Will a lifeline be accepted by struggling Anglicans

[Padrej]

It is because this sort of instance is now institutionalized that I must refer to TE"C" as an anti-church.

And it is also for this reason that Traditional Anglicans in America need to stop fighting amongst themselves and work together to become the effective force that is needed to gain the trust of the faithful remnant that are still seeking the alternative to what they presently have. Would you want to go to a church where the priest/bishop is continually attacking the TEC or some other continuing Anglican?
The same goes for Roman Catholics, if they want to offer a haven, they do not need to attack us as being non this or that but rather welcome us as a person seeking a relationship with Christ. (last I checked this IS what this thread is about)
I have stopped counting how many Traditional Anglican meetings that I have gone to that I have heard more preached on how apostate the Episcopal Church is and less about how to BE a better person in Christ that it makes me sick. At least that is one thing that most of the Episcopal Churches get right once many of us leave, they label us as either “out of communion” or “schismatic” and then they are done, they don’t keep bantering on about how anti the other is.

 

[jordananglo]

And it is also for this reason that Traditional Anglicans in America need to stop fighting amongst themselves and work together to become the effective force that is needed to gain the trust of the faithful remnant that are still seeking the alternative to what they presently have. Would you want to go to a church where the priest/bishop is continually attacking the TEC or some other continuing Anglican?
The same goes for Roman Catholics, if they want to offer a haven, they do not need to attack us as being non this or that but rather welcome us as a person seeking a relationship with Christ. (last I checked this IS what this thread is about)
I have stopped counting how many Traditional Anglican meetings that I have gone to that I have heard more preached on how apostate the Episcopal Church is and less about how to BE a better person in Christ that it makes me sick. At least that is one thing that most of the Episcopal Churches get right once many of us leave, they label us as either “out of communion” or “schismatic” and then they are done, they don’t keep bantering on about how anti the other is.

Padrej, The sentiment you give here is admirable, and there is nothing there I disagree with in principle. The practical difficulty is that once a group of people have decided that the thing they were doing is wrong, and this is no longer who they are, it does not give a clear recipe as to what they are for and where they are going. Consequently, you have a number of very lovely people trying to become better Christians, but who are effectively isolated from the rest of the Christian world. Does not being better Christians also mean engaging with our Lord’s wish that we may all be one?

In the spirit that all politics is local, let me give an example from my humble little parish. It is a `continuing Anglican’ parish of the TAC jurisdiction. It is also the only continuing Anglican parish in the area, and consequently we get all sorts. All agree that TE"C" is obviously heretical, so we are all against that. I guess about half are vocally in favor of the leadership’s decision to appeal to Rome. Most just go about their lives and don’t think much about it (fairly typical across all groups of people). However, we have some from a clearly protestant background (within the Anglican tradition), and even a founding member of the parish who has referred to the Pope (as an office) as the Anti-Christ. There is disunity there, but I expect that every parish in every church has its share of dissenters on just about everything.

This is meant as an illustration of my assertion above that agreement against, does not imply agreement for. Consequently, should some path present itself as a way forward regarding the petition to Rome, we will lose at least some members.

Christ says he comes to bring not peace, but a sword.

 

[Cinette]

While I agree with the thrust of your post, not all Continuing Anglicans, including those of the Anglo-Catholic persuasion, would make the move, even given an opening from the Holy Father, under any scenario I could imagine.

GKC

Why?

 

[GKC]

Why?

Because being Anglo-Catholic doesn’t necessarily mean (indeed, implies) not accepting or affirming all that the RCC requires. Now, there such a thing as an Anglo-Papalist, but that’s complicated issue.

GKC

 

[querying]

While I won’t argue that querying is on a level of fear and hatred unlike anybody on this forum, I do see a lot of anger from gurney directed towards TEC. I just assume that those feelings are personal because of the way he feels he was treated when he was an episcopalian by the national leadership. I doubt that gurney will voice the same level of disgust when ELCA approves the same practices that TEC did.

This isn’t an attack on gurney, just an observation. All of us carry things with us from our experiences and I admit that I too react emotionally against RCs that I deem to be pharisaical or ultramontanist.

Varc, please don’t presume to be able to discern my inner emotions.

I have no **“fear” **towards the Anglican social club. None at all. They are disintegrating faster than Ted Kennedy’s bones.

As for my harsh words towards Anglicanism, I will back off. Why?

Because I shouldn’t really care that there about individuals who are happy to dam their souls for the sake of preserving an English elitist racist culture within their “church”. You’ll have to answer to it come judgement day, not me.

I am no officially “detached” from issues about your social club although I will continue to comment on the wreck that it is.

 

[querying]

What this boils down to is that it’s OK to be mean, unfair, and vitriolic when talking about a group you dislike, but not when talking about a group for which you still have some nostalgia. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Reading querying’s posts should give you some sense of how we members of the doddering old Episcopal Church feel when you lash out at us so viciously. Querying is right to be puzzled by your stance.

** I find your lack of consistency and your inability to put yourself in other people’s shoes rather puzzling myself. **

It’s like my grandmother who thought that anyone who didn’t live up to her strict Holiness standards of dress and behavior was worldly and decadent, but anyone who had even stricter standards was insufferably legalistic. Can it really be true that divine Truth is so precisely attuned to the sensibilities of one person? Shouldn’t you try to show the same charity to those you consider vile liberal heretics that you expect from those who think you and your beloved conservative Anglicans are vile liberal heretics?

Edwin

Thank you for being objective enough to see this. I do despise all things anglican. Gurney despises all things Episcopalians.

We’re both entitled to our views.

Moving on, it is interesting that none of the Anglicans on this board have touched on the reality that my experience within an anglican college was not a one off, as I’ve posted numerous posts from others echoing my experiences. Unfortunately, the thread I posted has been removed, but I’m sure most of you read the past posts I copied and pasted onto that thread.

Why do you not address the major defects within your social club which I have pointed out? Do you think apologising on the behalf on those who wronged me covers up the numerous instances where this is happening within anglican circles?

Catholics are very vocal about addressing liturgical abuses etc etc but anglicans aren’t very forthcoming about the caucasian affirming elitist environment which is inherent and very noticeable in their social clubs and schools.

Why is that?

 

[GKC]

Thank you for being objective enough to see this. I do despise all things anglican. Gurney despises all things Episcopalians.

We’re both entitled to our views.

Moving on, it is interesting that none of the Anglicans on this board have touched on the reality that my experience within an anglican college was not a one off, as I’ve posted numerous posts from others echoing my experiences. Unfortunately, the thread I posted has been removed, but I’m sure most of you read the past posts I copied and pasted onto that thread.

Why do you not address the major defects within your social club which I have pointed out? Do you think apologising on the behalf on those who wronged me covers up the numerous instances where this is happening within anglican circles?

Catholics are very vocal about addressing liturgical abuses etc etc but anglicans aren’t very forthcoming about the caucasian affirming elitist environment which is inherent and very noticeable in their social clubs and schools.

Why is that?

Give some examples of what you experienced. Relate it to Caucasian affirming and elitism, and to a social club, specifically, as it impacted you.

GKC

 

[querying]

Give some examples of what you experienced. Relate it to Caucasian affirming and elitism, and to a social club, specifically, as it impacted you.

GKC

Must I repeat myself?

And must I repost the numerous posts from old threads from caucasians noticing this issue within your social club?

Please don’t play dumb.

 

[GKC]

Must I repeat myself?

And must I repost the numerous posts from old threads from caucasians noticing this issue within your social club?

Please don’t play dumb.

Your choice, to make your case or not. As it is the choice of the readers to assume that whatever went on, with respect to your experiences, occurred as much in your mind as anywhere else. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

GKC

 

[querying]

Your choice, to make your case or not. As it is the choice of the readers to assume that whatever went on, with respect to your experiences, occurred as much in your mind as anywhere else. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

GKC

Did you or did you not read the pasted comments of other members about their experiences within anglican circles/social clubs on the “why are people anglican if it is fabricated” thread.

I’m pretty certain you did.

Address that, or just be honest enough to concede that you could care less if what others and I say about your social club is true. I’d respect you for at least showing some integrity.

 

[GKC]

Did you or did you not read the pasted comments of other members about their experiences within anglican circles/social clubs on the “why are people anglican if it is fabricated” thread.

I’m pretty certain you did.

Address that, or just be honest enough to concede that you could care less if what others and I say about your social club is true. I’d respect you for at least showing some integrity.

Yes I read that thread. I participated on the original thread from which you c&p’ed the posts you did. But I’m talking to you, who purports to be a victim of these things, and asking what happened to you.

And how in the world did you have interactions with the Continuing Anglican movement in Great Britain?

GKC

 

[Justy90]

Great article about the possibility of Anglican communion with the Church.
catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=34217

Quote from the website:
At the centre of my friend’s Christianity is public worship, and (so far as I can judge from many conversations with him) the main reason he did not leave the Church of England is that he could not accept the claims of a Church which did not get its worship right. His objection was not to Vatican II, but to a casual approach to the celebration of Mass that made it harder to believe in the unique universal status of the Roman Church.

Does anybody see hope for Anglican communion? Will the Church breath with both lungs as John Paul the Great hoped for?

It absolutely will carry on. Check out the ACNA and what is happening with it. Every church needs a Reformation including Catholicism. Whether it gets it or not is another issue.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

It absolutely will carry on. Check out the ACNA and what is happening with it. Every church needs a Reformation including Catholicism. Whether it gets it or not is another issue.

and by what authority or what basis do you have to make the claim that every Church needs a reformation?

 

[Justy90]

and by what authority or what basis do you have to make the claim that every Church needs a reformation?

By the authority of Scripture that tells us that all have fallen short of God’s grace. We are all human and subject to error. All churches run off course sooner or later and need to be reformed.

 

[chris_molter]

By the authority of Scripture that tells us that all have fallen short of God’s grace. We are all human and subject to error. All churches run off course sooner or later and need to be reformed.

How can we know any particular ‘reformation’ is a correcting action and isn’t moving the whole enterprise further afield? Scripture? Great… who’s interpretation? Luther’s? Zwingli’s? Calvin’s? Hooker’s? Melanchthon’s? Erasmus’?

All subject to error, yes? Then how can we know, with certainty (Luther’s favorite thing), that their interpretation is correct, as opposed to another Reformer who acts as though their interpretation is infallible as well?

Or must we live knowing that what we believe today could be a grave error to be reformed by a later reformer? (leading again to the first question)

 

[Contarini]

It absolutely will carry on. Check out the ACNA and what is happening with it. Every church needs a Reformation

Like we need multiple gunshot wounds and death by asphyxiation.

It is precisely the fact that the ACNA looks too much like the Reformation that makes me wary of it.

When will we learn that the Reformation was the wrong path, and only by repenting of it can we begin to heal the wounds of Christendom?

Edwin

 

[Justy90]

How can we know any particular ‘reformation’ is a correcting action and isn’t moving the whole enterprise further afield? Scripture? Great… who’s interpretation? Luther’s? Zwingli’s? Calvin’s? Hooker’s? Melanchthon’s? Erasmus’?

All subject to error, yes? Then how can we know, with certainty (Luther’s favorite thing), that their interpretation is correct, as opposed to another Reformer who acts as though their interpretation is infallible as well?

Or must we live knowing that what we believe today could be a grave error to be reformed by a later reformer? (leading again to the first question)

Maybe all have been given a degree of discernment and maybe the Catholic church has been given some itself as well. I think that this is much more intellectual and spiritual than merely attempting to paint one’s self as the one and only Church Christ founded while all others have walked separate

 

[Justy90]

Like we need multiple gunshot wounds and death by asphyxiation.

It is precisely the fact that the ACNA looks too much like the Reformation that makes me wary of it.

When will we learn that the Reformation was the wrong path, and only by repenting of it can we begin to heal the wounds of Christendom?

Edwin

I respectfully do not share your viewpoint.

 

[chris_molter]

Maybe all have been given a degree of discernment and maybe the Catholic church has been given some itself as well. I think that this is much more intellectual and spiritual than merely attempting to paint one’s self as the one and only Church Christ founded while all others have walked separate

I don’t think we should care about being intellectual or spiritual. We ought only to care about being faithful and what is true. If the authority in my Church cannot teach me the faith handed down with absolute certainty of its truth claims, then all I am taught to believe is subject to revision in the future.

Whatever faith that is, it is not the faith of the Apostles. You can either have certainty that your Church teaches the truth (within the epistemic limits it claims for itself, as the Church of the first centuries did), or you must admit that you cannot trust your Church to teach truth irreformably, and therefore you do not belong to the same Church which came into being at Pentecost, called the ecumenical councils, defined the canon of scripture and the doctrine of the Trinity, etc.

Also, the Catholic Church’s views on Christians outside her visible structure are a bit more nuanced (intellectual and spiritual, if you will) than the black and white dichotomy presented above.

 

[Justy90]

I don’t think we should care about being intellectual or spiritual. We ought only to care about being faithful and what is true. If the authority in my Church cannot teach me the faith handed down with absolute certainty of its truth claims, then all I am taught to believe is subject to revision in the future.

Whatever faith that is, it is not the faith of the Apostles. You can either have certainty that your Church teaches the truth (within the epistemic limits it claims for itself, as the Church of the first centuries did), or you must admit that you cannot trust your Church to teach truth irreformably, and therefore you do not belong to the same Church which came into being at Pentecost, called the ecumenical councils, defined the canon of scripture and the doctrine of the Trinity, etc.

And how do you arrive at position of that being soley your Catholic church?

I don’t agree. If the Catechism states that there is no Salvation outside the Catholic church (which it does state), then why would it be the least bit important to look at the
intellectual and spiritual aspects of other Christian faiths? The truth is that the Catholic church couldn’t give two hoots about what anyone else is doing or saying.