Will a lifeline be accepted by struggling Anglicans

[chris_molter]

Does anyone know why the Anglican Use Missal (which is totally worth getting, btw) was based on Rite I of the '79 BCP rather than the '28?

It seems like an error in judgement, but I’d like to know how that decision was reached.

 

[John_Larocque]

Many don’t like Duncan, the WO settlement, the strange dichotomy of agreeing to disagree about numerous issues while at the same time claiming to want to merge with Orthodox Church of America? Do you seriously think these folks will heed Metropolitan Jonah’s admonition to give up all women’s ordination, drop all vestiges of Calvinism from their theology, and cut out the filioque? Do you seriously think that’ll happen? I know an Anglican bishop who was at that convention who said that all the bishops were shaking their heads and rolling their eyes at that statement.

I read something about that meeting as well. Something to the effect that they should not embrace papism either and denounce it as heretical. It was frank talk and kind of pouring cold water on them. I also read of comments of some participants to the effect that they would never abandon either Calvinism or their women priests. Calvinism (or Augustininsm) underpins so much of Reformation theology, it really is hard for them to let go even if you tell them to do so.

Here’s a ROCOR blog on that famous talk:
rocorunity.blogspot.com/2009/06/oca-metropolitan-jonah-seeks-communion.html

a bit here as well:
byztex.blogspot.com/2009/06/met-jonah-speaks-at-anglican-church-in.html
bloggingsbetter.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/metropolitan-jonah-seeks-communion-with-the-new-anglican-church-in-north-america/

 

[jordananglo]

I find myself in broad agreement with Gurney.

A few words on the ACNA:

As others have mentioned, it is a groups of Episcopalians that are sufficiently upset about what has happened in TE"C" that they have now left. However, the previous characteristic is no recipe for unity. Consequently, three of the dioceses that are seemingly part of it (although they have not formally joined to my knowledge) are broadly Anglo-Catholic, especially the dioceses of Ft. Worth. For example, even at this late date, these dioceses do not ordain women, and have suffered a great deal of abuse for it. The other diocese that comes from TE"C" is that of Pittsburg, which is fairly typical of the global Anglican world - broadly evangelical, priestesses, explicitly protestant theology.

Needless to say, these folks make strange bedfellows, and the only thing that united them was the common enemy, and an adherence to a kind of muddled mere-Anglicanism that encompassed the “three-streams” of theology.

It is of both current and historical interest that a similar experiment was attempted in the 70s in the US, after WO first came on the scene. This attempt to carry on as a continuing church started out in a similar way as the ACNA is doing now. They also tried to square the circle, and consequently we see that shattered witness of the uncountable “continuing Anglicans” today.

This, I predict, will also happen to ACNA, simply as a result of the immiscible nature of the constituent elements.

However, many of those elements understand this perfectly well (especially the Anglo-Catholic). For them, it is simply the last train out of the TE"C" station. Consequently, it is seen as a “just for now” affair until they can make a coherent plan for the future.

The compromises inherent in their constitution (such as local option on WO, as well as other more subtle points), as well as those seen at the creation of the man-made church indicate a great tension between the Anglo-Catholic understanding, stressing the ancient faith of the undivided Church, and the explicitly protestant understanding, hearkening back to the reformers, Calvin in particular.

So, what comes after the “just for now”? Well, as I mentioned before, this is not a doctrinally unified body, so there are a variety of answers depending on where you are. The folks in Ft. Worth that I am most familiar with are quietly waiting and praying for a further provision' for Anglicans from the Catholic Church, so they can come into the Church as a body, very similar to the petition of the Tradition Anglican Communion (TAC). Please remember this has been a prime goal of this tradition since the Oxford movement, so it is not a Johnny come lately’ idea. At this point, it is their only hope as a body. I also note that the TAC bishops have unanimously signed the Catechism of the Catholic church.

Others are excited by the Orthodox metropolitan Jonah’s offer. If you look at his list of conditions, there is nothing there that a classic Anglo-Catholic could not sign on to. However, they have the “other streams” currently on board that would prevent them taking such an offer. As someone previously noted, there were many of the Calvinistic persuasion that mocked the bishop for his clear statement.

So, it seems clear that this body will not last long. A house divided against itself cannot stand. It will be ripped by the coming events. What will the gung-ho protestants do? If have no idea, but I can guess: splinter.

Much that lies in the future for these folks will depend on whether a provision for the Catholic-minded Anglicans is made by either the Holy See or the OCA (the Antiochians have a small Western-rite group, but I don’t want to go into this now).

However, my main message is that if a “life-line is thrown”, I personally know many that would grab on - though not all, of course.

 

[GKC]

I find myself in broad agreement with Gurney.

A few words on the ACNA:

As others have mentioned, it is a groups of Episcopalians that are sufficiently upset about what has happened in TE"C" that they have now left. However, the previous characteristic is no recipe for unity. Consequently, three of the dioceses that are seemingly part of it (although they have not formally joined to my knowledge) are broadly Anglo-Catholic, especially the dioceses of Ft. Worth. For example, even at this late date, these dioceses do not ordain women, and have suffered a great deal of abuse for it. The other diocese that comes from TE"C" is that of Pittsburg, which is fairly typical of the global Anglican world - broadly evangelical, priestesses, explicitly protestant theology.

Needless to say, these folks make strange bedfellows, and the only thing that united them was the common enemy, and an adherence to a kind of muddled mere-Anglicanism that encompassed the “three-streams” of theology.

It is of both current and historical interest that a similar experiment was attempted in the 70s in the US, after WO first came on the scene. This attempt to carry on as a continuing church started out in a similar way as the ACNA is doing now. They also tried to square the circle, and consequently we see that shattered witness of the uncountable “continuing Anglicans” today.

This, I predict, will also happen to ACNA, simply as a result of the immiscible nature of the constituent elements.

However, many of those elements understand this perfectly well (especially the Anglo-Catholic). For them, it is simply the last train out of the TE"C" station. Consequently, it is seen as a “just for now” affair until they can make a coherent plan for the future.

The compromises inherent in their constitution (such as local option on WO, as well as other more subtle points), as well as those seen at the creation of the man-made church indicate a great tension between the Anglo-Catholic understanding, stressing the ancient faith of the undivided Church, and the explicitly protestant understanding, hearkening back to the reformers, Calvin in particular.

So, what comes after the “just for now”? Well, as I mentioned before, this is not a doctrinally unified body, so there are a variety of answers depending on where you are. The folks in Ft. Worth that I am most familiar with are quietly waiting and praying for a further provision' for Anglicans from the Catholic Church, so they can come into the Church as a body, very similar to the petition of the Tradition Anglican Communion (TAC). Please remember this has been a prime goal of this tradition since the Oxford movement, so it is not a Johnny come lately’ idea. At this point, it is their only hope as a body. I also note that the TAC bishops have unanimously signed the Catechism of the Catholic church.

Others are excited by the Orthodox metropolitan Jonah’s offer. If you look at his list of conditions, there is nothing there that a classic Anglo-Catholic could not sign on to. However, they have the “other streams” currently on board that would prevent them taking such an offer. As someone previously noted, there were many of the Calvinistic persuasion that mocked the bishop for his clear statement.

So, it seems clear that this body will not last long. A house divided against itself cannot stand. It will be ripped by the coming events. What will the gung-ho protestants do? If have no idea, but I can guess: splinter.

Much that lies in the future for these folks will depend on whether a provision for the Catholic-minded Anglicans is made by either the Holy See or the OCA (the Antiochians have a small Western-rite group, but I don’t want to go into this now).

However, my main message is that if a “life-line is thrown”, I personally know many that would grab on - though not all, of course.

And, as a further parallel, the original Continuing jurisdiction formed after the St. Louis meeting was called the Anglican Church of North America. Deja vu.

I agree generally with the post, though I think that the number of the Anglo-Catholics in various corners of Anglicanism who would leap at some form of corporate submission, were a door to be opened in Rome, to be smaller than some folks do. I am dubious as to the long term viability of the current ACNA, but will watch and see. At best it might be the Elizabethan compromise redux.

GKC

 

[BernadetteM]

If you would look at the Sarum Use, you will see that much of what is used in the Anglican Use Liturgy comes straight from it. Although the wording might be a little different the context is and words mean the same.

The few parts that are claimed to be from the 1979 BCP are very small responses that you will also find in the Latin Mass. The order of the Mass that follows either the Sarum Use or the Latin Mass in some parts have been re-arranged.

Many of the prayers from the BCP 1928 are still there. The Prayer of Humble Access, the Thanksgiving and the confession. Also other parts. The Episcopal priests who made possible the Pastoral Provision accepted what Rome offered as the Book of Divine Worship. Of course there might be new revisions in the future. Their belief as Catholics were more important than having everything their way. They sumitted to Rome and opened the door for many Episcopalians to still have many Anglican traditions and be Catholic. Just as many Bishops have fought against the TLM they have also fought against the AU Mass, but it has been growing slowly and no one knows where the Holy Spirit will bring it.

I think it is a beautiful liturgy. As a former Episcopalian and as an Anglo Catholic and also a low church member, I find the AU liturgy wonderful.

Episcopalians never during my lifetime had a unified liturgy, it just depended on which parish you went to. Except in low church services, usually Morning prayer and once a month communion. That was my experience.

Also I found that many Episcopalians (this is my experience) are so hung up on liturgy, whether the building is beautiful and material things that Truth is really not the most important issue with them. I am not speaking for all Episcopalians but for the ones I had contact with. We didn’t want anyone telling us what to do. Authority is the main issue for many and no matter if some accept every teaching of the Catholic Church they will never accept the authority of the Catholic Church. That is fine, but if they want to belong to a Church that is Apostolic why not become Orthodox?

These are my feelings and I understand that many Episcopalians or former ones have other opinions. We must all choose our own way to faith, but should not put material goods before following what is Truth.

I have a virus on my computer so will not be responding as it is really a pain to try to type anything. I loved my former parish and we used the Anglican Missal, we had the most beautiful liturgy and a beautiful building and when our priests went to Rome the parish split three ways. Catholic, a few Orthodox and some stayed with the building and are one of the Anglican groups now established. Each person must make the decision for themselves where they find the Peace of God. I only pray for all Anglicans and Episcopalians to find that Peace.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[GKC]

If you would look at the Sarum Use, you will see that much of what is used in the Anglican Use Liturgy comes straight from it. Although the wording might be a little different the context is and words mean the same.

The few parts that are claimed to be from the 1979 BCP are very small responses that you will also find in the Latin Mass. The order of the Mass that follows either the Sarum Use or the Latin Mass in some parts have been re-arranged.

Many of the prayers from the BCP 1928 are still there. The Prayer of Humble Access, the Thanksgiving and the confession. Also other parts. The Episcopal priests who made possible the Pastoral Provision accepted what Rome offered as the Book of Divine Worship. Of course there might be new revisions in the future. Their belief as Catholics were more important than having everything their way. They sumitted to Rome and opened the door for many Episcopalians to still have many Anglican traditions and be Catholic. Just as many Bishops have fought against the TLM they have also fought against the AU Mass, but it has been growing slowly and no one knows where the Holy Spirit will bring it.

I think it is a beautiful liturgy. As a former Episcopalian and as an Anglo Catholic and also a low church member, I find the AU liturgy wonderful.

Episcopalians never during my lifetime had a unified liturgy, it just depended on which parish you went to. Except in low church services, usually Morning prayer and once a month communion. That was my experience.

Also I found that many Episcopalians (this is my experience) are so hung up on liturgy, whether the building is beautiful and material things that Truth is really not the most important issue with them. I am not speaking for all Episcopalians but for the ones I had contact with. We didn’t want anyone telling us what to do. Authority is the main issue for many and no matter if some accept every teaching of the Catholic Church they will never accept the authority of the Catholic Church. That is fine, but if they want to belong to a Church that is Apostolic why not become Orthodox?

These are my feelings and I understand that many Episcopalians or former ones have other opinions. We must all choose our own way to faith, but should not put material goods before following what is Truth.

I have a virus on my computer so will not be responding as it is really a pain to try to type anything. I loved my former parish and we used the Anglican Missal, we had the most beautiful liturgy and a beautiful building and when our priests went to Rome the parish split three ways. Catholic, a few Orthodox and some stayed with the building and are one of the Anglican groups now established. Each person must make the decision for themselves where they find the Peace of God. I only pray for all Anglicans and Episcopalians to find that Peace.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

The Anglican Liturgy (79 Rite I and the American 1928, for example), is Sarum based. ThIngs equal to the same thing are equal to each other. The AU is mainly following the 79 Rite 1, with the necessary changes.

GKC

 

[BernadetteM]

The Anglican Liturgy (79 Rite I and the American 1928, for example), is Sarum based. ThIngs equal to the same thing are equal to each other. The AU is mainly following the 79 Rite 1, with the necessary changes.

GKC

The Canon is the Sarum Use Canon. I left the low church before 1979, but it seems to me that the 1979 BCP implemented many of the words from the changes made to the Latin Mass many years before. Having seen the AU Mass for me it was very Anglican and did not leave me wanting of more. As an Epsicopalian, the low church liturgy was exactly as the 1928 BCP, the high church added some things like the minister were a chausable etc. The Anglo Catholic parish used the Anglican Missal and had all the Latin Rite additions, such as the Asperges, using saints names etc. As I said I was in an Anglo Catholic parish way before the 1978 BCP came out, but comparing it with the AU Mass I really don’t see that it compares, there are mostly some short responses that are used, but from what I see those responses came first from the changes made in the Latin Mass in the late 1960’s or early 70’s.

As I have said before the Episcopal church was not unified in worship nor beliefs.

The continuing Anglican churches are all divided now. I don’t see much future of there ever being one Anglican church again. For my own peace of mind if I belonged to one of their groups I would either accept their theology and be happy or find a church where I was at peace. There appears to be such discontent among them all.

I find as a Catholic, although some don’t like this or that about the liturgy, the Church doesn’t change doctrine and if you are Catholic you accept what the Churches teachings are. If you can’t accept the doctrines of the Catholic Church then you are free to leave.

There will always be disagreements where ever humans are, but I wouldn’t want to be wandering in the desert as many Anglicans seem to be doing.

Many Anglicans seem to never be satisfied with the smaller issues, ie, certain words of the liturgy, whether a section of what they perceive as the AU Mass is taken from the 1979 or 1928 BCP etc. What real difference does it make. The most important part of the Mass is the Canon and that is certainly from the Sarum Use and Rite I of the Latin Mass. The change was made as the Anglican consecration form was considered deficient.

Sometimes I think some people will never find what they are looking for. There is never going to be perfection in any liturgy for everyone.

I made the choice to be Catholic in an area who does not and probably will never have an AU parish because I believe the Catholic Church to be True. Others must make their own decision as to what their truth is and then move on, instead of appearing to be so unhappy with where they are at and then keep moving to another continuing church.

If your happy with your decision that is wonderful and my prayer is that others will find a home that they are at peace with.

I did research the BCP 1928 and 1979, Latin Mass OF and the Sarum Use and as I stated that is what I found. The Canon of both BCP are not the one in the Sarum Use.

You can look it up online.

May God Bless you always.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[GKC]

The Canon is the Sarum Use Canon. I left the low church before 1979, but it seems to me that the 1979 BCP implemented many of the words from the changes made to the Latin Mass many years before. Having seen the AU Mass for me it was very Anglican and did not leave me wanting of more. As an Epsicopalian, the low church liturgy was exactly as the 1928 BCP, the high church added some things like the minister were a chausable etc. The Anglo Catholic parish used the Anglican Missal and had all the Latin Rite additions, such as the Asperges, using saints names etc. As I said I was in an Anglo Catholic parish way before the 1978 BCP came out, but comparing it with the AU Mass I really don’t see that it compares, there are mostly some short responses that are used, but from what I see those responses came first from the changes made in the Latin Mass in the late 1960’s or early 70’s.

As I have said before the Episcopal church was not unified in worship nor beliefs.

The continuing Anglican churches are all divided now. I don’t see much future of there ever being one Anglican church again. For my own peace of mind if I belonged to one of their groups I would either accept their theology and be happy or find a church where I was at peace. There appears to be such discontent among them all.

I find as a Catholic, although some don’t like this or that about the liturgy, the Church doesn’t change doctrine and if you are Catholic you accept what the Churches teachings are. If you can’t accept the doctrines of the Catholic Church then you are free to leave.

There will always be disagreements where ever humans are, but I wouldn’t want to be wandering in the desert as many Anglicans seem to be doing.

Many Anglicans seem to never be satisfied with the smaller issues, ie, certain words of the liturgy, whether a section of what they perceive as the AU Mass is taken from the 1979 or 1928 BCP etc. What real difference does it make. The most important part of the Mass is the Canon and that is certainly from the Sarum Use and Rite I of the Latin Mass. The change was made as the Anglican consecration form was considered deficient.

Sometimes I think some people will never find what they are looking for. There is never going to be perfection in any liturgy for everyone.

I made the choice to be Catholic in an area who does not and probably will never have an AU parish because I believe the Catholic Church to be True. Others must make their own decision as to what their truth is and then move on, instead of appearing to be so unhappy with where they are at and then keep moving to another continuing church.

If your happy with your decision that is wonderful and my prayer is that others will find a home that they are at peace with.

I did research the BCP 1928 and 1979, Latin Mass OF and the Sarum Use and as I stated that is what I found. The Canon of both BCP are not the one in the Sarum Use.

You can look it up online.

May God Bless you always.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

I have, often, in the past. The key here is to compare the 79 Rite I and the Au. From the Collect for Purity, through the Benedictus, qui venit, they are about 75% the same. As also from the* Agnus Dei* on. The main difference is in the words of institution and administration, in the Canon of the Mass itself.

Overall, the AU is a far closer match, word for word, for the Rite I than for the Sarum. Which was the origin of both.

I have no particular argument with the majority of your post.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I read something about that meeting as well. Something to the effect that they should not embrace papism either and denounce it as heretical. It was frank talk and kind of pouring cold water on them. I also read of comments of some participants to the effect that they would never abandon either Calvinism or their women priests. Calvinism (or Augustininsm) underpins so much of Reformation theology, it really is hard for them to let go even if you tell them to do so.

Here’s a ROCOR blog on that famous talk:
rocorunity.blogspot.com/2009/06/oca-metropolitan-jonah-seeks-communion.html

a bit here as well:
byztex.blogspot.com/2009/06/met-jonah-speaks-at-anglican-church-in.html
bloggingsbetter.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/metropolitan-jonah-seeks-communion-with-the-new-anglican-church-in-north-america/

I agree, John. It seemed like Metropolitan Jonah came there to ally himself with the ACNA because they both have a common foe: the pope, than anything else. And in the end the Anglcans were called upon to give up all Calvinist trappings, women’s ordination, reject the pope completely, and drop the filioque clause. In other words, they should all grow long beards and become Orthodox!! LOL…Jonah was himself an Anglican in his youth and converted as a young man in college I believe. He seemed at that Anglican conference like he had come home to his alma mater trying to bring them all to Orthodoxy…

I actually agreed with him on a few points, especially on women’s ordination, which is a horrible blight on Anglicanism and Christianity of all brands. But the filioque dropping and the rejection of the pope are silly to me, and unnecessary.

Like I said, Anglican bishops and priests rolled their eyes at him when he admonished them all for these things.

Bishop John David Schofield, the bishop of San Joaquin here, is super mega-optimistic that they (the ACNA) will all merge with the OCA. He talked recently here about how they will share orders, Eucharist, and everything. He’s really fired up about it. Schofield is a wonderful, loving, pastoral bishop with a heart of GOLD, but I think he’s being naive on this one. And as much as I love Schofield, it takes a lot to say that!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Your post has you listed as a Roman Catholic and I cannot believe that you prefer the Episcopal Rite II Chinese Menu style over the Roman Missal. One of the things that I admire of the Roman Rites is their diversity but they stick to one basic theology, unlike the Rite II of the 79 BCP which is all over the board theologically. For example the first time I heard the eucharistic prayer that mentions God creating the cosmos… that has been nicknamed the “Star Wars liturgy” by clergy I could not concentrate over its wording as it was not one that lifted up Christ but only mentiond Him as an afterthought. It made me wonder if the sacrament was even truly blessed.

Yes, Padre, I am indeed a Catholic. I also like Chinese food and LOVE Star Wars. I also like Star Trek, the X-Files, and Kolchak the Night Stalker! lol…

But putting all my labels and favorite flicks/tv shows aside, I fail to see what’s so bad about Rite II…I just went back in my old BOCP and read through the whole liturgy. I see nothing to indicate that Christ wasn’t lifted up and made the focus of the worship. I also see nothing distracting or lacking to make me wonder if the Sacrament was truly blessed?

It opens the same with the usual: Blessed be God, Father Son and Holy Spirit, and blessed be his kingdom, now and forever…

It contains the “Almight God to you all hearts are open, all desires known, and from you no secrets are hid…” etc. etc. which is lovely.

It has a beautiful confession of sin (corporate confession)
Most merciful God, we confess we have sinned against you in thought, word, and deed, by what we have done, …we are truly sorry and humbly repent…etc."

There’s the gloria, holy holy holy, and the creed

There’s the part that says: “Holy and gracious Father, in your infinite love you made us for youself; and when we had fallen into sin and become subject to evil and death, you in your mercy sent Jesus Christ, your only and eternal son, to share our human nature…” etc.

Then there’s the last supper narrative

Then there’s: “We celebrate the memorial of our redemption, O Father, in this sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Recalling his death, resurrection, and ascension, we offer you these gifts…”

Sanctify them by your Holy Spirit to be for your people the body and Blood of your Son, the holy food and drink of new and unending life in him. Sanctify us also that we have faithfully receive this holy Sacrament, and serve you…" etc.

There’s the “Our Father”

Anamnesis

then a lovely post-communion prayer: “Eternal God, heavenly Father, you have graciously accepted us as living members of your Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, and you have fed us…” etc.

A final blessing, etc.

What is so awful about this liturgy, what is so Star Wars about it, what is distracting, and what makes a person feel there’s no blessed Sacrament? I’m lost… I’m not trying to be a spokesman for Rite II of the BOCP but I think it’s just fine and I like the wording better than what I hear on Sunday at Mass in the Catholic Church. The verbage is lovely IMO…

 

[GKC]

Yes, Padre, I am indeed a Catholic. I also like Chinese food and LOVE Star Wars. I also like Star Trek, the X-Files, and Kolchak the Night Stalker! lol…

But putting all my labels and favorite flicks/tv shows aside, I fail to see what’s so bad about Rite II…I just went back in my old BOCP and read through the whole liturgy. I see nothing to indicate that Christ wasn’t lifted up and made the focus of the worship. I also see nothing distracting or lacking to make me wonder if the Sacrament was truly blessed?

It opens the same with the usual: Blessed be God, Father Son and Holy Spirit, and blessed be his kingdom, now and forever…

It contains the “Almight God to you all hearts are open, all desires known, and from you no secrets are hid…” etc. etc. which is lovely.

It has a beautiful confession of sin (corporate confession)
Most merciful God, we confess we have sinned against you in thought, word, and deed, by what we have done, …we are truly sorry and humbly repent…etc."

There’s the gloria, holy holy holy, and the creed

There’s the part that says: “Holy and gracious Father, in your infinite love you made us for youself; and when we had fallen into sin and become subject to evil and death, you in your mercy sent Jesus Christ, your only and eternal son, to share our human nature…” etc.

Then there’s the last supper narrative

Then there’s: “We celebrate the memorial of our redemption, O Father, in this sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Recalling his death, resurrection, and ascension, we offer you these gifts…”

Sanctify them by your Holy Spirit to be for your people the body and Blood of your Son, the holy food and drink of new and unending life in him. Sanctify us also that we have faithfully receive this holy Sacrament, and serve you…" etc.

There’s the “Our Father”

Anamnesis

then a lovely post-communion prayer: “Eternal God, heavenly Father, you have graciously accepted us as living members of your Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, and you have fed us…” etc.

A final blessing, etc.

What is so awful about this liturgy, what is so Star Wars about it, what is distracting, and what makes a person feel there’s no blessed Sacrament? I’m lost… I’m not trying to be a spokesman for Rite II of the BOCP but I think it’s just fine and I like the wording better than what I hear on Sunday at Mass in the Catholic Church. The verbage is lovely IMO…

Here’s the late Fr. Peter Toon’s take on the 79 book, in general.

pbsusa.org/Articles/Connection.htm

Added:

For a lot of detail as to specifics, look for his PROCLAIMING THE GOSPEL THROUGH THE LITURGY: THE COMMON PRAYER TRADITION AND DOCTRINAL REVISION.

GKC

 

[Padrej]

Yes, Padre, I am indeed a Catholic. I also like Chinese food and LOVE Star Wars. I also like Star Trek, the X-Files, and Kolchak the Night Stalker! lol…

But putting all my labels and favorite flicks/tv shows aside, I fail to see what’s so bad about Rite II…I just went back in my old BOCP and read through the whole liturgy. I see nothing to indicate that Christ wasn’t lifted up and made the focus of the worship. I also see nothing distracting or lacking to make me wonder if the Sacrament was truly blessed?

It opens the same with the usual: Blessed be God, Father Son and Holy Spirit, and blessed be his kingdom, now and forever…

It contains the “Almight God to you all hearts are open, all desires known, and from you no secrets are hid…” etc. etc. which is lovely.

It has a beautiful confession of sin (corporate confession)
Most merciful God, we confess we have sinned against you in thought, word, and deed, by what we have done, …we are truly sorry and humbly repent…etc."

There’s the gloria, holy holy holy, and the creed

There’s the part that says: “Holy and gracious Father, in your infinite love you made us for youself; and when we had fallen into sin and become subject to evil and death, you in your mercy sent Jesus Christ, your only and eternal son, to share our human nature…” etc.

Then there’s the last supper narrative

Then there’s: “We celebrate the memorial of our redemption, O Father, in this sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Recalling his death, resurrection, and ascension, we offer you these gifts…”

Sanctify them by your Holy Spirit to be for your people the body and Blood of your Son, the holy food and drink of new and unending life in him. Sanctify us also that we have faithfully receive this holy Sacrament, and serve you…" etc.

There’s the “Our Father”

Anamnesis

then a lovely post-communion prayer: “Eternal God, heavenly Father, you have graciously accepted us as living members of your Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, and you have fed us…” etc.

A final blessing, etc.

What is so awful about this liturgy, what is so Star Wars about it, what is distracting, and what makes a person feel there’s no blessed Sacrament? I’m lost… I’m not trying to be a spokesman for Rite II of the BOCP but I think it’s just fine and I like the wording better than what I hear on Sunday at Mass in the Catholic Church. The verbage is lovely IMO…

If you read carefully the Rite II, confession before recieving the sacrament IS NOT a requirement, it can be skipped alltogether. Are we not taught to come to the communion rail in a worthy manner? One of the ways we come is through confession. Rite I has the confession incorporated so that it cannot be removed. Where in the Roman Catholic church have you EVER been told to come and recieve the sacrament without confessing? I would say your that your answer would be NEVER.
When I asked my former priest why this was that when we do Rite II we do no confession, his response was that “it is not a requirement and I would hope that persons coming forth would have confessed somewhere during the week.” That is weak thinking my freind and dangerous when a soul is at stake fo we are warned by scripture not to recieve communion in an unworty manner. His side note to me was, “and besides it takes more time.” Are we not supposed to take all the time in the world we need with God? If a tenth of EVERYTHING belongs to God (your tithe) then why do we have a problem giving God 2.4 hours of a single day, many Christians gripe and bellyache if a service goes on past 45 minutes to an hour.
In the times that I have visited Roman Catholic churches, there has never been a mass yet that there has been no confession (corporate) of some sort. Now you may be saying the Episcopal church that I attended always did a corporate confession, that is good; this does not happen in every area.
The post on Peter Toon’s explaination should help also.

 

[GKC]

If you read carefully the Rite II, confession before recieving the sacrament IS NOT a requirement, it can be skipped alltogether. Are we not taught to come to the communion rail in a worthy manner? One of the ways we come is through confession. Rite I has the confession incorporated so that it cannot be removed. Where in the Roman Catholic church have you EVER been told to come and recieve the sacrament without confessing? I would say your that your answer would be NEVER.
When I asked my former priest why this was that when we do Rite II we do no confession, his response was that “it is not a requirement and I would hope that persons coming forth would have confessed somewhere during the week.” That is weak thinking my freind and dangerous when a soul is at stake fo we are warned by scripture not to recieve communion in an unworty manner. His side note to me was, “and besides it takes more time.” Are we not supposed to take all the time in the world we need with God? If a tenth of EVERYTHING belongs to God (your tithe) then why do we have a problem giving God 2.4 hours of a single day, many Christians gripe and bellyache if a service goes on past 45 minutes to an hour.
In the times that I have visited Roman Catholic churches, there has never been a mass yet that there has been no confession (corporate) of some sort. Now you may be saying the Episcopal church that I attended always did a corporate confession, that is good; this does not happen in every area.
The post on Peter Toon’s explaination should help also.

The same is true for Rite I.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If you read carefully the Rite II, confession before recieving the sacrament IS NOT a requirement, it can be skipped alltogether. Are we not taught to come to the communion rail in a worthy manner? One of the ways we come is through confession. Rite I has the confession incorporated so that it cannot be removed. Where in the Roman Catholic church have you EVER been told to come and recieve the sacrament without confessing? I would say your that your answer would be NEVER.
When I asked my former priest why this was that when we do Rite II we do no confession, his response was that “it is not a requirement and I would hope that persons coming forth would have confessed somewhere during the week.” That is weak thinking my freind and dangerous when a soul is at stake fo we are warned by scripture not to recieve communion in an unworty manner. His side note to me was, “and besides it takes more time.” Are we not supposed to take all the time in the world we need with God? If a tenth of EVERYTHING belongs to God (your tithe) then why do we have a problem giving God 2.4 hours of a single day, many Christians gripe and bellyache if a service goes on past 45 minutes to an hour.
In the times that I have visited Roman Catholic churches, there has never been a mass yet that there has been no confession (corporate) of some sort. Now you may be saying the Episcopal church that I attended always did a corporate confession, that is good; this does not happen in every area.
The post on Peter Toon’s explaination should help also.

Hi Padre,

You’re getting a little too upset IMO over this issue and you also seem to think that I’m a missionary for Rite II. I’m not. I’m a Roman Catholic. And of course I feel the corporate confession of sin is important. But from my Church’s point of view, your corporate confession is inadequate if you are in a state of mortal sin anyway. This would require auricular confession. So, I’m not a door-to-door salesman for Rite II lol…

And you say, “if you read carefully” implying that I don’t. You seem like a good guy, Padre, but if you get to know me here or anywhere, I’m a details guy and I rarely skip a beat. I, of course, know that it says in the Rite II Confession of Sin:

"A Confession of Sin is said here if it has not been said earlier. On occasion, the Confession may be omitted. One of the sentences from the Penitential Order on page 351 may be said

What do I glean from that? Well, the key words are “on occasion” about omitting the confession. That hardly smells of encouragement or neglect. Also, they encourage some sort of penitential rite to at least take its place, and then they also mention that you should have made some sort of confession earlier.

What stake do I have in this? Nothing. I go to a Catholic Mass. But I was an Anglican and still have an affection for them and respect and I must say that in the seven or eight years that I was an Anglican I never heard the confession skipped. I hope you also realize that Anglicanism is not a church like Roman Catholicism with rubrics and liturgical oversight that demands a certain protocal. In Anglicanism, there are provinces, dioceses and churches that take liberties with the BOCP. Some even skip the entire liturgy altogether! Some skip communion, etc. Look at Sydney, Australia where they have lay folks ‘consecrating’ the Eucharist!!? You neglect to see that the Book of Common Prayer never takes itself too seriously. It discusses that diversity in liturgy and form is permissable and acceptable.

Some parishes of a high church sensibility have eucharistic adoration and benediction. Where is that in the BOCP? Some have lay consecration. where is that in the BOCP? As GKC has mentioned, some high church parishes pray for the Roman Pontiff! You sure as heck won’t find that in the prayer book!

The 39 Articles are not even followed by all Anglicans and adherence to them varies from province to province.

Then you also don’t mention that Rite I can be modified if a priest or bishop wishes and they could omit the confession of sin. Don’t just go on what the italic directions say in the prayer book. Keep in mind that the rector makes these decisions on a local level.

By the way, are you Anglican? Your religion says “Protestant” which is very vague.

I think you’re trying to apply absolutes to a denomination that wholeheartedly rejects absolutes and complete liturgical uniformity. But I do appreciate your desire to be penitent and I like your conservative, strong conscience when it comes to sin and worship. It’s to be admired.

 

[Padrej]

Hi Padre,

You’re getting a little too upset IMO over this issue and you also seem to think that I’m a missionary for Rite II. I’m not. I’m a Roman Catholic. And of course I feel the corporate confession of sin is important. But from my Church’s point of view, your corporate confession is inadequate if you are in a state of mortal sin anyway. This would require auricular confession. So, I’m not a door-to-door salesman for Rite II lol…

And you say, “if you read carefully” implying that I don’t. You seem like a good guy, Padre, but if you get to know me here or anywhere, I’m a details guy and I rarely skip a beat. I, of course, know that it says in the Rite II Confession of Sin:

"A Confession of Sin is said here if it has not been said earlier. On occasion, the Confession may be omitted. One of the sentences from the Penitential Order on page 351 may be said

What do I glean from that? Well, the key words are “on occasion” about omitting the confession. That hardly smells of encouragement or neglect. Also, they encourage some sort of penitential rite to at least take its place, and then they also mention that you should have made some sort of confession earlier.

What stake do I have in this? Nothing. I go to a Catholic Mass. But I was an Anglican and still have an affection for them and respect and I must say that in the seven or eight years that I was an Anglican I never heard the confession skipped. I hope you also realize that Anglicanism is not a church like Roman Catholicism with rubrics and liturgical oversight that demands a certain protocal. In Anglicanism, there are provinces, dioceses and churches that take liberties with the BOCP. Some even skip the entire liturgy altogether! Some skip communion, etc. Look at Sydney, Australia where they have lay folks ‘consecrating’ the Eucharist!!? You neglect to see that the Book of Common Prayer never takes itself too seriously. It discusses that diversity in liturgy and form is permissable and acceptable.

Some parishes of a high church sensibility have eucharistic adoration and benediction. Where is that in the BOCP? Some have lay consecration. where is that in the BOCP? As GKC has mentioned, some high church parishes pray for the Roman Pontiff! You sure as heck won’t find that in the prayer book!

The 39 Articles are not even followed by all Anglicans and adherence to them varies from province to province.

Then you also don’t mention that Rite I can be modified if a priest or bishop wishes and they could omit the confession of sin. Don’t just go on what the italic directions say in the prayer book. Keep in mind that the rector makes these decisions on a local level.

By the way, are you Anglican? Your religion says “Protestant” which is very vague.

I think you’re trying to apply absolutes to a denomination that wholeheartedly rejects absolutes and complete liturgical uniformity. But I do appreciate your desire to be penitent and I like your conservative, strong conscience when it comes to sin and worship. It’s to be admired.

I want to address your last couple of points first when you ask, “Are you Anglican?” I kept my religion vague to lower my visibility some. I am an Anglican Bishop, if that answers your question. I do not tolerate in my diocese non confession before communion BOTH personal AND corporate. So thank you for the compliment on “being conservative and the desire to be penitent and the strong conscience when it comes to sin and worship”

To this point:
*And of course I feel the corporate confession of sin is important. But from my Church’s point of view, your corporate confession is inadequate if you are in a state of mortal sin anyway. This would require auricular confession. *
May I humbly point out to you that in your own church ther are some diocese which are more tolerant of “mortal sin” than others. For example, you can have certain polititians who openly vote for abortion that the Roman Catholic church is squarely against and yet in some diocese these persons are given communion while in others they would be denied. In SanFrancisco the RCC is more tolerant of the homosexual community so much so that blatant cross-dressers came into the service with the Cardinal and were given communion. This would not happen in some more conservative diocese. It would be obvious that these said persons intend to continue in the lifestyle and voting patterns they are accustomed to so in my study of what makes a sacrament valid (form, matter and intention) the “auricular” confession you speak of would be of no effect.

The point that I am trying to make is that when ANY person comes forth to recieve the communion, the priest does not know if they have confessed via private confession thus if corporate confession is given at least there would be what would amount to a conditional pardon until the person could go to a private confession. Take for example Fr. Corby at the Battle of Gettysburg gave the Irish brigade this same type of absolution so that if they died in battle at least they would have had some form of absolution given. No religion is perfect so it is small wonder that the Bible tells us that each has to work his own salvation with fear and trembling. In short, We have to take it on faith that the person comming forth has confessed. Now if the person comming forth we know if a “notorious sinner” then it is a different ballgame.

I have also been in some Roman Catholic churches however that the priest’s attitude was “give it to everyone and let God sort it out.” (Those were his exact words) To me this attitude towards the sacrament of communion is going too far. I have, in my part of the country, been seing this trend amongst Roman Catholic clergy. The question them becomes, “who then is more at fault, the sinner coming forth who doesn’t know he/she shouldn’t be recieving or the priest who knows better?” Once again, this may not be the case where YOU are, as I said in my previous post in regard to confession of ye of detail orientation.

I think many would be shocked to know that there are Methodist conferences in the midwest that use the old Latin mass for communion in some of their churches. What makes Christianity work is that we can come together with our differences and stop the petty bickering over who is right and worship and exalt Jesus Christ because anything else would not be of God.

BTW I also served an Anglo catholic parrish at one time that used the catechism of the Roman Catholic church as its foundation and not the 39 articles as found in the prayer book.
To clarify, I am not upset over rite II, what upsets me is there are some parrishes that are blatant in disregard of sin and confession alltogether and this should not happen.

 

[hed11125]

Corporate reunion between the Catholic Church and the Anglicans can only be realized
by Anglicanism admitting that there “religion” is eroneous,non-biblical,disobediant,has no
basis in truth,has abandoned and rejected the only TRUE RELIGION because their leader,
and founder Henry VIII through arrogance and pride did not get A divorce and thus had
multiple marriages(and had several of them killed).It’s impossible for them to merge on
an equal basis as though both are valid,as say A merger between Ford and General
Motors. Anglicanism is by it’s very nature is INVALID. How can A religion,with
condradictory doctrines, such as High and Low Church and condemning the Mass as
blasphemous as Henry and his “bishops” did for 120 years and then realize that the Mass
was valid after all be called true and valid ? Apostolic succesion and A valid priesthood
was broken.Any "religion that breaks from The Bark Of Peter is INVALID PERIOD.
However the Holy Father can overlook this fact and accept reunion but the anglican
church cannot escape it’s erroneous past. Remember, A TRUE CHURCH is
INFALLIBLE. Anglicanism can in no way fit this description.
Henry(not the Nineth) D.

 

[GKC]

Corporate reunion between the Catholic Church and the Anglicans can only be realized
by Anglicanism admitting that there “religion” is eroneous,non-biblical,disobediant,has no
basis in truth,has abandoned and rejected the only TRUE RELIGION because their leader,
and founder Henry VIII through arrogance and pride did not get A divorce and thus had
multiple marriages(and had several of them killed).It’s impossible for them to merge on
an equal basis as though both are valid,as say A merger between Ford and General
Motors. Anglicanism is by it’s very nature is INVALID. How can A religion,with
condradictory doctrines, such as High and Low Church and condemning the Mass as
blasphemous as Henry and his “bishops” did for 120 years and then realize that the Mass
was valid after all be called true and valid ? Apostolic succesion and A valid priesthood
was broken.Any "religion that breaks from The Bark Of Peter is INVALID PERIOD.
However the Holy Father can overlook this fact and accept reunion but the anglican
church cannot escape it’s erroneous past. Remember, A TRUE CHURCH is
INFALLIBLE. Anglicanism can in no way fit this description.
Henry(not the Nineth) D.

Decree of nullity.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I want to address your last couple of points first when you ask, “Are you Anglican?” I kept my religion vague to lower my visibility some. I am an Anglican Bishop, if that answers your question. I do not tolerate in my diocese non confession before communion BOTH personal AND corporate. So thank you for the compliment on “being conservative and the desire to be penitent and the strong conscience when it comes to sin and worship”

To this point:
*And of course I feel the corporate confession of sin is important. But from my Church’s point of view, your corporate confession is inadequate if you are in a state of mortal sin anyway. This would require auricular confession. *
May I humbly point out to you that in your own church ther are some diocese which are more tolerant of “mortal sin” than others. For example, you can have certain polititians who openly vote for abortion that the Roman Catholic church is squarely against and yet in some diocese these persons are given communion while in others they would be denied. In SanFrancisco the RCC is more tolerant of the homosexual community so much so that blatant cross-dressers came into the service with the Cardinal and were given communion. This would not happen in some more conservative diocese. It would be obvious that these said persons intend to continue in the lifestyle and voting patterns they are accustomed to so in my study of what makes a sacrament valid (form, matter and intention) the “auricular” confession you speak of would be of no effect.

The point that I am trying to make is that when ANY person comes forth to recieve the communion, the priest does not know if they have confessed via private confession thus if corporate confession is given at least there would be what would amount to a conditional pardon until the person could go to a private confession. Take for example Fr. Corby at the Battle of Gettysburg gave the Irish brigade this same type of absolution so that if they died in battle at least they would have had some form of absolution given. No religion is perfect so it is small wonder that the Bible tells us that each has to work his own salvation with fear and trembling. In short, We have to take it on faith that the person comming forth has confessed. Now if the person comming forth we know if a “notorious sinner” then it is a different ballgame.

I have also been in some Roman Catholic churches however that the priest’s attitude was “give it to everyone and let God sort it out.” (Those were his exact words) To me this attitude towards the sacrament of communion is going too far. I have, in my part of the country, been seing this trend amongst Roman Catholic clergy. The question them becomes, “who then is more at fault, the sinner coming forth who doesn’t know he/she shouldn’t be recieving or the priest who knows better?” Once again, this may not be the case where YOU are, as I said in my previous post in regard to confession of ye of detail orientation.

I think many would be shocked to know that there are Methodist conferences in the midwest that use the old Latin mass for communion in some of their churches. What makes Christianity work is that we can come together with our differences and stop the petty bickering over who is right and worship and exalt Jesus Christ because anything else would not be of God.

BTW I also served an Anglo catholic parrish at one time that used the catechism of the Roman Catholic church as its foundation and not the 39 articles as found in the prayer book.
To clarify, I am not upset over rite II, what upsets me is there are some parrishes that are blatant in disregard of sin and confession alltogether and this should not happen.

Well, bishop, I cannot disagree with you at all in anything you say here. I agree wholeheartedly that contrition, confession, and a strong conscience is important in worship. And I applaud you for being an Anglican bishop in these trying times. God bless you. I cannot imagine the stress and energy it takes in these times of realignment. The Anglican Church is searching, trying to rediscover itself right now and I wish it well. I’m not a Catholic who wishes doom and gloom on this denomination to get converts to mine. I truly hope it works. I’m cynical about the weak stance the ACNA has on women’s ordination and their refusal to debate it and tackle it head-on. That issue will rise again here down the road and the bishops will be forced to deal with it.

You’re correct on your points about Catholicism not being consistent from place to place. You’d be surprised, though, about San Francisco. Big Giants fan here BTW so watch it! LOL…seriously, though, I have attended Mass there many times and it was more orthodox than I thought. The bishop there has caught hell for his statements against homosexuality in recent years. The City of San Francisco actually condemned the Catholic Church there as a hate group a couple years back. The City itself issued a statement of condemnation. Absurd. I’ve been to confession in churches in SF and the priests were by no means milk toasts with me! But I went to a Mass in Morro Bay, CA one time where I truly thought I was in a Ringling Brothers Circus. Oh boy, that’s a long story.

All denominations have parishes that are true to the faith and liberal fringe dioceses. It happens to us all. You’re right. You mentioned the “let God sort it out” thinking. Oddly enough, that’s word for word what Archbishop Bob Duncan said about women’s ordination in the new ACNA province. He said it was one issue that shouldn’t divide Anglicans and we’ll just agree to disagree until God sorts it out. That made me really shrug my shoulders! lol:shrug:

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Corporate reunion between the Catholic Church and the Anglicans can only be realized
by Anglicanism admitting that there “religion” is eroneous,non-biblical,disobediant,has no
basis in truth,has abandoned and rejected the only TRUE RELIGION because their leader,
and founder Henry VIII through arrogance and pride did not get A divorce and thus had
multiple marriages(and had several of them killed).It’s impossible for them to merge on
an equal basis as though both are valid,as say A merger between Ford and General
Motors. Anglicanism is by it’s very nature is INVALID. How can A religion,with
condradictory doctrines, such as High and Low Church and condemning the Mass as
blasphemous as Henry and his “bishops” did for 120 years and then realize that the Mass
was valid after all be called true and valid ? Apostolic succesion and A valid priesthood
was broken.Any "religion that breaks from The Bark Of Peter is INVALID PERIOD.
However the Holy Father can overlook this fact and accept reunion but the anglican
church cannot escape it’s erroneous past. Remember, A TRUE CHURCH is
INFALLIBLE. Anglicanism can in no way fit this description.
Henry(not the Nineth) D.

Wow, Hed, so how do you really feel? LOL:shrug:

Your analysis is over-the-top and a half. Our Catholic Catechism teaches that all religions contain some of the truth of God. Anglicanism is in so many ways a separated brother of the Church. They are not, IMO, invalid, false, and as horrific as you portray it. Anglicanism contains a love for the Eucharist, a love for the Scriptures, an emphasis on apostolic succession, has a lovely lovely liturgy that’s unbeatable in my book when it comes to verbage, and your analysis of their invalidity with their succession has some holes in it. For one thing, Apostolicae Curae is not very compelling for me and many other folks and secondly, the co-consecrations with the Old Catholic Polish bishops known as the “Dutch Touch” early in the twentieth century would mitigate Apostolicae Curae’s declaration of invalid orders.

Your statement that the entire church is based on Henry’s divorce is also not entirely the case in that the Anglican Church is more based on the developments during Edward VI and Elizabeth I’s reigns as monarchs, not Henry’s. Henry VIII was a status quo king. Although he broke the church off from the papacy, he kept it in Latin, retained devotions to the Virgin, incense, the priesthood, Lent, and every other facet of the Church remained. The Church you so obviously detest was the work of Cranmer, Ridley, and company during the proceding years. And the divorce was the catalyst but really there was a church in England before the papal jurisdiction took place and there was a growing desire in England to reform the church anyway. If it wasn’t Henry doing the removing, it would’ve taken place eventually most likely. I would also look at the politics of the day if I were you. Henry’s desire for an annulment fit the profile for many annulments that were easily granted in his day. But because of his wife being the sister of the king of the Holy Roman Empire, the pope was not about to “go there.” That’s not to say Henry’s behavior through the years was by any means civilized or palatable, but it is important to look at the politics.

If your aim is truly to get Anglicans back to Rome, your post is so abrasive, harsh, and lacks any positive outlook on Anglicanism that it’s only going to breed bad feelings. Your post basically says ‘the only way for these Anglicans to reconcile to Rome is to kneel down, cast away every single belief they own, and embrace the papacy lock, stock, and barrel. No quarter!’ When I was an Anglican, this kind of post wouldn’t have led me home.

 

[GKC]

Wow, Hed, so how do you really feel? LOL:shrug:

Your analysis is over-the-top and a half. Our Catholic Catechism teaches that all religions contain some of the truth of God. Anglicanism is in so many ways a separated brother of the Church. They are not, IMO, invalid, false, and as horrific as you portray it. Anglicanism contains a love for the Eucharist, a love for the Scriptures, an emphasis on apostolic succession, has a lovely lovely liturgy that’s unbeatable in my book when it comes to verbage, and your analysis of their invalidity with their succession has some holes in it. For one thing, Apostolicae Curae is not very compelling for me and many other folks and secondly, the co-consecrations with the Old Catholic Polish bishops known as the “Dutch Touch” early in the twentieth century would mitigate Apostolicae Curae’s declaration of invalid orders.

Your statement that the entire church is based on Henry’s divorce is also not entirely the case in that the Anglican Church is more based on the developments during Edward VI and Elizabeth I’s reigns as monarchs, not Henry’s. Henry VIII was a status quo king. Although he broke the church off from the papacy, he kept it in Latin, retained devotions to the Virgin, incense, the priesthood, Lent, and every other facet of the Church remained. The Church you so obviously detest was the work of Cranmer, Ridley, and company during the proceding years. And the divorce was the catalyst but really there was a church in England before the papal jurisdiction took place and there was a growing desire in England to reform the church anyway. If it wasn’t Henry doing the removing, it would’ve taken place eventually most likely. I would also look at the politics of the day if I were you. Henry’s desire for an annulment fit the profile for many annulments that were easily granted in his day. But because of his wife being the sister of the king of the Holy Roman Empire, the pope was not about to “go there.” That’s not to say Henry’s behavior through the years was by any means civilized or palatable, but it is important to look at the politics.

If your aim is truly to get Anglicans back to Rome, your post is so abrasive, harsh, and lacks any positive outlook on Anglicanism that it’s only going to breed bad feelings. Your post basically says ‘the only way for these Anglicans to reconcile to Rome is to kneel down, cast away every single belief they own, and embrace the papacy lock, stock, and barrel. No quarter!’ When I was an Anglican, this kind of post wouldn’t have led me home.

Catherine was Charles’ aunt.

GKC