker at our ACNA Council/Synod. IOW I doubt that he would be a keynote speaker at a General Conference of say the Southern Baptist Convention.

 

[kotek]

The AMIA is not a part of the Continuum, but represents one of the groupings of the Episcopalians who lately have moved under the episcopal guidance of other, Anglican Communion, prelates;i.e. who are still in communion with Canterbury. The REC, while occasionally grouped with the Continuum, predates it by over 100 years, having broken from the old Episcopal Church precisely over the issue of the Episcopal Church becoming too Catholic-oriented. It should be noted that the REC has been moving slightly away from the reformed side of Anglicanism lately.

Yes the REC has moved away some aspects of the “Reformed” side of things.

The Continuing movement, tracing back to the St. Louis Conference in 1978, was overwhelmingly Anglo-Catholic in nature. The first departures from TEC, that formed the original Anglican Church in North America, in 1979, were heavily Anglo-Catholic. The contentious issues at that time were the liturgy/Prayer Book (1928 vs.1979), followed shortly by the idea of female ordination. These were points that the Anglo-Catholics were much more likely to find unacceptable than the otherwise orthodox, but reformed-inclined side of the historical Anglican spectrum. The major portions of the fractured Continuing movement (the Anglican Province of Christ the King, the Anglican Catholic Church, the Anglican Church in America, the Diocese of the Holy Cross) are heavily, but not exclusively, Anglo-Catholic. But the historic division of Anglican flavors does carry over into the Continuum, mainly in the Anglican Province in America, and, to the extent that one classifies them as a part, the REC. I doubt that this will ever change, though one reason why the fractured Continuum is fractured is the intent of each jurisdiction to get it right this time, and not recreate the Elizabethan Compromise. I am dubious about the prospects of the new grouping being attempted, centered on the four dioceses who left TEC. It’s going to be the Compromise revisited, I fear.

The 1662 Book is certainly one that the more reformed side of Anglicanism finds congenial, even considering the Black Rubric was an interloper, never passed by Convocation. It’s in there anyway.

Well I would maintain that the 1662 BCP and the 1928 American BCP are THE Anglican Way. It is the Anglo-Catholics who try and tried to change it by bringing back things that the Anglicans removed as being novelties and foreign to the Patristic undivided Church.

Again I must emphasize that the 39 Articles ARE the Anglican Standard. They are not so much “reformed” as they are Patristic with the corrections provided by the learning that came out of the Renaissance with the emphasis of rediscovered linguistic studies of the Original languages the Bible was written in that were lost or buried by the Scholastics with their overemphasis of rationalistic Aristotelian and Nominalist Philosophy and the rampant superstitious Piety that developed in the Medaeval period.

As I see it anyone who claims to be “Anglican” and rejects the 39 Articles simply is NOT Anglican. Period.

What you are seeing is the time honored tradition of one side of (orthodox) Anglicans griping about the other side. It will never change. But, overall, the Continuing Anglican movement is heavily weighted toward Anglo-Catholicism. The rump of Christian orthodoxy recently separated from TEC and attempting to organize itself, and all other Anglicans who will join, is not so filtered.

GKC

Added:

The first site you list requires joining, I am not interested. The second says about what I expected, and concludes thusly:

"The book is theologically solid, if one is an Anglican
of that tradition. There is nothing offensive to basic
Christianity. It stands solidly within the 1662
Anglican BCP tradition.
The complete lack of any traditional historic Anglican
idiom, dominating low-church philosophy, rather
dubious page layout decision, and clearly a rather
protestant idealism and there just isn’t much for me
to embrace here. Careful use of the 1979 BCP (gasp!)
would be a much better option for me personally.

(Emphasis added)

I’m with the reviewer. And so the schizoid mind of Anglicanism marches on.

I am not AMiA, though they are a part of the new Anglican Province, I belong to the REC (Reformed Episcopal Church). Our REC BCP is the same as the American 1928 BCP with the addition of “The Commination” and "the Athanasian Creed"from the CoE 1662 BCP, other than that they are identical.

 

[Philip_Bitsco]

Dear Kotek

I worship in a parish in the Anglican Church of Canada. I do not regard you as a heretic. To me, it is a sign of the true catholicity of the Anglican Communion that you can still be an Anglican, hence a catholic, even if you do not accept the ordination of women or gay marriage. The important thing is that you accept the ancient creeds (the Apostles’ Creed for one) which profess belief in the holy catholic church and that you try to live the Good News of Jesus. God bless you and your church on your journey. I guess people in my own church would consider me a heretic too. But don’t forget that Jesus was executed for heresy - religious heresy and political heresy.

Philip Bitsco

 

[GKC]

I am not AMiA, though they are a part of the new Anglican Province, I belong to the REC (Reformed Episcopal Church). Our REC BCP is the same as the American 1928 BCP with the addition of “The Commination” and "the Athanasian Creed"from the CoE 1662 BCP, other than that they are identical.

And thus speaks the reformed side of Anglicanism. Which perfectly illustrates my point.

GKC

Added: I was referring to the whole post. But my “quote” function only picked up the portion outside the internal quote.

 

[kotek]

And thus speaks the reformed side of Anglicanism. Which perfectly illustrates my point.

GKC

Added: I was referring to the whole post. But my “quote” function only picked up the portion outside the internal quote.

It is not the “reformed” side of the Anglican Way. It IS the Anglican Way whether one likes it or not. Those who claim to be Anglicans and want to add back what the Anglican reformers removed are not Anglican. There was a reason those things that “Anglo-Catholics” bring back in were rejected. For example article 22 from the 39 Articles:

XXII. Of Purgatory.
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and
Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond
thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather
repugnant to the Word of God.

Anglo-Catholic Anglicans want to add Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Marian Dogmas, etc to the Anglican Way. These things were REJECTED by the Anglicans. Anyone who wants to add these back in are simply not Anglican, sorry, but that is the way it is. If one wants these things then become Roman Catholic.

 

[GKC]

It is not the “reformed” side of the Anglican Way. It IS the Anglican Way whether one likes it or not. Those who claim to be Anglicans and want to add back what the Anglican reformers removed are not Anglican. There was a reason those things that “Anglo-Catholics” bring back in were rejected. For example article 22 from the 39 Articles:

XXII. Of Purgatory.
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and
Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond
thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather
repugnant to the Word of God.

Anglo-Catholic Anglicans want to add Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Marian Dogmas, etc to the Anglican Way. These things were REJECTED by the Anglicans. Anyone who wants to add these back in are simply not Anglican, sorry, but that is the way it is. If one wants these things then become Roman Catholic.

Note to all:

This is why I repeatedly remind folks that one cannot generalize about Anglicans, successfully. Some of them believe stuff like this. Others don’t.

It keeps us busy, or did, in the past.

GKC

 

[Padrej]

Note to all:

This is why I repeatedly remind folks that one cannot generalize about Anglicans, successfully. Some of them believe stuff like this. Others don’t.

It keeps us busy, or did, in the past.

GKC

I used to serve an Anglican parrish that some of its members believed in Purgatory and thumbed their nose at the 39 Articles as archaic. It has been my observation that those who have this belief tend to be mostly lapsed Roman Catholics or have came from a Roman Catholic background. One of the Sunday School teachers of this particular church even told her children that when she dies she is going straight to heaven BECAUSE when she was a practicing Roman Catholic she taught a catechism class and was given an indulgence card that stated that she would NEVER go through Purgatory. This same person went on to say that it would not matter how sinful she became, because of that indulgence she was covered and would not have to confess.

I would love to see a Roman Catholic justify the use of indulgences like this. It almost seems like a “get out of jail free card” from God that is handed to you from the church so that becasue you have this peice of paper you can commit any sin you desire and you are covered. It is kind of like the old Roman Catholic “Pardon Crucifix” medal that the card that comes with it claims that by kissing said object you get 3 indulgences or so many years off your time in Purgatory. Once again please show me the warrant from scripture.

Please do not take the tone of the above to be sarcastic or an attack, as it is not meant to be. I am only pointing out things that I have observed as an Anglican and want to know the anwser to.

 

[GKC]

I used to serve an Anglican parrish that some of its members believed in Purgatory and thumbed their nose at the 39 Articles as archaic. It has been my observation that those who have this belief tend to be mostly lapsed Roman Catholics or have came from a Roman Catholic background. One of the Sunday School teachers of this particular church even told her children that when she dies she is going straight to heaven BECAUSE when she was a practicing Roman Catholic she taught a catechism class and was given an indulgence card that stated that she would NEVER go through Purgatory. This same person went on to say that it would not matter how sinful she became, because of that indulgence she was covered and would not have to confess.

I would love to see a Roman Catholic justify the use of indulgences like this. It almost seems like a “get out of jail free card” from God that is handed to you from the church so that becasue you have this peice of paper you can commit any sin you desire and you are covered. It is kind of like the old Roman Catholic “Pardon Crucifix” medal that the card that comes with it claims that by kissing said object you get 3 indulgences or so many years off your time in Purgatory. Once again please show me the warrant from scripture.

Please do not take the tone of the above to be sarcastic or an attack, as it is not meant to be. I am only pointing out things that I have observed as an Anglican and want to know the anwser to.

I can’t answer for your experiences; certainly there are odd folk all over Anglicanism. I personally know only one traditional Anglican who was a former RC. The points on purgatory you will find all over Anglicanism (though Anglicans usually speak of purgation, as an event), as in the opinions of (for example) C.S. Lewis. The Articles (with a couple of technical exceptions, as theoretically, for the ordinands of the Church of England) are not binding on Anglicans generally. It’s why they are in the section for historical documents in the TEC 1979 prayer book. Things like this are among those that particularly mark Anglo-Catholics, and are not limited to former RCs. One might as well think that the parishioners at the Benediction and Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, at my parish on Corpus Christi, were all former RCs. Which is definitely not the case.

I’ve never heard an Anglican mention indulgences.

GKC

 

[kotek]

I can’t answer for your experiences; certainly there are odd folk all over Anglicanism. I personally know only one traditional Anglican who was a former RC. The points on purgatory you will find all over Anglicanism (though Anglicans usually speak of purgation, as an event), as in the opinions of (for example) C.S. Lewis. The Articles (with a couple of technical exceptions, as theoretically, for the ordinands of the Church of England) are not binding on Anglicans generally. It’s why they are in the section for historical documents in the TEC 1979 prayer book. Things like this are among those that particularly mark Anglo-Catholics, and are not limited to former RCs. One might as well think that the parishioners at the Benediction and Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, at my parish on Corpus Christi, were all former RCs. Which is definitely not the case.

I’ve never heard an Anglican mention indulgences.

GKC

I AM a former RC and the reason I am no longer RC is BECAUSE those things like Purgatory, Marian Dogmas simply are not true. While I like C.S.Lewis he does not speak for what Anglicans have historically and Biblically held to.

I am afraid you are mistaken about the 39 Articles. The 39 Articles were meant to be binding on all originally. What the CoE does these days is irrelevant. In my humble opinion the reason the Anglican Way is in such confusion these days is BECAUSE they have denigrated the 39 Articles as a standard for belief.

The new North American Province, The Anglican Church in North America has seen this and we ARE making the 39 Articles the Gold Standard for Doctrine.

The last mention about “Benediction and Adoration” well the Articles CLEARLY address that:

From Article 25:

**The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried
about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the
same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them
unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

**

 

[GKC]

Exchanges like this are useful to illustrate my point on Anglicanism. I will likely c&p this, if this sort of ping-pong posts continues.

Anglicans have historically and Biblically held to a lot of things. The Articles were the method that Eliabeth chose to govern her fractious Church. They were statecraft, as religion. From the time ot the 1604 Act (IIRC the date), they are applicable, as an Erastian act, only on the Ordinands of the CoE. That became a dead letter after the Ritualist trials of the late 1800s. Anglainism is creedal, not confessional.

Any Anglican may affirm, partially affirm, or ignore the Articles, in that form, though no Trinitarian Christian would ignore the concepts, totally. Or, one may cut them from the Prayer Book, and use them to kindle the new fire, at Easter. Your opinion on, say, purgation has no more authority than does Lewis’, and (IMO) rather less. Certainly I suspect he sold more books than you have.

I’m aware that some of the groups in the New ACNA hold to the Articles and some to female ordination. And the result will be just what I said, the reestablishment of the Elizabethan Compromise. For many reasons, I am dubious as to the prospects of the new Province.

Your opinions are noted.

GKC

I AM a former RC and the reason I am no longer RC is BECAUSE those things like Purgatory, Marian Dogmas simply are not true. While I like C.S.Lewis he does not speak for what Anglicans have historically and Biblically held to.

I am afraid you are mistaken about the 39 Articles. The 39 Articles were meant to be binding on all originally. What the CoE does these days is irrelevant. In my humble opinion the reason the Anglican Way is in such confusion these days is BECAUSE they have denigrated the 39 Articles as a standard for belief.

The new North American Province, The Anglican Church in North America has seen this and we ARE making the 39 Articles the Gold Standard for Doctrine.

The last mention about “Benediction and Adoration” well the Articles CLEARLY address that:

From Article 25:

**The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried
about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the
same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them
unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

**

 

[kotek]

Exchanges like this are useful to illustrate my point on Anglicanism. I will likely c&p this, if this sort of ping-pong posts continues.

Anglicans have historically and Biblically held to a lot of things. The Articles were the method that Eliabeth chose to govern her fractious Church. They were statecraft, as religion. From the time ot the 1604 Act (IIRC the date), they are applicable, as an Erastian act, only on the Ordinands of the CoE. That became a dead letter after the Ritualist trials of the late 1800s. Anglainism is creedal, not confessional.

Any Anglican may affirm, partially affirm, or ignore the Articles, in that form, though no Trinitarian Christian would ignore the concepts, totally. Or, one may cut them from the Prayer Book, and use them to kindle the new fire, at Easter. Your opinion on, say, purgation has no more authority than does Lewis’, and (IMO) rather less. Certainly I suspect he sold more books than you have.

I’m aware that some of the groups in the New ACNA hold to the Articles and some to female ordination. And the result will be just what I said, the reestablishment of the Elizabethan Compromise. For many reasons, I am dubious as to the prospects of the new Province.

Your opinions are noted.

GKC

I agree this is becoming a ping-pong match of sorts but you are saying some things that as a faithful Anglican of The Anglican Way I simply must challenge.

Sure I could tear out the 39 Articles, tell my Rector that they are only Historical Documents and are not binding etc. I will then be politely asked to go to another Church, perhaps Eastern Orthodoxy or Rome.

If some who claim to be Anglican want to pray to saints, pray for the dead to be released from Purgatory, have Benediction and Adoration, make Auricular Confession mandatory, and kindle the New Fire at Easter with the 39 Articles thats fine with me. But just do us Anglicans who faithfully follow the Anglican Way a favour; please don’t claim to be and call yourself Anglicans.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree this is becoming a ping-pong match of sorts but you are saying some things that as a faithful Anglican of The Anglican Way I simply must challenge.

Sure I could tear out the 39 Articles, tell my Rector that they are only Historical Documents and are not binding etc. I will then be politely asked to go to another Church, perhaps Eastern Orthodoxy or Rome.

If some who claim to be Anglican want to pray to saints, pray for the dead to be released from Purgatory, have Benediction and Adoration, make Auricular Confession mandatory, and kindle the New Fire at Easter with the 39 Articles thats fine with me. But just do us Anglicans who faithfully follow the Anglican Way a favour; please don’t claim to be and call yourself Anglicans.

The problem is that Anglicans never really did define themselves. The 39 Articles were part of Elizabeth’s State Church and the compromise. From day one it was a part of the Anglican ethos that diversity was perfectly fine and that administration was really horizontal instead of vertical. The episcopacy is loose and free in Anglicanism and, as a result, you see little discipline and a ton of eclectic spirituality. Any denomination designed to be a compromise religion is going to end up like this.

I tend to agree with you that the 39 Articles are the closest thing Anglicans have to a creed, a code, a set of beliefs. The Articles reject elevation, adoration, reservation of the Sacrament, and they mock purgatory, ‘invocation’ of saints, indulgences, and other Catholic beliefs. The Articles also have a watered-down and vague ‘spiritual’ rendition of the Real Presence.

I left the Catholic Church as a young man for the then-Episcopal (now Anglican, thank God!) Church here in the more conservative Central Valley. I didn’t really realize what I was jumping into. As I grew more fascinated and interested in theology, I realized that I believed in saints, elevation, reservation, transubstantiation, and could not be an Anglican because the 39 Articles went against my grain here and there.

I have never understood the Tractarian Oxford Movement too much myself. I think Newman was right to bail and become Roman Catholic because he was 99% there already anyway?

In my experience, I took the 39 Articles to be the normative definition of what an Anglican actually is. I looked at them, agreed with some points, but by and large disagreed with too many of them to, in good conscience, remain and Anglican. Add to that the chaos, lack of discipline, idiocy of having female priestesses, and tolerance of an insane heretic like Spong spewing his disgusting grime, and I was “outta there.”

I tend to agree that the 39 Articles are the closest thing to what it means to be an Anglican but I see GKC’s point that they aren’t binding to Anglicans in that Anglicans don’t seem to “bind” themselves to much of anything? I don’t mean that in an insulting way. I just notice that there is such a lack of uniformity of belief from everything from Mary to the Eucharist to even the BOCP.

In Anglicanism everyone’s priorities are so vastly divergent? I ran into a woman at the grocery store who still goes to the ‘conservative’ (remember “conservative” in Anglicanism is the liberal in a Roman parish) Anglican parish that I used to attend. That parish just broke in two. The left-leaning hippie contingent remained Episcopal, the more orthodox-leaning (I emphasize “leaning”) stayed with the parish. I told her how crazy it is that some of the “conservative” people who stayed still want women clergy and she replied, “Oh I’m perfectly fine with female priests, I just remained because the Episcopal Church is toying with the idea of changing the prayer book! I won’t stand for that!”

I found it perplexing that she would be fine with breaking 2,000 years of firm, common-sense, intelligent, sacred beliefs in the priesthood, sanctioning priestesses (total heresy) and yet she was incensed, furious, because the Episcopal Church planned on modifying the prayer book?? Priorities…

I also remember a guy at our old church who went up for communion every week. At coffee hour he’d tell me how stupid it was that the Episcopal Church taught Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist. “I’m a Unitarian!” he’d tell me. “I don’t believe any of that hocus pocus.”

That only reinforced my agreement about closed communion that the Catholic Church teaches. Why have a unitarian who rejects all of your doctrine sharing in the cup that signifies a common, united belief in what the Church is?

My point in all this is that, as GKC has so often and nicely pointed out, Anglicanism is hard to define, pin down, or understand at times. when you say, But just do us Anglicans who faithfully follow the Anglican Way a favour; please don’t claim to be and call yourself Anglicans. that statement makes little sense to me in that you are judging folks for not keeping to an ‘orthodoxy’ that isn’t there? And it’s also the first time I’ve heard an Anglican admonish others to hit the bricks if they don’t tow a specific doctrinal line. In Anglicanism there is not line to tow? And the 39 Articles have become more a piece of history in the prayer book than a centerpiece of their orthodox norms. I respect your devotion and respect of the articles. I respected them at the time enough to disagree and leave them. But many Anglicans out there don’t even agree with half of them or any of them and many Anglicans disregard them completely.

 

[GKC]

I agree this is becoming a ping-pong match of sorts but you are saying some things that as a faithful Anglican of The Anglican Way I simply must challenge.

Sure I could tear out the 39 Articles, tell my Rector that they are only Historical Documents and are not binding etc. I will then be politely asked to go to another Church, perhaps Eastern Orthodoxy or Rome.

If some who claim to be Anglican want to pray to saints, pray for the dead to be released from Purgatory, have Benediction and Adoration, make Auricular Confession mandatory, and kindle the New Fire at Easter with the 39 Articles thats fine with me. But just do us Anglicans who faithfully follow the Anglican Way a favour; please don’t claim to be and call yourself Anglicans.

No can do, and historicallly, no need to. But I do promise I won’t call myself a Reformed Episcoplian. Otherwise, see above.

GKC