Will a lifeline be accepted by struggling Anglicans

[Contarini]

I
Why are so many threads dedicated to such a “nobody” Church on a Catholic forum?

The question that intrigues me is why you would characterize us as a “nobody Church,” and why, as a Christian, you think that being “nobody” is a bad thing.

The main reason I am uncomfortable as an Episcopalian is that we are very definitely *not *a “nobody” church. We have historically been the church of many of the “somebodies” in American history, in spite of our relatively small numbers. I don’t think that’s a point in our favor, by the way.

Many of us are here precisely because we are very close to Catholicism in belief and practice. Perhaps some of us come here to be reminded of all the reasons why we are not quite willing to submit unconditionally to the Bishop of Rome. You might reasonably ask why your fellow Catholics are so obsessed with us, but the reasons why there are so many of us here are quite obvious.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Why does so much time and threads get dedicated to discussing the ever obsolete Anglicans?

I’m not sure what you mean by “obsolete.” Since I do not worship the Great Idol of Progress, I do not consider “obsolete” a particularly relevant way of talking about Christian traditions.

Their Church is nothing but a big social club

No, at the very least we are an “ecclesial community” where the Sacrament of baptism is celebrated, where the Word is preached, and where Christians have fellowship together as members (if imperfectly so) of Christ’s Body. I am describing your Church’s official view of us. Obviously we think that a bit more than that is going on.

led by the spirit of typical white middle class relativism, where the topic of their day in Church is how fancy their Church looks, and where they’ll be sending little Tommy and Sally for vacation next year.

I’m not sure what kind of spies you have reporting to you what goes on in our churches, but I suggest that you ought to fire them and get some better ones. In my own congregation we have many more interesting things to talk about.

Mormons, I respect, for they have been very effective in fighting homosexual marriage. Evangelicals I respect, for they have been very effective in the pro life movement- moreso than Catholics, if you ask me.

The above groups bring something to the table, which is making the world a better place

This is rather ironic. You seem to have adopted an essentially liberal understanding of what matters in Christianity–precisely what we often get accused of! Christianity is not just about making the world a better place. It is about worshiping Jesus Christ, about hearing the Word, about celebrating the sacraments. But apparently those things don’t matter to you. Nor do the many ways in which Anglicans work to make the world a better place. Only two of them (one of which is unquestionably of high priority–stopping the slaughter of the unborn–and the other a bit more dubious) seem to matter to you.

You need a richer vision of your own Faith. Then perhaps you would not feel compelled to insult and demean your fellow Christians.

Can we please focus on Christians who actually act like Christians, and don’t cater to practicing homosexuals/transsexuals/transvestites/butch feminazi’s/ pro abortionists ________ ((name removed by moderator)ut any other group of people whose activity, according to the NT has stated unequivocally will warrant them death in the next life)

And thus with whom Jesus associated when He was walking around among us.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

What is so awful about this liturgy, what is so Star Wars about

The “Star Wars” remark refers to Eucharistic Prayer C. I have yet to hear anyone point out what is substantively wrong with this prayer, but admittedly it does reek of the 70s in certain respects. It’s not my favorite, but I’ve warmed to it a bit over the years.

Edwin

 

[querying]

I happen to be a Roman Catholic and a former Anglican and I am appauled by your post from beginning to end. It is uncharitable, nasty, condescending, and accomplishes nothing but blast Anglicans as an irrelevent and worthless group of people.

No more uncharitable than your numerous spiteful posts about Episcopalians- yes I was quite entertained by the “take no prisoners” approach you displayed so brilliantly when debating the Episcopalian social club with Spiritmeadow. Or have you forgotten those insults you flung?

Pot, kettle, black…

You obviously don’t know much about Anglicanism to paint them with the insanely broad brush you use here.

I know more than enough about that social club. I attended college for one year in one of their so called “Christian” schools.

Why did the various dioceces from all over the U.S. and Canada just break off from the Episcopal Church and merge into a new province, the ACNA? The main issue WAS homosexuality and their frustration and outrage that this sinful lifestyle has been embraced and finally given a stamp of approval by Episcopalians. These folks DON’T want to be Episcopalians anymore but rather Anglicans more true to their heritage morally.

They can break apart and form as many new unions as much as they want. They will eventually fail, as you yourself have conceded in the last few pages.

Also, if you bothered to pay attention you’d notice that the ACNA is officially pro-life and adopted a 100% pro-life stance in their charter at the convention kick-off.

Sure they are. I bet they overlook abortificient contraceptives when they profess their “pro life” loyalty.

Also, the feminazis (someone’s been listening to a little too much Rush Limbaugh here!)

I reside in the UK- there is no Rush over here.

lost some power with ACNA that they had in TEC. They are limited to being ordained in 6 out of 28 dioceses.

That even one diocese is ordaining women priests is an abomination.

There are many Anglican provinces and dioceses that are opposed to the gay agenda. Archbishop Greg Venables in South America is another notable.

Some individuals are opposed to homosexuality- yet they cannot, with any authority, stand up and claim that Anglicanism on a whole is opposed to homosexual acts.

Regardless of the plethora of dissidents within Catholicism, the dogma pertaining to human sexuality is unambiguous- and unchangeable.

There is authority and a firm foundation within Catholicism to oppose homosexuality.

Within the Anglican Church, it is all about a democracy voting on what is truth- and deciding upon when to ignore scripture. The last time I looked, objective truth is not dependant on majority consensus.

But that being said, you also ignore Africa, specifically Nigeria, the LARGEST Anglican province in the world membership-wise, and it is HARDCORE ANTI-GAY in its agenda.

CANA, AMIA, continuing Anglicans, Reformed Anglican Church, ACNA, most of Africa, the whole kit and kaboodle are not into this sinful stuff you mention. You are taking the tainted and evil TEC and spreading their sins to the entire communion, which I don’t think is fair.

I am an African, so I’m fully aware of African Anglicans. By their nature, they are more Catholic than most European Catholics, with many not contracepting within marriage. If it was not for Africans sticking to tradition due to comfort, the millions of conservative African Anglicans would have swum the Tiger by now, believe me.

These African Anglicans are simply “Anglican in Name Only”- just like most European and American Catholics are just “Catholic In Name Only”.

But your post claims Anglicans are abortionists, relativist, homosexual supporters, and that they are just frilly and fluffy worrying about “Tommy and Sally’s vacation.” I think you have a lot to learn about Anglicans of a conservative brand and you need to stop blending Episcopalians and Anglicans into one fruit salad.

I’ve been amongst them, and all I hear from them is how wonderful their Book of Common Prayer is, how pretty their Church is, and their inner social connections in their church. Never do I hear about salvation of souls, Tradition etc. There is no meat with them- just fluff.

Even listening to the testimonies of some ex Anglicans on this forum who have converted to Catholicism, the repeated phrases I hear are “It was so hard to leave all our friends/ beautiful Churches/ choir group’ etc etc.

All the above is material and worthless in the long goal- which to attain eternal salvation. All the other fluff doesn’t matter.

Keep in mind that there are many pro-abortion Catholics out there :snip:

All the above is irrelevant, as Catholicism is not defined by the behaviour of those who profess to be Catholic, but by the teachings of unchanging dogma. Anglicans have no dogma- heck- they can’t even agree on something as simple as womens ordination- so they leave it down to prudential judgement, which is nothing but a cop out.

Sorry, but their social club has no authority nor any relevance whatsoever.

If Anglicans don’t wish to convert to Catholicism, fine. Go join the Evangelicals- who seem to know what they are doing, and actually give something useful to the Christian body and to the world.

 

[querying]

Episcopalians/Anglicans have always had different doctrinal beliefs and have stayed one until the last 30 years or so. Yes the Episcopal church has gone by the way side, but many have had to leave what they considered their faith community for years.

It is really very sad for them, it is like they are in limbo right now searching for a place where their beliefs will be substained without further division. Instead of condemning them, let us pray that they find the place where our Lord wants them to be.

We have our own problems and can thank God that we have Peter to lead us and keep the faith pure and true.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

My understanding of definition of the word doctrine is non negotiable beliefs which are to be assented to by believers. Anglicans don’t even have that- although Evangelicals for the most part do.

Their whole structure is run by majority consensus and democratic voting on the truth- never mind even the simple (but flawed) concept of sola scripture.

 

[querying]

The question that intrigues me is why you would characterize us as a “nobody Church,” and why, as a Christian, you think that being “nobody” is a bad thing.

Because your produce nothing relevant and substantial to the Christian body.

We have historically been the church of many of the “somebodies” in American history, in spite of our relatively small numbers. I don’t think that’s a point in our favor, by the way.

The operative word being “have been”. Not of recent have you produced anyone or anything of substance that actually relates to or aides the ultimate Christian mission- which is to attain salvation and avoid hell.

Many of us are here precisely because we are very close to Catholicism in belief and practice.

**No you are not. **

Your style- music, layout of your service is similar to the RC’s- but your **substance **certainly isn’t.

Substance always trumps style.

Perhaps some of us come here to be reminded of all the reasons why we are not quite willing to submit unconditionally to the Bishop of Rome.

Very well. You’ve been reminded why you won’t judge ship after being a member of CA for 4 years.

What next???

What exactly are you searching for??

 

[querying]

I’m not sure what you mean by “obsolete.” Since I do not worship the Great Idol of Progress, I do not consider “obsolete” a particularly relevant way of talking about Christian traditions.

Again, your white middle class social club- aka “church” is obsolete for the following reasons:

1. You produce nothing relevant and substantial to the Christian body.
2. You do not engage in fighting the holocaust of the unborn and the endorsement of homosexuality in all areas of life
3. You vote on Anglican beliefs in a democratic style
4. You happily ignore non negotiable Biblical prohibition of human passions when it fits you, normally when it come to fighting for the perceived “rights” of interest groups.
5. You rarely ever mention the lifelong battle of earning the reward of heaven.

No, at the very least we are an “ecclesial community” where the Sacrament of baptism is celebrated, where the Word is preached, and where Christians have fellowship together as members (if imperfectly so) of Christ’s Body. I am describing your Church’s official view of us. Obviously we think that a bit more than that is going on.

You mean, you preach select extracts of the “Word” which doesn’t condemn homosexual acts or premarital sex . Check.

This is rather ironic. You seem to have adopted an essentially liberal understanding of what matters in Christianity–precisely what we often get accused of! Christianity is not just about making the world a better place. It is about worshiping Jesus Christ, about hearing the Word, about celebrating the sacraments.

Which I’ve mentioned- in particular in regards to the deficit of the things you’ve mentioned being taught in your schools and social clubs.

You need a richer vision of your own Faith. Then perhaps you would not feel compelled to insult and demean your fellow Christians.

Try taking your own advice, and ask yourself if you’re truly in the Church Jesus founded, and what are the odds of you entering heaven in such a deficient Church. Or does your “Anglican history and tradition” take precedence over the real goal of Christianity.

PS- Why are most Anglican Churches population by people with grey hair??

That there are few of my generation attending your social club speaks volumes on how obsolete your social club is.

 

[Contarini]

My understanding of definition of the word doctrine is non negotiable beliefs which are to be assented to by believers. Anglicans don’t even have that-

Sure we do. It’s called the Nicene Creed. True, liberal Anglicans often try to water down what it means for the Creed to be our binding statement of doctrine. But they have a job of work to do in that respect. We have other doctrinal statements, but you’re right that they are generally seen as in some way negotiable. The Creed isn’t.

although Evangelicals for the most part do.

First of all, the early Evangelicals were for the most part Anglicans. The dichotomy between Anglicanism and “Evangelicalism” is silly. In the second place, it’s not true that free-church evangelicals have firmer standards of doctrine than we do. Everything for them really is up for grabs in principle as long as it can somehow be justified from Scripture, and this is becoming increasingly clearer in the non-fundamentalist sectors of free-church evangelicalism.

I admit that the American Episcopal Church had a narrow shave in the late 18th century–there was a move to drop the Nicene Creed. That was an early indicator of the kind of trouble we were in. But this is atypical of worldwide Anglicanism and (thank God) did not succeed.

And by the way, since you live in the UK and come from Africa, what’s all this about democratic consensus? Neither the C of E nor the African Anglican churches are run that way, as far as I know.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The operative word being “have been”. Not of recent have you produced anyone or anything of substance that actually relates to or aides the ultimate Christian mission- which is to attain salvation and avoid hell.

Sure we have. N. T. Wright, Rowan Williams, Fleming Rutledge, J. I. Packer, Madeleine L’Engle, Ephraim Radner–these are just a few theologians, preachers, bishops and writers Anglicanism has produced in my lifetime (i.e., they are either still alive or died very recently) who have contributed greatly to the Church as a whole. They come from very different perspectives, and you may despise some or all of them. That’s your loss.

Oh, and our mission as Christians is not to “avoid hell.” That’s a pretty lame mission. It is to “attain salvation,” but salvation is a lot more than “avoiding hell.” It’s union with God in God’s kingdom.

Your style- music, layout of your service is similar to the RC’s- but your **substance **certainly isn’t.

Trinity, baptism, Eucharist, Scripture, contemplative prayer, the Daily Office, the yearly celebration of the mysteries of Christ, the proclamation of the Resurrection, a witness against war and social injustice–none of these obvious points of contact between our traditions are substantive in your view? What is substance? Does it all boil down to abortion and homosexuality? Is substance really just “right-wing politics” to you? (I am not saying that abortion and sexual morality are just right-wing politics, but the mentality that singles out these two issues and ignores everything else is a mentality warped by right-wing politics, just as a mentality that singles out certain liberal social issues and ignores everything else is a mentality warped by left-wing politics).

Edwin

 

[GKC]

An aside. I think I see a sub theme developing here, which I did not expect.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

1. You do not engage in fighting the holocaust of the unborn and the endorsement of homosexuality in all areas of life

Some of us do. And haven’t you noticed the uproar within Anglicanism over the Episcopal Church’s moves to legitimize homosexuality? What do you think the African Anglican churches are doing if not fighting “the endorsement of homosexuality”?

1. You vote on Anglican beliefs in a democratic style

The early Church voted on doctrinal questions as well. I agree that democracy should not be taken over wholesale as the basis for Church polity, and I think that the Episcopal Church probably errs in that respect–but the C of E and many other Anglican churches throughout the world are far from democratic.

1. You happily ignore non negotiable Biblical prohibition of human passions when it fits you

“Happily”? Again, have you actually been following the news lately? If this is true, why is Anglicanism in an uproar?

1. You rarely ever mention the lifelong battle of earning the reward of heaven.

No doubt some of us do. The Pelagian heresy has made plenty of inroads in our Communion as in yours. But in neither is it officially endorsed. As I’m sure you know, in the Reformation we even accused your Communion of semi-Pelagianism. Statements like yours certainly explain why, and Fr. Cantalamessa admitted several years ago that your Communion has a problem in that respect. But we’re in no position to throw stones.

“Earning the reward of heaven” is impossible. Union with God (not simply “heaven,” which is an unworthy way of describing the goal of Christian hope) is a gift of God’s grace and not something that we earn by our own efforts. That is basic Christian teaching. You should listen to your own Pope more.

You mean, you preach select extracts of the “Word” which doesn’t condemn homosexual acts or premarital sex . Check.

No check. No church (certainly not yours) uses all of Scripture liturgically. I’m not sure which specific passages you are talking about, but Romans 1:26-32 is not used in either the Episcopal lectionary *or *the lectionary of the Roman Catholic Church (I use that term specifically because I have not checked all the Eastern Catholic lectionaries) on a Sunday. It may be in the daily Mass lectionary for all I know. I admit that the Daily Office lectionary of the Episcopal Church misses out vv. 26-27, and that is shameful.

Personal note: I struggled with many of the same stereotypes that you have, and there are things in the Episcopal Church to confirm them. (I don’t have enough experience of the C of E to say whether things are better or worse there, though I can see how they might in fact be worse, much as I’d like to hope that they were better.) But in the end one of the main reasons I stuck with the Episcopal Church was that my local parish was far more orthodox (in terms of the preaching one heard) and far more traditionally Catholic in its emphases than the local RC parish, where one heard a lot about social justice (with which I did not disagree) and very little about the Real Presence or even the Resurrection. Admittedly, that local Episcopal parish no longer exists in the form I knew it (the priest left for one of the “Continuing Anglican” churches). But the parish I currently belong to is also a place where one does hear a lot about Jesus, about sin and redemption, about orthodox Christian moral teaching. You are painting us with a very broad brush. I came to Anglicanism expecting it to be the way you’ve described it. It wouldn’t have taken much to send me away. But the reality is much more complex. The faults you note are there (but your own Communion, in its day-to-day reality, has plenty of faults as well). But they are not the whole picture.

Edwin

 

[rr1213]

The “Star Wars” remark refers to Eucharistic Prayer C. I have yet to hear anyone point out what is substantively wrong with this prayer, but admittedly it does reek of the 70s in certain respects. It’s not my favorite, but I’ve warmed to it a bit over the years.

Edwin

I’d say that the prayer is substantively orthodox, yet liturgically pedestrian. It strives for majesty…for the stars even…yet falls disappointedly down to earth.

 

[jordananglo]

The development of this thread is funny.

It begins with the discussion of the Anglo-Catholics making plans for Tiber swimming of unprecedented proportions together with sympathetic Catholics who are interested in helping and like discussing such matters. In only a page or two, we degenerate into Episcopalians fighting with Catholics who say that Anglicans bring `absolutely nothing to the good of society’.

Oh well, perhaps there’s a lesson in this.

There are many ironies in this story of our lives that are notable.

First, I find that former Anglicans (now RCs) divide into two groupings; one (represented by the Gurney Hallecks of the world) are sympathetic and want to find a way forward for the others in the Anglican world, such as the TAC petition. The second grouping (represented by the Fr. Longeneckers of the world), are violently against any such possibility, and insist that individual conversion’ is the only way to enter communion with the See of Peter. It is ironic that these two camps are both squarely within the orthodox Catholic’ grouping. The liberal Catholics are, of course, even more violently against incorporating groups of people that accept the Catechism.

A further irony is that the informed Catholics who I have found to be most sympathetic to the Anglo-Catholic dilemma are the Tridentine Mass (Extraordinary form) Catholics. I think this is because they deeply understand that Liturgy cannot be separated from doctrine, lex orandi lex credendi. Thus, the Catholics that are most interested and helpful (those who really `get it’) are the Damian Thompsons of the world, and the RORATE CAELI blogs of the world.

In my view, there are two responses to the why don’t you convert individually’ question. The first is well understood by the traditionalist Catholic’, as discussed in the Roman Option:

unavoce.org/uva-archive/the-roman-option-2/

“The path they faced in trying to find a way to join the Church as distinct groups and to preserve their liturgical heritage is both discouraging and highly familiar to traditionalists. At first, they received a warm welcome from Cardinal Hume, and an even warmer welcome in Rome (where their biggest ally was, surprise, surprise, Cardinal Ratzinger). Their ideal goal was an Anglican rite personal prelature. But they quickly realized that this was a non-starter, so they started negotiating for a lesser aim: a canonical structure that would allow them to be catechized and join the Church together, and to continue to worship together after they had joined. Rome was keen for this, and Hume was initially willing. But the English Catholic bishops, egged on by liberals and feminists in the Church who did not want to see 1,000 priests and 50,000 laity loyal to Rome and against women priests enter the Church, balked. What the English Bishops eventually produced was a very watered down statement saying that parishes or groups could join together, but once received they would be absorbed into the mainstream church. The hope of staying together as parishes or keeping elements of Anglican liturgy was more or less crushed. It was join Father Flippant at St. Teilhard de Chardin’s for the Novus Ordo, or nothing.”

The second is perhaps more powerful, and recently uttered by the flying Bishop of Ebbsfleet:

I think the idea of those not in communion with the Holy Father becoming Catholic one by one is, in one sense, a necessary stage in the search for the visible unity of the Church. There are millions of Orthodox, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Salvationists - as well as Anglicans - and we had better start queuing up so it can all happen.

I’m not sure that’s the only model, however. Discussions between East and West and between the Church and different ecclesial communities have always presumed that groups exist and that such groups can be reconciled. There must too be an element of that in the greater ecumenism, as different religions engage in the search for what we Christians believe to be God the Logos, the Word, the Truth and the Life … to talk down group movements - what I call ‘caravanning’ - is, I believe, to underestimate both the power of the Holy Spirit and the determination of the Holy See to do more than say ‘queue up one by one’ and ditch your treasures.

So let us pray that, amidst Anglican disintegration, God does something wonderful and unexpected - and indeed enables each of us to make the journey he has in mind for us, separately and together.

• Andrew Ebbsfleet (Provincial Episcopal Visitor to some very lovely priests, parishes and people, some courageous, some fearful)

When further prompted as to what `treasures’ he was referring to, he replied, the treasures of St. Lawrence.

 

[GKC]

The development of this thread is funny.

It begins with the discussion of the Anglo-Catholics making plans for Tiber swimming of unprecedented proportions together with sympathetic Catholics who are interested in helping and like discussing such matters. In only a page or two, we degenerate into Episcopalians fighting with Catholics who say that Anglicans bring `absolutely nothing to the good of society’.

Oh well, perhaps there’s a lesson in this.

There are many ironies in this story of our lives that are notable.

First, I find that former Anglicans (now RCs) divide into two groupings; one (represented by the Gurney Hallecks of the world) are sympathetic and want to find a way forward for the others in the Anglican world, such as the TAC petition. The second grouping (represented by the Fr. Longeneckers of the world), are violently against any such possibility, and insist that individual conversion’ is the only way to enter communion with the See of Peter. It is ironic that these two camps are both squarely within the orthodox Catholic’ grouping. The liberal Catholics are, of course, even more violently against incorporating groups of people that accept the Catechism.

A further irony is that the informed Catholics who I have found to be most sympathetic to the Anglo-Catholic dilemma are the Tridentine Mass (Extraordinary form) Catholics. I think this is because they deeply understand that Liturgy cannot be separated from doctrine, lex orandi lex credendi. Thus, the Catholics that are most interested and helpful (those who really `get it’) are the Damian Thompsons of the world, and the RORATE CAELI blogs of the world.

In my view, there are two responses to the why don’t you convert individually’ question. The first is well understood by the traditionalist Catholic’, as discussed in the Roman Option:

unavoce.org/uva-archive/the-roman-option-2/

“The path they faced in trying to find a way to join the Church as distinct groups and to preserve their liturgical heritage is both discouraging and highly familiar to traditionalists. At first, they received a warm welcome from Cardinal Hume, and an even warmer welcome in Rome (where their biggest ally was, surprise, surprise, Cardinal Ratzinger). Their ideal goal was an Anglican rite personal prelature. But they quickly realized that this was a non-starter, so they started negotiating for a lesser aim: a canonical structure that would allow them to be catechized and join the Church together, and to continue to worship together after they had joined. Rome was keen for this, and Hume was initially willing. But the English Catholic bishops, egged on by liberals and feminists in the Church who did not want to see 1,000 priests and 50,000 laity loyal to Rome and against women priests enter the Church, balked. What the English Bishops eventually produced was a very watered down statement saying that parishes or groups could join together, but once received they would be absorbed into the mainstream church. The hope of staying together as parishes or keeping elements of Anglican liturgy was more or less crushed. It was join Father Flippant at St. Teilhard de Chardin’s for the Novus Ordo, or nothing.”

The second is perhaps more powerful, and recently uttered by the flying Bishop of Ebbsfleet:

I think the idea of those not in communion with the Holy Father becoming Catholic one by one is, in one sense, a necessary stage in the search for the visible unity of the Church. There are millions of Orthodox, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Salvationists - as well as Anglicans - and we had better start queuing up so it can all happen.

I’m not sure that’s the only model, however. Discussions between East and West and between the Church and different ecclesial communities have always presumed that groups exist and that such groups can be reconciled. There must too be an element of that in the greater ecumenism, as different religions engage in the search for what we Christians believe to be God the Logos, the Word, the Truth and the Life … to talk down group movements - what I call ‘caravanning’ - is, I believe, to underestimate both the power of the Holy Spirit and the determination of the Holy See to do more than say ‘queue up one by one’ and ditch your treasures.

So let us pray that, amidst Anglican disintegration, God does something wonderful and unexpected - and indeed enables each of us to make the journey he has in mind for us, separately and together.

• Andrew Ebbsfleet (Provincial Episcopal Visitor to some very lovely priests, parishes and people, some courageous, some fearful)

When further prompted as to what `treasures’ he was referring to, he replied, the treasures of St. Lawrence.

History makes copies of itself. The run-up to Apostolicae Curae, the reaction of the English RC establishment to what modest goals Halifax and Portal hoped to pursue, was a sold reaffirmation of one by one, in line, through the gate, individual submission and let there be no talk about narrowing the distance between the two Churches. I think of it as the Recusants’ Revenge.

GKC

 

[querying]

Some comments from ex Anglicans sin response to Fr Longenecker, a former social club minister- I mean Anglican priest.

gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2009/06/anglican-agonies.html

“I can truly say I do not miss being an Anglican at all. I look now at the Anglican Church from outside and see just how meaningless it is to call yourself a member of God’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church when you do not put yourself under the Primacy of Peter, the one chosen by Our Lord to lead his Church on earth.”

“I, like you, was hoping that many Anglicans would make use of the Anglican Usage option and come home. However, I also suspect that too many Anglicans love being their own Pope. That is, they love being able to pick and choose what they will believe and what moral laws apply to them. This ultimately is the big flaw in Anglicanism and this is what is killing it.”

**Querying says: **This is very true. Although unlike other Protestants, Anglicans still try to present themselves as Catholic whilst compromising on most non negotiable Catholic doctrine.

And don’t get me started on their audacity using the Catholic Church’s Catechism to catechise their students.

***“I, too, miss Anglican worship, terribly, but as time passes (I took the swim well over a year ago), I realize more and more it was the exquisite liturgy and music of Anglo-Catholic worship that kept me in the Episcopal Church, for the last 15 years at least, which when you think about it amounts to idolatry; **I was worshiping the worship. It was the right thing to do leaving for Rome and not only have I no serious regrets, there is the additional and priceless benefit of undisputed sacraments.”
*

**Querying says: **Judging by what has been written by Contari, GKC and other Anglicans, I see this all too common trait.

Their idolising of Anglican worship- not truth.

“And I have a sense of sadness around an ethnic anglo-identity that the vast majority of anglo sorts around the world are really locked out of the true Catholic church.”

**Querying says: **My sentiments exactly. There is a particular bland English identity attached to Anglicanism under the guise of their “faith” which sickens me. There is nothing universal about the Anglican Church.

“Even the really high church so-called ‘anglo-catholics’ are locked in a sort of ice age, a glacial clinging to the last vestige of Catholicism Britain knew, with a thick gooey iceing of traditionalism to cover up what’s been lost.”

Querying says: Took the words straight out of my mouth. They can hide behind their romantic liturgy and nice sounding words during their services- but it is all style and no substance.

I sometimes feel that nostalgia, but then I remind myself that the Anglicanism I once loved carried within itself the seeds of corruption. Or maybe it never existed. I often wonder if it wasn’t a fiction. Looking back, from the Orthodox Church, I see that it wasn’t the real deal.

Exactly.

 

[GKC]

Some comments from ex Anglicans sin response to Fr Longenecker, a former social club minister- I mean Anglican priest.

gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2009/06/anglican-agonies.html

“I can truly say I do not miss being an Anglican at all. I look now at the Anglican Church from outside and see just how meaningless it is to call yourself a member of God’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church when you do not put yourself under the Primacy of Peter, the one chosen by Our Lord to lead his Church on earth.”

“I, like you, was hoping that many Anglicans would make use of the Anglican Usage option and come home. However, I also suspect that too many Anglicans love being their own Pope. That is, they love being able to pick and choose what they will believe and what moral laws apply to them. This ultimately is the big flaw in Anglicanism and this is what is killing it.”

**Querying says: **This is very true. Although unlike other Protestants, Anglicans still try to present themselves as Catholic whilst compromising on most non negotiable Catholic doctrine.

And don’t get me started on their audacity using the Catholic Church’s Catechism to catechise their students.

***“I, too, miss Anglican worship, terribly, but as time passes (I took the swim well over a year ago), I realize more and more it was the exquisite liturgy and music of Anglo-Catholic worship that kept me in the Episcopal Church, for the last 15 years at least, which when you think about it amounts to idolatry; ***I was worshiping the worship. It was the right thing to do leaving for Rome and not only have I no serious regrets, there is the additional and priceless benefit of undisputed sacraments.”

**Querying says: **Judging by what has been written by Contari, GKC and other Anglicans, I see this all too common trait.

Their idolising of Anglican worship- not truth.

“And I have a sense of sadness around an ethnic anglo-identity that the vast majority of anglo sorts around the world are really locked out of the true Catholic church.”

**Querying says: **My sentiments exactly. There is a particular bland English identity attached to Anglicanism under the guise of their “faith” which sickens me. There is nothing universal about the Anglican Church.

“Even the really high church so-called ‘anglo-catholics’ are locked in a sort of ice age, a glacial clinging to the last vestige of Catholicism Britain knew, with a thick gooey iceing of traditionalism to cover up what’s been lost.”

Querying says: Took the words straight out of my mouth. They can hide behind their romantic liturgy and nice sounding words during their services- but it is all style and no substance.

I sometimes feel that nostalgia, but then I remind myself that the Anglicanism I once loved carried within itself the seeds of corruption. Or maybe it never existed. I often wonder if it wasn’t a fiction. Looking back, from the Orthodox Church, I see that it wasn’t the real deal.

Exactly.

You don’t know me very well.

GKC

 

[jordananglo]

“And don’t get me started on their audacity using the Catholic Church’s Catechism to catechise their students.”

Yes, this sounds perfectly dreadful to me.
What audacity!
How dare they use the Catechism ?
It is not right to have the children’s bread thrown to the dogs.

 

[rr1213]

**Querying says: **And don’t get me started on their audacity using the Catholic Church’s Catechism to catechise their students…

I would encourage Anglicans as well as other Christians to use the Catechism of the Catholic Church as an aid to catechise their students and their children. It is an excellent expression of Christian truth and worth reading. The Anglican encouragement to “read, mark, learn and inwardly digest” the Scriptures can apply just as appropriately to the CCC.

 

[querying]

You don’t know me very well.

GKC

Hardly a convincing refutation…

Much of the posts I’ve caught of yours are based on times past and your “grand” liturgy/ Book of Common Prayer.

I must have missed the overwhelming amount of posts of yours focused on truth, the everlasting consequences of rejecting objective truth and discerning the true Church.

Anglicans conform truth to their liking- which is in turn conformed to their white middle class identity, not vice versa

You have made this very clear, along with Contari.

You know deep down that Anglicanism will come to an end, and the events of the last couple of decades support this firmly. Yet you cling to your church, as it is firstly and most importantly a social club for people of your demographic, not a place for “working out ones salvation through fear and trembling”. (Philippians 2:12)

I do not know or have read about a single person who has become Anglican by result of long and hard searching about finding the Church which will help them in their journey of reaching heaven, which takes precedence before all other things such as the style of worship and the physical appearance of the Church. **Not one. **

However, on this forum, there are many ex Anglicans/ ex Episcopalians who have fled their previous social club due to seeking truth first- and not comfort.

 

[querying]

“And don’t get me started on their audacity using the Catholic Church’s Catechism to catechise their students.”

Yes, this sounds perfectly dreadful to me.
What audacity!
How dare they use the Catechism ?
It is not right to have the children’s bread thrown to the dogs.

If you want to use the Catholic Catechism- that is the Catechism written by members of the Church Jesus founded 2000 years ago- then become Catholic. And accept all that Holy Mother Church teaches with no reservation. You can’t have your cake and not eat it.

Get some self respect and stop pretending at being Catholic. Because you are not.

For those who are offended by my strong words, sorry, but this needs to be said, considering so much significance is attributed to the obsolete Anglican Church on this Catholic forum, whilst many Catholics are all too happy to attack orthodox Christians such as the Mormons and Evangelicals- who don’t have the gall to cloak themselves in a veneer of quasi Catholic identity.

PS- You are NOT “Anglo Catholic- but Anglo catholic”.