Why would you NOT want to be Anglican?

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

I believe all Christian sects have atleast some truths. And I believe Anglicans come very close to having the most truths. BUT I just can’t get past the idea that it was developed as a rebellion against the Catholic Church by a politician with a personal agenda. But as far as Protestants go I think Anglican/Episcoaplians(High) are the closest to the original Catholic Church. And I DO like the Bell Choirs…

 

[brigid12]

Rita,

As an ex-High Church Episcopalian, I sometimes miss the “smells and bells”, reverential kneeling, beautiful architecture of many of their churches, altar rails, etc. That said, before I converted we were able to be privy (via electronic minutes) to the bishops discussions in the General Convention on some heavy doctrinal matters (having to do with blessing of same-sex unions, etc.). Disregarding the lack of charity I “heard”, since fallen man will be fallen, I was aghast that the reasoning behind the vast majority of the positions had nothing to do with either Scripture or with Tradition. In the following weeks, the same was true of the notices written for Episcopalian newsletters (diocesan or other) on what the General Convention had decided. I started reading about the Eastern Orthodox and listening to CA Radio. I found the EO to be very ethnically eastern (something I most definitely am not!) and there was another thing that was lacking (as it was very obviously lacking in the Episcopal/Anglican church) that I saw in the Roman Catholic Church. Someone who could keep the bishop’s eyes on Christ as they obviously were no longer for the Episcopalians. I heard the ex-Anglican Bishop of London on CA Radio say why he had converted. He also had been Anglo-Catholic, said the Dominican Rosary, listened to the Pope as a holy man, etc. He said something which has stuck with me to this day. He said that the reason he’d been Anglican rather than Roman Catholic was due to his own pride in not wanting to be obedient to another person. Then he came to understand Mt 16:17-18 (including the singular “you”) and Jn 21:15-17. Since I converted I’ve never seriously reconsidered. I want to be in the Church where the gates of hell don’t prevail upon it!!!

 

[nsper7]

As I had mentioned earlier, what drew me to Anglicanism (after a friend invited me to his church) was the way the Eucharist was done (I guesws you’d say it was done in a Catholic ‘in-the-hand’ method) and how the service builds up to that great sacrament. Although the other churches I had attended did communion, it was not really the focal point of the service. The history and foundation theology of Anglicanism only increased my love for the Rite.

For me, I have had the King Henry VIII issue answered. Basically, he was not the theological foundation of the Anglican Communion (Archbishop Cramner and others, like Hooker, were the theological heavy hitters, not Henry) and, besides, if the Lord can ‘speak’ through Balaam’s donkey (Numbers 22:28), then why not the King of England? Also, although King Henry VIII did break away from the Roman Church, Queen Mary later restored the Church of England to Rome. It was Queen Elizabeth who made the final break with Rome. We can trace the Archbishop of Canterbury back to St. Augustine of Canterbury who was elevated by Pope Gregory the Great.

I admit that the current issues in the Episcopal Church (i.e. ordaining an openly and unrepentently gay man as bishop and, in general, ignoring Scripture and Tradition and heading towards an almost Unitarian Univeralist end) bother me greatly, but there are still many theologically conservative people in the Episcopal Church and, for me, I can look back to Scripture and Anglican foundational theology (i.e. XXXIX Articles).

I also admit there may come a time when I may be forced to leave the Episcopal Church/Anglican Communion (i.e. if I feel like I don’t want my future children [whenever I have them after I get married] to be raised around such bad theology, if they try to force people to liberalize their theology, if I ended up in a diocese with a gay/Unitarian-type bishop, if my parish ever did a ‘clown mass’, etc.). I hope it doesn’t come to that because there aren’t that many other options. I could join a Continuing Anglican group, but it seems odd to have Anglicanism without the Archbishop of Canterbury. I would not want to become Lutheran (I just think it is odd to name a church after an individual) and it would be very difficult to go back into Evanglicalism/Non-Denominationalism (I have fallen too much for the Liturgy and the history/tradition, even such apparently minor things as making the Sign of the Cross and remembering the saints).

Instead of attacking Anglicanism, why don’t we hope/pray for strong leadership that can turn the Anglican Communion (and the Episcopal Church especially) away from that dangerous path of secular modernism/postmodernism.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Because I am a Roman Catholic.

Besides that, I’m not into the whole “protesting” thing. Maybe If I were born a hippie I would think differently…

God Bless You

 

[RWMorris]

… Instead of attacking Anglicanism, why don’t we hope/pray for strong leadership that can turn the Anglican Communion (and the Episcopal Church especially) away from that dangerous path of secular modernism/postmodernism.

I pray that the Anglican Church will convert en-mass to Catholicism. Who knows, there might even be an Anglican Rite developed. I admit the high Church Anglican liturgy is one of the most beautiful services in existence. But the problem is that of leadership; there is very little. Satan has established his beachhead and he’s not retreating. The only hope for Anglicanism is in the shelter of the Catholic Church.

 

[1234]

And this gives glory and honor and praise to God in what way?

I went back and added some more to my post while you were replying, btw.

If one wishes to give glory and honor and praise to a god, it isn’t clear why one has to join anything.

 

[jmcrae]

If one wishes to give glory and honor and praise to a god, it isn’t clear why one has to join anything.

Uh, because it’s lonely and embarrassing to sing hymns and praises all by yourself?

On the plus side, you would never disagree with the homily.

 

[nsper7]

I pray that the Anglican Church will convert en-mass to Catholicism. Who knows, there might even be an Anglican Rite developed. I admit the high Church Anglican liturgy is one of the most beautiful services in existence. But the problem is that of leadership; there is very little. Satan has established his beachhead and he’s not retreating. The only hope for Anglicanism is in the shelter of the Catholic Church.

I agree that a major problem for the Anglican Communion/Episcopal Church is leadership. The Archbishop of Canterbury needs more authority to maintain order (he sits on the Chair of St. Augustine after all in an Episcopal See formed by Pope St. Gregory the Great) and we need an Archbishop of Canterbury who is willing to stand up to the theologically liberal/postmodernist/secular humanist influences and tell them that that kind of thinking might work (even be valuable) in academia, but not in the Church. Think about it: an Archbishop with the traditionalism (Anglican-version obviously) of St. Pius X, the spirituality and kindness of John Paul II and the theological acumen of Benedict XVI. If we had a leader like that, perhaps it could turn the tide; otherwise, we Anglicans may be in for a rough ride. I hope it doesn’t get to the point where I feel have to leave the Communion.

 

[nsper7]

If one wishes to give glory and honor and praise to a god, it isn’t clear why one has to join anything.

God wants us to fellowship with each other (Hebrews 10:25, 2 Corinthians 1:4) and the Apostles all met together on numerous occasions.

 

[thirdn6]

Hi everyone.

My reason is because there is only one PURE church who has the fullness of truth- the Roman Catholic Church!

Second reason is because Anglicans don’t have VALID Eucharist.

 

[nsper7]

Second reason is because Anglicans don’t have VALID Eucharist.

According to the Roman Catholic Church and we know how unbiased they are.

I have heard reports of many people having amazing Eucharistic experiences at Anglican churches.

 

[jmcrae]

According to the Roman Catholic Church and we know how unbiased they are.

I have heard reports of many people having amazing Eucharistic experiences at Anglican churches.

Have they documented anything similar to the Miracle of Lanciano?

 

[nsper7]

Have they documented anything similar to the Miracle of Lanciano?

No, I don’t think we have had a miracle of that magnitude. If that miracle is true, then it is amazing and supports the validity of the RC Eucharist (please note that I have never challenged the validity of the RC Eucharist).

I remember once that an Anglican Priest who was a believer in transubstantiation and I remember it disturbed me greatly when I, during a Eucharist service, envisioned literally eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Jesus and I later prayed for forgiveness in case I had sinned by envisioning an almost cannibalistic thing. These days, I tend to take a John Donne approach to the Eucharist and pray that, somehow, the bread and wine and are for me the Body and Blood of Christ (whether literally, spiritually or symbolically).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m not Anglican because any split with the Catholic Church is based on pride…that man thinks he can run Christ’s Church.
I think its an insult to Christ, you’re basically saying “The Church you established is shite, so I’m going to show you how its done”

I would love to know how you smuggled the S-word under the censor’s radar ​

The CC was hardly acting as a shepherd in early Reformation period - it was good at burning people but pretty useless at doing what it was commissioned to do. And that is putting it nicely. At least modern bishops live in the dioceses, instead of creaming off the revenues like their pre-Reformation precedessors, so that these could like the secular lords they usually were.

The Reformation was a long overdue kick up the backside for the CC, & it’s a tragedy that nothing less than that was needed to get the Church to reform itself. (Reformed up to a point, anyway.)

To blame the Reformers is ludicrously one-sided: the Church had had over a century to undertake “reform in head and members”, & it could not be bothered. It deserved all the upset it got - even after 1520, Trent was not held until 1545. How negligent is that ? But by then, the damage was done. And every generation since has had to pick up the pieces, all because of the useless scum at the top of the Church who could not be bothered to undertake reforms they knew were necessary.

 

[jmcrae]

And every genration since has had to pick up the pieces, all because of the useless scum at the top of the Church who could not be bothered to undertake reforms they admitted were necessary.

Do you have any clue what was going on? The entire southern border of Christendom was under attack from Islam and Judaism; the Pope, far from being “useless” was actively combatting heresy of every kind in the South, using every resource at his disposal; that’s why he didn’t have anything left to deal with Martin Luther, et al. He made the decision that Spain, Italy, and Portugal were more important to Christendom than Germany, England, and Switzerland.

I don’t know what the world would look like today if he had decided to leave the South to the tender mercies of Islam while saving the North from itself, but it seems to me that if I’d been him, I’d have made the same decision. I really don’t see, under the circumstances, how he could have made any other decision.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Do you have any clue what was going on? The entire southern border of Christendom was under attack from Islam and Judaism; the Pope, far from being “useless” was actively combatting heresy of every kind in the South, using every resource at his disposal; that’s why he didn’t have anything left to deal with Martin Luther, et al. He made the decision that Spain, Italy, and Portugal were more important to Christendom than Germany, England, and Switzerland.

I don’t know what the world would look like today if he had decided to leave the South to the tender mercies of Islam while saving the North from itself, but it seems to me that if I’d been him, I’d have made the same decision. I really don’t see, under the circumstances, how he could have made any other decision.

I have plenty of clues, I stand by all of what I said.​

I got my clues from books by (Fr.) Philip Hughes, S.J.

• The Reformation in England
• History of the Church volume 3
  Father James Brodrick (S.J.)
• St. Peter Canisius
  And from H. Daniel-Rops:
• The Protestant Reformation
• The Catholic Reformation
  They were all Catholics, & they all demolish utterly the Catholic propaganda nonsense that everything was the fault of the Reformers. As for the degeneracy of the Papacy between 1471 & 1534, read Father Hughes. His account of Cardinal Wolsey’s machinations in his attempt to be elected Pope is revolting.

Not one word of that attempt to defend the Popes of the period comes to terms with the horrible condition of the Church before 1517. That they were politicians, was part of the problem.

 

[brigid12]

If one wishes to give glory and honor and praise to a god, it isn’t clear why one has to join anything.

Mt 16:18-19, Mt 18:17-18, Mt 28:18-20, 1 Tim 3:15, Jn 10:16, Mt 28:18-20, Jn 20:23, 1 Tim 3:15, Mt 7:24, Mt Acts 1:25-26, 1 Tim 4:14, Jn 6:35-71, 1 Cor 10-16, 2 Thess 3:6, Jn 3:5, Mk 16:16, Jn 20:22-23, etc

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I pray that the Anglican Church will convert en-mass to Catholicism. Who knows, there might even be an Anglican Rite developed. I admit the high Church Anglican liturgy is one of the most beautiful services in existence. But the problem is that of leadership; there is very little. Satan has established his beachhead and he’s not retreating. The only hope for Anglicanism is in the shelter of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic bishops in England & Wales stomped on that one - the reason (& a good one, in principle at least) they did not want converts from Anglicanism to have an AR was that they did not think it was a good idea for converts to be separated from other Roman Catholics.​

The AR is not a Rite, so much as a Use within the Roman Rite. The BCP is largely based on the Sarum Use, so the “AR” is in part a re-Romanised form of the SU of the RR of the CC. William Oddie (who was among the converts of '92) has written an account of these events in his book “Roman Option”.

I don’t see how anyone can regard the CC as “the only hope for Anglicanism” - Anglicanism would be swamped, not “transposed” into a new form. The CC is simply too gigantic, & too influenced by US Catholicism, for Anglicanism outside the US to have an earthly of surviving

Numbers & cash win every time - for make no mistake; an AR would cost money: & the bishops of England & Wales are short of it; & as well as of clergy. It’s difficult enough to find moolah & clergy for the needs of the revised liturgy: to find moolah & clergy for the 1962 Mass is asking even more; so an AR in England is a non-starter. One cannot provide cash & clergy for a form of the Liturgy, if the cash & clergy aforesaid do not exist.

What do a few thousand ex-Anglicans-turned-RC count for compared with the tens of millions of US English-speaking Catholics,or the hundreds of millions of Catholics in the RR ? Nothing It’s completely unrealistic to imagine that Rome - which is culturally a billion miles removed from English Christianity in any form anyway - would have any desire to allow an AR in England. What do Italians & Germans in Vatican offices have in common with Anglican churchmen ? Nothing The CC is a Church of the big battalions, unavolidably - Anglican converts are good for show, but not for anything else. So nothing of Anglicanism has a cat in hell’s chance of surviving, if there were to be any kind of “reconciliation” with Rome.

Besides, fantasies of the mass conversion of the C of E to Rome are as old as the restoration of the hierarchy to England & Wales - the pattern is as follows:

• something crops up in the C of E;
• there is a rush of converts to Rome, including a few clergy of note;
• hopes of the mass conversion of the C of E to Rome are raised;
• the rush peters out & becomes a trickle;
• fantasy slowly dies until the next time
  Sorry to be so gloomy, but one cannot afford to be unrealistic.

 

[1234]

… And I DO like the Bell Choirs…

Ha!

Have you ever read Dorothy Sayers’ mystery, “The Nine Tailors”?

It centers around bells and includes a bell choir. The BBC production on DVD is also very good.

Dorothy Sayers was a devout Anglican, btw.

 

[1234]

Uh, because it’s lonely and embarrassing to sing hymns and praises all by yourself?

On the plus side, you would never disagree with the homily.

AND…you don’t have to go to all those potlucks!