Will a lifeline be accepted by struggling Anglicans

[gurneyhalleck1]

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…
Wow, where to start with all this…ok. Pot calling the kettle black? First of all, when I have debated and blasted Episcopalians, that is a whole other matter. I am targetting the explicitly sinful and outrageous denomination that has proclaimed homosexual marriage, ordination for gays, and abortion to be permissible. I am blasting a group that lacks basic morality, who sues anyone who tries to leave their fold, who preaches a gospel that is utterly foreign to anything even remotely resembling Christianity at all. You are generalizing an entire WORLD COMMUNION!! You are taking all Anglicans from the far reaches of the globe all over and everywhere and lumping them into one ideaology. How can you not see that your broad brush lumping together of an entire globe of people that, in themselves, have diverse beliefs is completely different from my criticisms of the Episcopal church TEC of the United States? You can’t see the difference? My claims about TEC are true because they openly and publically proclaim these teachings in conventions and in writing. Your claims are preposterous and silly. They are global and totally based on emotion and your bad experience. It’s akin to the illogical nature of racism. Example: I have met three black people and all three of them threatened me, cussed me out, and they were all out of work…therefore ALL blacks must be violent, profane, lazy people. That is what you do with Anglicanism. You went to a weak Anglican school, have been in weak Anglican parishes, so ALL Anglicans must be moral cowards and actually incompetent fools. You seriously think the pot, kettle thing applies here? Give me a break?

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

Have you not heard of NOTRE DAME??? In case you haven’t, that’s the NOMINALLY-CATHOLIC university in which President Obama, the most PRO-ABORTION president in U.S. history just attended to the tune of roaring crowds and hypocritical Catholics who are nothing but liberals with rosaries. Georgetown. Ever heard of that university? Yep. Also a liberal hotbed. They allowed Obama to speak and even covered up the name of Christ in order to please his liberal reaction to be photographed beside the Saviour’s monicker. You went to a liberal, weak, milk-toast Anglican school and judge all Anglicans to be losers. What if you had attended Georgetown or Notre Dame? Would your conclusion be the same for Catholics? I would hope not. I don’t judge all Catholicism by weak universities with liberals. That global generalization would be insane, right?

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.
Hard to tell. But I am cynical like you about Anglicanism nowdays because they are not taking a firm stand against women’s ordination and divorce as well as a fervent passion for preaching the Gospel. Some dioceses are moving in the right direction but so many are milk toast. We agree to some degree here.

Sure they are. I bet they overlook abortificient contraceptives when they profess their “pro life” loyalty.
I happen to know Anglicans that use NFP and some priests and clergy who encourage the same. Again, you’re generalizing but I would agree that the majority are ok with contraception. Keep in mind that not all contraceptives are abortifacient.

I reside in the UK- there is no Rush over here.
You don’t need Rush in your backyard to get my reference.

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

I detest W.O. as much as you. I think the ACNA blew it (!!!) on this matter. They had the chance, had it in their fingers and it slipped through. Typical Anglican limp rag weakness when it comes to determination, resolve, and leadership. I would not argue that one diocese in errors spoils the entire globe of churches, however. But I do agree with you that they need to address this silliness and that they’re running out of time and credibility on it!

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.
"Anglicanism as a whole" is almost a contradiction in terms.

Regardless of the plethora of dissidents within Catholicism, the dogma pertaining to human sexuality is unambiguous- and unchangeable.
You’re right. But the sad thing is that about 90% of Catholics use contraception and are just fine with the notion. You can say that it’s irrelevent and that only official dogma matters. But in the end the Church is obviously failing miserably in fighting against this issue, not taking the time, energy, or resources necessary to oppose it. So, in the end, how does it differ from Anglicans? Anglicans are just more open and above board about it. My own priest and most Catholic priests I know say that they know that humanae vitae is unrealistic, unfeasible, and that the Church doesn’t truly enforce it.
There is authority and a firm foundation within Catholicism to oppose homosexuality.

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.
Pure speculation. Just because you’re African doesn’t mean you can predict the actions with wudda shouldah couldah for an entire continent. I’m white, Anglo-American as the driven snow yet I cannot predict what would’ve happened if my people had done x, y or z? You are basically saying that Africans are just innately conservative so they’re the only thing holding Anglicans together. Well, I tend to agree that Anglicanism is heavily influenced geographically. It’s valid to some degree. My area here, the central valley of California, is VERY Republican, pro-life, pro-guns, and good ole’ boy. So is Fort Worth Dallas, TX, etc. No surprise these areas are conservative Anglicans rather than liberal Episcopalians. But isn’t this true with Catholics, too? I know that there tend to be more conservative Catholics in Texas than New England. What’s the difference?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

continued reply to querying…

These African Anglicans are simply “Anglican in Name Only”- just like most European and American Catholics are just “Catholic In Name Only”.
As my dad said to me growing up, "so what’s your point?"

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.
I know Catholics who pray rosaries and then immediately after GOSSIP about people like crazy. There are people who are divorced, remarried, living together, etc. and yet they come to Mass week after week and take communion? Some Catholics are in love with their rosary, the statues, the imagery, and yet have no meat in their hamburger bun either? Some Portuguese I know here are so into Fatima and yet they are divorcing and remarrying and partying all the time. I know a girl I work with who was Holy Spirit Festa Queen at the Portuguese Catholic Festa here and yet she is in the middle of a divorce, loves to pull off her bra at Mardi Gras and brags about getting drunk and doing “wild things.” She is a trash-mouth party girl but her dad is a deacon and she is a hardcore Catholic who is at rosaries, goes to confession all the time, and is very involved. How is this different than what you describe?

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.
It was hard for me and I still miss my old parish, too.

All the above is material and worthless in the long goal- which to attain eternal salvation. All the other fluff doesn’t matter.
In the end you’re quite right. But Catholics and Anglicans to some degree love their fluff over substance. And there are many in each group that do it all for Christ and need no fluff.

Sorry, but their social club has no authority nor any relevance whatsoever.
This is just absurd and you’re not going to win anyone to your cause or have any credibility saying stuff like this. To say they have no relevance at all is off the charts. I could swallow you saying that the Archbishop of Canterbury is quickly becoming irrelevent but ALL of Anglicanism? Peter Akinola, John David Schofield, Greg Venables, all irrelevent? Poppycock

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.
**So now you’re ok with Evangelicals, just not low church Anglican evangelicals? **

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think that most Anglo-catholic jurisdiction are going to stay where they are: diverse groups seperated from everybody. I think in time that they will be absorbed by the RCC or the Orthodox jurisdictions. A lot are pretty disillusioned about the concept of Anglicanism as a seperate entity by now.

The ethos of Anglicanism has always been a via media. Up until now it has been a middle way between catholicism and protestantism. Today, I would argue that it is a middle way being religion and modern scientific and sociolgical norms. This seems to be a bridge to far for many Anglicans. Anglo-catholics apparently didn’t mind communion with Calvinists who would dissent on the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist but wouldn’t maintain communion with Christians that ordain women.

There aren’t very many Anglo-catholics left. 20,000 in the U.S. tops. Rome might possibly set up a uniate situation with them but I doubt it. They’ll probably demand individual conversion and re-ordination when applicable. I don’t expect the orthodox to be much more sympathetic. They are suspicious of all things western. The Western Vicariate with the option of the “Liturgy of St. Tikon” (the name seems somewhat offensive to Anglican heritage) will be the best they can realistically hope for where they are looked down upon by most of the orthodox world.

I think a lot of what you say is true, VARC. So many Anglicans, mostly clergy, seem so disillusioned with the state of Anglicanism and where it is headed. I can’t get over how many times Anglican clergy have said to me they either are or are considering conversion to the RCC. And so many Anglicans caucus with protestant groups like Lutherans or Methodists. Anglican parishes have such declining numbers and their congregants are so aged, lacking youth and vigor. The more Anglicans lose sight of what little unity they had, the more they drift off and lose membership. And as the Archbishop of Canterbury has become an impotent, weak figurehead not knowing how to deal with the many crises at hand, Anglicans lose respect for him and find him irrelevent. I can’t for the life of me (and I’ve said this before, probably too many times!!) figure out WHY this new ACNA or any of these other ‘conservative’ Anglican groups want to remain in good standing with the ABC? Who cares? Does one need to be in league with Rowan Williams to feel legit? I don’t get it? It’s different for a Catholic. A Catholic must be in league with the papacy because the chair of Peter is the center of the Catholic nervous system. It pumps the blood. The papacy is the human face of Catholicism and the head of a visible, organized, structured Church. With Anglicanism there is so much diversity, variety, and such vast disparities of even church polity and now there is such fundamental disagreement as to even human sexuality and whether Christ is THE way to salavation or A way (a la Schiorri statements) that the ABC has stood as a wimpy referee between these polar opposite views sounding like Rodney King in a mitre! “Can’t we all just get along??!” Give me a break!

I think Anglicanism will become largely an African church for the next hundred years and most of the fans of liturgy and ‘popishness’ will go Catholic, the John Stotts and Packards of the world will drift off into evangelicalism and what is left will be spread pretty thin. The thinnest of all will be the Episcopal Church, which is absolutely a full-fledged member of the Outer Limits and the Twilight Zone! But enough of my Nostradamus speculation here lol

 

[BernadetteM]

Bernadette
This process was far easier under John Paul II than the current Pontiff. Benedict XVI’s predecessor was far more eccumenical in nature and more accepting of those of us willing to “swim the Tiber.” Under the curent regime I dont forsee (In my opinion) any new Anglican use parrishes springing up unless something drastic happens like a whole diocese comes in.
Perhaps the more praying for this by being specific in our prayers the better. I have always been an advocate of being very specific in prayer.

Padrej,

As I said in my post there are 3 new AU parishes starting with the support of the Bishops in those areas. They are all in different states.

I really feel the problem with TAC is there are several of the priests and the Primate (who has been married and divorced and remarried and also from what I understand was a Catholic priest at one time). There are also differences in theology of many of the members of TAC. I have heard that many don’t want to be under the Pope. Also that they asked to be in communion with Rome, but not submit as the previous priests did, they want to be more like (Opus Dei), there is another term but I can’t remember what it is called. They wanted their own Prelate which I am sure the first priests and parishes would have preferred, but if you want to be Catholic you take what is offered in a humble manner. If God so wills that the Anglican Use grows and Rome gives them their own Bishop that would be wonderful. All things come in God’s time not ours.

That is why I suggested that Anglicans in the US could approach Rome if they have a priest and ask to be part of the Pastoral Provision.

I haven’t any idea what TAC members really want and if there are some willing to go under the Pastoral Provision. I don’t believe that this has anything to do with Benedict being more hard nosed towards Anglicans coming into the Church as a group. It is just that it is much more complicated than the first parishes who were received with open arms by Rome. If this were so there would not be new parishes being formed as of today.

As you mentioned pray pray and pray and trust in our Lord to take care of the rest.

God Bless

Bernadette

 

[VARC]

I can’t for the life of me (and I’ve said this before, probably too many times!!) figure out WHY this new ACNA or any of these other ‘conservative’ Anglican groups want to remain in good standing with the ABC? Who cares? Does one need to be in league with Rowan Williams to feel legit? I don’t get it?

I always thought it was somewhat absurd to organize a schism with TEC only to have one of the first acts of the new entity to re-establish communion with TEC via Canterbury. I guess consevative Anglicans don’t want to lose their identity and communion with Canterbury has always been a part of Anglicanism. No matter. It’ll all be over when the C of E begins to bless SS unions which they eventually will. The Global South and their subsidiaries will form a new communion and the westerners will consolidate with the Porvoos and the Utrect union.

The thinnest of all will be the Episcopal Church, which is absolutely a full-fledged member of the Outer Limits and the Twilight Zone! But enough of my Nostradamus speculation here lol

I think most people underestimate the demand for liberal churches. Their losses in membership are proportional to RC losses and it is beginning to level off for both groups.

 

[jordananglo]

Bernadette
This process was far easier under John Paul II than the current Pontiff. Benedict XVI’s predecessor was far more eccumenical in nature and more accepting of those of us willing to “swim the Tiber.” Under the curent regime I dont forsee (In my opinion) any new Anglican use parrishes springing up unless something drastic happens like a whole diocese comes in.
Perhaps the more praying for this by being specific in our prayers the better. I have always been an advocate of being very specific in prayer.

This notion of Pope John Paul II being `more pastoral towards Anglicans’ than Pope Benedict XVI has come up several times now. The truth of the matter is that Pope Benedict XVI is the dream pope for Anglo-Catholics (nothing against JPII). I predict there will be big events happening in this area before the end of his pontificate (hopefully in the very near future).

Question for Padrej:
“Ruling from Rome: “valid but irregular”
The “Null and Viod” stopped after 1874 with the first “Order of Corporate Reunnion” talks with Rome took place. The Apostolic See consecrated 4 bishops then to start a new line. There are still some of us who follow in this line. There are others who have (as myself) recent blessings as 2003.”

I’m interested in this question. Can you give a reference to your assertion of “valid but irregular” ruling from Rome?

Comment for VARC:
“No matter. It’ll all be over when the C of E begins to bless SS unions which they eventually will. … I think most people underestimate the demand for liberal churches. Their losses in membership are proportional to RC losses and it is beginning to level off for both groups.”

Yes, it will all be over when the C of E begins to bless SS unions … for `bible believing christians’. For Catholic-minded Anglicans, one could (and many have) argue it’s already over. For the Forward in Faith crowd, women “bishops” will be the unbridgeable chasm. This is why a further provision for those of the Anglican tradition who have fully come to believe the teachings and claims of the Catholic Church (forced into a clear state of mind by the disintegration of the Anglican communion around their heads) is both timely and needed.

About the demand for liberal churches, again you are right… but the demand is not novel, it was known to the first Christians, for the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths.

About liberalism, I quote the Blessed John Henry Newman:

"Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another, and this is the teaching which is gaining substance and force daily. It is inconsistent with any recognition of any religion, as true. It teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion. Revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective fact, not miraculous; and it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy…

Such is the state of things in England, and it is well that it should be realised by all of us; but it must not be supposed for a moment that I am afraid of it. I lament it deeply, because I foresee that it may be the ruin of many souls; but I have no fear at all that it really can do aught of serious harm to the Word of God, to Holy Church, to our Almighty King, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, Faithful and True, or to His Vicar on earth. Christianity has been too often in what seemed deadly peril, that we should fear for it any new trial now. So far is certain; on the other hand, what is uncertain, and in these great contests commonly is uncertain, and what is commonly a great surprise, when it is witnessed, is the particular mode by which, in the event, Providence rescues and saves His elect inheritance. Sometimes our enemy is turned into a friend; sometimes he is despoiled of that special virulence of evil which was so threatening; sometimes he falls to pieces of himself; sometimes he does just so much as is beneficial, and then is removed. Commonly the Church has nothing more to do than to go on in her own proper duties, in confidence and peace; to stand still and to see the salvation of God."

 

[GKC]

This notion of Pope John Paul II being `more pastoral towards Anglicans’ than Pope Benedict XVI has come up several times now. The truth of the matter is that Pope Benedict XVI is the dream pope for Anglo-Catholics (nothing against JPII). I predict there will be big events happening in this area before the end of his pontificate (hopefully in the very near future).

Question for Padrej:
“Ruling from Rome: “valid but irregular”
The “Null and Viod” stopped after 1874 with the first “Order of Corporate Reunnion” talks with Rome took place. The Apostolic See consecrated 4 bishops then to start a new line. There are still some of us who follow in this line. There are others who have (as myself) recent blessings as 2003.”

I’m interested in this question. Can you give a reference to your assertion of “valid but irregular” ruling from Rome?

Comment for VARC:
“No matter. It’ll all be over when the C of E begins to bless SS unions which they eventually will. … I think most people underestimate the demand for liberal churches. Their losses in membership are proportional to RC losses and it is beginning to level off for both groups.”

Yes, it will all be over when the C of E begins to bless SS unions … for `bible believing christians’. For Catholic-minded Anglicans, one could (and many have) argue it’s already over. For the Forward in Faith crowd, women “bishops” will be the unbridgeable chasm. This is why a further provision for those of the Anglican tradition who have fully come to believe the teachings and claims of the Catholic Church (forced into a clear state of mind by the disintegration of the Anglican communion around their heads) is both timely and needed.

About the demand for liberal churches, again you are right… but the demand is not novel, it was known to the first Christians, for the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths.

About liberalism, I quote the Blessed John Henry Newman:

"Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another, and this is the teaching which is gaining substance and force daily. It is inconsistent with any recognition of any religion, as true. It teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion. Revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective fact, not miraculous; and it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy…

Such is the state of things in England, and it is well that it should be realised by all of us; but it must not be supposed for a moment that I am afraid of it. I lament it deeply, because I foresee that it may be the ruin of many souls; but I have no fear at all that it really can do aught of serious harm to the Word of God, to Holy Church, to our Almighty King, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, Faithful and True, or to His Vicar on earth. Christianity has been too often in what seemed deadly peril, that we should fear for it any new trial now. So far is certain; on the other hand, what is uncertain, and in these great contests commonly is uncertain, and what is commonly a great surprise, when it is witnessed, is the particular mode by which, in the event, Providence rescues and saves His elect inheritance. Sometimes our enemy is turned into a friend; sometimes he is despoiled of that special virulence of evil which was so threatening; sometimes he falls to pieces of himself; sometimes he does just so much as is beneficial, and then is removed. Commonly the Church has nothing more to do than to go on in her own proper duties, in confidence and peace; to stand still and to see the salvation of God."

PadreJ is referring, in that “valid but irregular” phrase, to a portion of a part of Anglican history that may be researched in Brandreth’s EPISCOPI VAGANTES and, with respect to the Order for Corporate Reunion, in Anson’s BISHOPS AT LARGE, in much more detail. It is one of the more esoteric and extremely convoluted blooms in the Anglican garden. Order for Corporate Reunion may be googled. They have a website.

GKC

 

[jordananglo]

PadreJ is referring, in that “valid but irregular” phrase, to a portion of a part of Anglican history that may be researched in Brandreth’s EPISCOPI VAGANTES and, with respect to the Order for Corporate Reunion, in Anson’s BISHOPS AT LARGE, in much more detail. It is one of the more esoteric and extremely convoluted blooms in the Anglican garden. Order for Corporate Reunion may be googled. They have a website.

GKC

Thanks GKC.

I knew about the general `restoration of orders’ issue with the Old Catholics, etc., but this aspect is entirely new to me.

That being said, your comment about “esoteric and extremely convoluted” is right on. I can see how this might seem satisfactory in a more civilized age, but surely the time has past for these little games?

 

[GKC]

Thanks GKC.

I knew about the general `restoration of orders’ issue with the Old Catholics, etc., but this aspect is entirely new to me.

That being said, your comment about “esoteric and extremely convoluted” is right on. I can see how this might seem satisfactory in a more civilized age, but surely the time has past for these little games?

I should have been clearer in what I said, to the extent that the subject is not confined to Anglicans, but was rampant among them. It was often confused with the Old Catholic issue but is a different matter; see Moss’s THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT.

GKC

 

[Padrej]

Thanks GKC.

I knew about the general `restoration of orders’ issue with the Old Catholics, etc., but this aspect is entirely new to me.

That being said, your comment about “esoteric and extremely convoluted” is right on. I can see how this might seem satisfactory in a more civilized age, but surely the time has past for these little games?

To add to what GKC posted, and many thanks to GKC as well for answering for me it is much apprciated. May I propose you look at this site which is a thesis in PDF format on “Episcopi Vagantes” It is well researched and gets into the early church father’s feelings on the matter as well. Being it is lengthy it is far too long to post here so here is the link.
anglicanhistory.org/essays/badertscher/
This should also give an answer to some “valid but irregular questions” as well as it has coipous footnotes of work after work.

 

[GKC]

To add to what GKC posted, and many thanks to GKC as well for answering for me it is much apprciated. May I propose you look at this site which is a thesis in PDF format on “Episcopi Vagantes” It is well researched and gets into the early church father’s feelings on the matter as well. Being it is lengthy it is far too long to post here so here is the link.
anglicanhistory.org/essays/badertscher/
This should also give an answer to some “valid but irregular questions” as well as it has coipous footnotes of work after work.

I am familiar with Badertscher’s thesis. It is worth reading.

Added, because forgotten: He does seem to think that MacCarthy and Boettner are reliable sources on Roman Catholicism,though.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

**Wow, where to start with all this…ok. Pot calling the kettle black? First of all, when I have debated and blasted Episcopalians, that is a whole other matter. I am targetting the explicitly sinful and outrageous denomination that has proclaimed homosexual marriage, ordination for gays, and abortion to be permissible. I am blasting a group that lacks basic morality, who sues anyone who tries to leave their fold, who preaches a gospel that is utterly foreign to anything even remotely resembling Christianity at all. You are generalizing an entire WORLD COMMUNION!! **

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

 

[GKC]

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

I see a basic difference (surprise?) in the two critical approaches. One is a criticism of the doctrines and beliefs of a portion of Anglicanism as not historically Christian but apostate. The other is a criticism of all Anglicanism as, not apostate merely, but apostate and hypocritical, with, as I read it, the emphasis on the hypocritical portion, deriving from some personal experiences. While both say very critical things about Anglicanism, in whole or in part, they are not saying the same sort of thing, it seems to me.

GKC

 

[VARC]

I see a basic difference (surprise?) in the two critical approaches. One is a criticism of the doctrines and beliefs of a portion of Anglicanism as not historically Christian but apostate. The other is a criticism of all Anglicanism as, not apostate merely, but apostate and hypocritical, with, as I read it, the emphasis on the hypocritical portion, deriving from some personal experiences. While both say very critical things about Anglicanism, in whole or in part, they are not saying the same sort of thing, it seems to me.

GKC

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.

 

[GKC]

While I won’t argue that querying is on a level on 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.

I’ll bet he will, if asked. But whether he will or not, it will still be true that his reaction is to what a specific set of Episcopalians did, not to him, but to TEC and to Christianity, in doing so. Similarly, an observation.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

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.

Well ole Gurney will tell everybody how he feels so nobody needs to speculate further.
I don’t have a lot of “anger” per se. What I am is disappointed and totally blown-away that a denomination could stoop as low morally as TEC. And you’re quite wrong about my “level of disgust” about the ELCA. They are quite obviously headed down the sinful path of TEC and I will be just as saddened and morally outraged by their decisions to become secular moral relativists as I would the TEC. The United Church of Christ, IMO, is totally “out there” morally and I don’t trust denominations like this. Why do I mention the Episcopal Church? Well, it’s mentioned a great deal in this forum and it’s a high-profile denomination. And yes, I did belong to it for six or seven years of my life.

Actually I don’t hold some deep-seeded anger and fire in my belly for being treated badly. Not really. My diocese, San Joaquin, has been run by Bishop Schofield through the insane years of the 90’s and the Schiori dark ages. Schofield has always kept this diocese opposed to women’s ordination, against the gay agenda, and opposed to abortion, etc. He is a conservative Christian and I’ve always admired him. I was never mistreated in Anglicanism. I enjoyed my old parish. It was tough to leave. But VARC is right that at the national level it was not something of which I approved. It helped to run me off. But also Catholicism hooked me a great deal and I didn’t go to Rome in order to run from Anglicanism. That’s never healthy, to run “away” from something instead of running “toward” something meaningful. I went to Catholicism, the faith of my youth, because I felt drawn to its doctrines, piety, catechism, and overall faith.

I have respect for Anglicanism, to the chagrine of some Catholics in here who blast me for it. But the TEC sector of Anglicanism I have no respect for. It demodes the nature of Christ, endorses multiple heresies and sinful lifestyles, it encourages alternative lifestyles, and it dengrates the human condition. I resent what it has become and what it stands for, not necessarily all the folks under its banner. I recognize, yet am still puzzled as to why (???), that there are still good folks in the TEC and people who mean well and love the Lord. I just wish they’d find a new home and see the forest for the trees.

Going back to what VARC speculated about me, that I just care about bagging on liberal Episcopalians and wouldn’t care about liberal Lutherans, again, that’s way out there and I must emphasize that’s false. I really respect the LCMS Lutherans, Missouri Synod. Their brand of Lutheranism is confessional, closed communion, dedicated to their belief in the real presence, they are very pro-life, they are against homosexuality, they are against women’s ordination, and they take scripture very seriously. They have a vibrant missionary spirit, love the Lord, and they’re good folks. I like that denomination. I also like the ACNA, at least many things about it, all for the same reasons.

I don’t take VARC’s post in anger but I will say the speculation is incorrect. It’s not quite that personal. It’s more of a moral thing with me. I dislike the TEC brand of Christianity just as much as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright brand that hates this country or the liberal United Methodists or liberal United Church of Christ groups, etc. It’s moral, not personal really. But obviously I know more about Episcopalians because I have been there.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Originally Posted by Contarini
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

I have Contarini (Edwin) on ignore for a host of reasons. I hope he will do the same and put me on. I’m assuming this post was intended for me (they usually are if they’re hostile) and I read it through GKC’s reply.

Your view of “lashing” is just my view of outrage. I find your denomination completely drowned in irrelevence, elitism, sin, and immorality. There’s a reason that even Rowan Williams, himself a moral relativist, is boggled and at a loss for words when dealing with TEC. It is a denomination full of anything-goes, purely secular, pagan concepts. It has lost any credibility and common sense that it ever had. Now you would like me to endorse it and somehow reconcile my feelings of traditional Christianity, the deposit of faith, and what I view to be the truth, along with this leviathan of postmodern feel-good tripe clothed in ecclesiology? Give me a break. You couldn’t respect me as a Catholic if I endorsed this mumbo-jumbo anymore than I could respect you for being in the Episcopal Church and having a traditional moral code.

It’s not about sauce or geese, Edwin, so drop the cliches. It’s about morality and generalizations. I get outraged by querying’s posts because they’re patently false. He generalizes the disgusting bile we see in TEC and claims it’s the norm for all Anglicans, as GKC pointed out in his reply to you. His posts take the decisions of the TEC and generalizes that the entire Anglican world consists of those beliefs. Just because I’m Catholic doesn’t mean I’m going to sit idly by while someone makes false claims about Anglicans.

Nostalgia has nothing to do with it. If I wanted to be Anglican, I’d head down to St. Paul’s right now and sign up. I just view the ACNA as being, though very very imperfect and full of bad decisions, a step in the right direction and more focused on holiness and the Gospels than TEC. That’s just a no-brainer.

Can I not defend morals unless they’re Catholic ones? If I see a charitable act by a Muslim or a Mormon, am I not allowed to endorse the act? If I see an Episcopalian or a liberal ELCA Lutheran or a Jehova’s Witness do something with which I find immoral, can’t I disagree? Apparently not in your book. It’s all “vitriolic, hateful, mean,” etc.

Reading querying’s post doesn’t give me any idea how I should feel at all in any case. I don’t get worked-up over his posts. I’m not Anglican and don’t have a horse in that race. I’m a spectator with no ticket invested. I just find it all fascinating. And when I see something stated that’s not true, I will speak out. I’ll do the same with politics. I’m no fan of Obama but I will stand up and deny the claims of “birthers” or folks claiming Obama is a “Muslim.” I will also argue against untruths if they are Democrat or Republican, Catholic or Anglican, you name it.

I’m honored that you compared me to grandmother LOL…maybe it’s her strictness that sent you over the top and into the Episcopal scene. Maybe it’s an overreaction to a strict, judgmental person to become ultra-liberal thinking that morals are like clay, to be shaped by the individual? Who knows. Psychoanalysis goes both ways.

I’m not legalistic. That’s your first mistake. Following the Gospels and trying to live out the path to holiness despite our fallen nature in a sinful world is what Christ calls us to do. You’re in that crowd that deems anyone legalistic who is not “ok” with every single type of behavior. If I’m against abortion, I’m condescending. If I’m against women’s ordination (along with 2000 years of obvious tradition and scripture) then I’m sexist and judgmental. If I’m against gay marriage I’m a hate-monger. If I’m against divorce, I’m cruel and nasty. I couldn’t win with you, Edwin, until I enter the hippie commune mentality of “live and let live, brother! Peace!”

Who’s kidding who? You aren’t changing. I’m not changing. So do me a favor and I’m beggin’ ya, put me on IGNORE! We’ll pray for each other.

 

[rr1213]

It is true that the Episcopal Church has gone down some strange roads as an institution. I’ve said more than once that I believe it to be apostate…maybe heretical is a better description. Nonetheless, there are still a number of orthodox (in the Protestant sense) evangelicals left in TEC. I can think of several parishes in the Richmond, Virginia area that would fall into that category. You can ask, and validly, as to why these folks remain in a body that has so rejected both historic Christianity as well as them, but they remain. Some say that they feel that it is their calling to be the voice crying in the wilderness within TEC. Others say that it would not make anything better if they simply left and created additional schisms. Personally I find none of those arguments convincing, but I am not yet ready to judge the minds and souls of these folks and condemn them.

 

[Padrej]

Thanks GKC.

I knew about the general `restoration of orders’ issue with the Old Catholics, etc., but this aspect is entirely new to me.

That being said, your comment about “esoteric and extremely convoluted” is right on. I can see how this might seem satisfactory in a more civilized age, but surely the time has past for these little games?

It is true that the Episcopal Church has gone down some strange roads as an institution. I’ve said more than once that I believe it to be apostate…maybe heretical is a better description. Nonetheless, there are still a number of orthodox (in the Protestant sense) evangelicals left in TEC. I can think of several parishes in the Richmond, Virginia area that would fall into that category. You can ask, and validly, as to why these folks remain in a body that has so rejected both historic Christianity as well as them, but they remain. Some say that they feel that it is their calling to be the voice crying in the wilderness within TEC. Others say that it would not make anything better if they simply left and created additional schisms. Personally I find none of those arguments convincing, but I am not yet ready to judge the minds and souls of these folks and condemn them.

There were approx. 11 priests and parrishes that were told bluntly by the Bishop Lee of VA that if you follow the party line and accept same sex marriage and homosexual clegy you will be allowed to keep your church and clergy, but if you choose to follow the Bible your priest will be defrocked and you will loose your building. They chose the latter.
The Bible also always speaks of a “faithful remnant.”
Personally given that choice I would have been heading for the door. Ironically Bishop Lee was willing to allow them to keep their buildings and leave amicably but the presiding bishop Schorie promtly put in end to that. That is what is truly sad and un Christ like.

 

[jordananglo]

There were approx. 11 priests and parrishes that were told bluntly by the Bishop Lee of VA that if you follow the party line and accept same sex marriage and homosexual clegy you will be allowed to keep your church and clergy, but if you choose to follow the Bible your priest will be defrocked and you will loose your building. They chose the latter.
The Bible also always speaks of a “faithful remnant.”
Personally given that choice I would have been heading for the door. Ironically Bishop Lee was willing to allow them to keep their buildings and leave amicably but the presiding bishop Schorie promtly put in end to that. That is what is truly sad and un Christ like.

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