UnderGround Forums
 

HolyGround >> Thoughts on Anglican church?


11/12/11 8:10 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
micmac
10 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/17/06
Posts: 3090
 
It receives a lot of criticism for being too liberal. Any thoughts? Phone Post
11/12/11 1:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 25679
 It is a pretty broad tradition in the sense that you have high church on one spectrum (almost Catholic in liturgy) and low church evangelicals on the other end (almost no formal liturgy to speak of).  There are some elements of Anglicanism that are so liberal they should just be unitarians, but there are also conversative or orthodox Anglicans that seem to hold to a more traditional Nicene faith.  This is more true in the third world countries where the bishops don't feel like following every trend of thought that comes down the pike at Western universities.  There is a lot to admire in terms of the kinds of people who were or are Anglican (CS Lewis, TS Eliot, NT Wright, Dorothy Sayers, John Polkinghorne, the current Archbishop, etc. etc. ).

With all that said, however, I think the importance of Creeds is usually not well understood in our own relativistic time.  I think a tradition that makes something like the resurrection of Jesus an optional belief is simply an incoherent one.  Hence the reason so many of the more orthodox members of Anglicanism have become Catholic or Orthodox.  
11/18/11 10:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Philanderer
9 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 2625
Ridgeback -    I think a tradition that makes something like the resurrection of Jesus an optional belief is simply an incoherent one.   <br type="_moz" />


WTF?! Im no theologian, but arent Christians obligated to believe that?! Isnt that one of the few things catholics, orthodox, protestants dont argue about?
11/19/11 3:40 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 25877
Philanderer - 
Ridgeback -    I think a tradition that makes something like the resurrection of Jesus an optional belief is simply an incoherent one.   <br type="_moz" />


WTF?! Im no theologian, but arent Christians obligated to believe that?! Isnt that one of the few things catholics, orthodox, protestants dont argue about?
Nope.  A good portion of Anglican bishops, priests, and laymen see the resurrection as symbolic and metaphorical.  I find it incoherent, but there you go.   CS Lewis covered an Anglican bishop who had essentially given up all orthodox belief in The Great Divorce.  He is in hell and doesn't know it.  But the point is Lewis was already seeing this kind of thing in the 40's and 50's.  Now it is rampant.  
 
11/19/11 1:16 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Philanderer
9 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 2629
Damn- why stop there? Why not just see the Virgin Birth as "symbolic and metaphorical"? or the miraculous healings and exercisms? or being the actual Son of God?

Why dont they just turn Muslim? They also believe that Jesus existed but didnt actually die and get resurrected
11/19/11 1:20 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
667 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11/19/11 1:21 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 8640
I think the virgin birth as symbolic and metaphorical (or a mistransation, or...) is much less serious a blow. God's ways can easily withstand naturalistic vessels. I don't care to argue this point; I just think the virgin birth is something you could lose and still have *something*. With the main point, I totally agree: if you have no resurrection, you have no Christianity.

I haven't looked into it, but I don't think the Anglican Church takes "no resuurrection" as "ok" so much -- that is, it's central to their teaching; they just tolerate mavericks. The problem is when they have bishops talking "no resurrection". I don't see how they tolerate that without pointing out that he doesn't speak for the church and can't be a bishop any more (at least till he comes around his hour of doubt or something).
11/21/11 12:35 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Juijitsuboxer
54 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 9375
Ridgeback - 
Philanderer - 
Ridgeback -    I think a tradition that makes something like the resurrection of Jesus an optional belief is simply an incoherent one.   <br type="_moz" />


WTF?! Im no theologian, but arent Christians obligated to believe that?! Isnt that one of the few things catholics, orthodox, protestants dont argue about?
Nope.  A good portion of Anglican bishops, priests, and laymen see the resurrection as symbolic and metaphorical.  I find it incoherent, but there you go.   CS Lewis covered an Anglican bishop who had essentially given up all orthodox belief in The Great Divorce.  He is in hell and doesn't know it.  But the point is Lewis was already seeing this kind of thing in the 40's and 50's.  Now it is rampant.  
 



1 Corinthians 15:13-15
New International Version (NIV)
13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.


Makes no sense how they cannot believe in the Resurrection!!?!
11/21/11 5:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Benedictus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/17/09
Posts: 103
I love the liturgyy in the Book of Common Prayer. Its is very orthodox. However, a large portion of Anglicans have left orthodox beliefs as Ridgeback has stated. Phone Post
11/22/11 2:56 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 25891
 There was a time when there was a discussion of Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox coming into communion with each other, but those talks ended when the Anglican liberals started going off the deep end.  There is indeed a lot of beauty and orthodoxy in Anglicanism, but it seems to be becoming more the exception than the rule.  Hence the reason so many Anglicans have moved to Rome or Constantinople.
11/25/11 11:03 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 25931
 I think I have read every book and listened to every lecture given by NT Wright practically.  I think all of what is best in his "groundbreaking" theology is the fact that he has taken a very Protestant reading of St. Paul and moved it back to what is simply taken for granted as standard doctrine about salvation in Eastern Orthodoxy.  I am not saying that he is 100% on board with all EO teaching, but he is pretty close in the main things.  

And yes the Book of Common prayer is one of the great achievements of the English language along with the KJV Bible.
11/25/11 4:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Benedictus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/17/09
Posts: 112
I have tried to understand his positin. What exactly is it, Ridgeback? Phone Post
11/26/11 1:21 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Philanderer
9 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 2643
Ridgeback -  There was a time when there was a discussion of Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox coming into communion with each other, but those talks ended when the Anglican liberals started going off the deep end.  There is indeed a lot of beauty and orthodoxy in Anglicanism, but it seems to be becoming more the exception than the rule.  Hence the reason so many Anglicans have moved to Rome or Constantinople.


My wife is actually researching some orthodox churches (non Russsian ones) because of this. Neither of us have anything against the catholic teaching, but just cant deal with how the vatican handled the child abuse scandal. But we both like how the catholic are pretty clear and firm on what is to be believed: Virgin birth, Resurrection, Holy Spirit, etc
11/27/11 8:20 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 25941
Philanderer - 
Ridgeback -  There was a time when there was a discussion of Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox coming into communion with each other, but those talks ended when the Anglican liberals started going off the deep end.  There is indeed a lot of beauty and orthodoxy in Anglicanism, but it seems to be becoming more the exception than the rule.  Hence the reason so many Anglicans have moved to Rome or Constantinople.


My wife is actually researching some orthodox churches (non Russsian ones) because of this. Neither of us have anything against the catholic teaching, but just cant deal with how the vatican handled the child abuse scandal. But we both like how the catholic are pretty clear and firm on what is to be believed: Virgin birth, Resurrection, Holy Spirit, etc

 I am not sure what you mean by "non-Russian" ones unless you just mean particular parishes that have services in Russian because there are so many Russians attending.  If this is the US then Orthodoxy is a big mess in terms of administration but united in belief and liturgy.  The OCA and Antiochian "branches" tend to be the most convert friendly in terms of the services.  I atten an OCA parish, which has its roots more in Russia than Greece or Syria, but it is all Orthodoxy.  

Yes the sex abuse scandal was beyond the pale for me as well.  No tradition of Christianity is without scandal (no secular institutions are without sexual assault numbers on par with Catholicism either) but the cover up was disgusting.  

As far as belief, we recite the Creed during every Divine Liturgy.  It is pretty much a short list of the non-negotiables and the resurrection is one of them.  I don't even think it is a matter of liberal vs. orthodox.  It is more like coherent vs. incoherent to me.  I don't know what people think there is to believe apart from a resurrection.
11/29/11 4:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Philanderer
9 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 2650
What we both like about the Orthodox is that they can trace their line straight to the Apostles- even the catholics dont dispute this: and the vatican has a policy that the orthodox worship (sacraments?) are valid, but illicit. I also like that it is very easy to see what "articles of faith" are taught by the churches: letting bishops personally decide that the ressurection or anything else is simply symbolic is a recipe for even more confusion.

What we are concerned about re: Orthodox churches are the Russian and Greeks are TOO close to their national governments, even drawing salaries from them.

Its an OCA church my wife wants to check out this weekend.
11/29/11 8:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 25948
Philanderer - What we both like about the Orthodox is that they can trace their line straight to the Apostles- even the catholics dont dispute this: and the vatican has a policy that the orthodox worship (sacraments?) are valid, but illicit. I also like that it is very easy to see what "articles of faith" are taught by the churches: letting bishops personally decide that the ressurection or anything else is simply symbolic is a recipe for even more confusion.

What we are concerned about re: Orthodox churches are the Russian and Greeks are TOO close to their national governments, even drawing salaries from them.

Its an OCA church my wife wants to check out this weekend.

 Yes all those things are true.  The OCA has autocephaly so they aren't loyal to any mother countries at least.  The way I approach Orthodoxy is that at the heart of the faith is a testable and repeatable therapy by which people return to their original humanity and become saints (i.e. little Christs).  This has happened so many times that it is undeniable that it can work.  Then there is a whole lot of other stuff that has nothing to do with this core element and can even detract from it.  But the people who are taking this path are condemning themselves through their actions.  It is good training, actually, for staying focused on the prize, which is nothing less than full communion with God.   One learns to ignore most of these things unless they are directly harming someone.  One nice thing about Orthodoxy is that in general people tend to mind their own business spiritually.  There are exceptions of course, but there is the whole thing about judging others and condemning yourself in the process so it is avoided by and large.  Anyway, I am Orthodox because the Church is a hospital for the spiritually ill and has been proven to make people well.  I tried not to get bogged down in just how ill some of the people in the hospital (and some of the administrators of the hospital) actually are.  


12/28/11 10:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MickColins
137 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/14/08
Posts: 7241
Fun fact: an Anglican priest that converts to Catholicism can be a priest and still be married. Phone Post
12/28/11 10:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
667 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 8679
MickColins - Fun fact: an Anglican priest that converts to Catholicism can be a priest and still be married. Phone Post


Huhh?? Is that a fact?

Can such a person be a Catholic priest???

My father was raised high-church Episcopal, but converted to Catholicism as a teenager. Was on a path to become a priest, but went to a monastery instead. Then... left because he wanted to be married. This is all very interesting.
12/30/11 4:47 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MickColins
137 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/14/08
Posts: 7247
I had a teacher in college that was a married Catholic priest. When we asked him how that was possible, he told us he'd been Anglican his whole life, was an Anglican priest but got tired of the CoE/ Anglicanism becoming so doctrinally liberal/ soft. He talked to a Catholic bishop that told him he could convert to Catholicism, still be a priest and keep his wife/kids. So he did it. Phone Post
12/30/11 10:41 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 26689
Ali - 
MickColins - Fun fact: an Anglican priest that converts to Catholicism can be a priest and still be married. Phone Post


Huhh?? Is that a fact?

Can such a person be a Catholic priest???

My father was raised high-church Episcopal, but converted to Catholicism as a teenager. Was on a path to become a priest, but went to a monastery instead. Then... left because he wanted to be married. This is all very interesting.

Ali,

What is your point?  Nothing in your father's experience contradicted what he wrote.  Your father wasn't a married Anglican priest when he converted to Catholicism.  
12/30/11 10:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
667 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 12/30/11 11:03 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 8680
I wasn't making a point to contradict, Ridge. Just to say I thought I'd have a background where I would know, but I'm in wonderment that I didn't. Really, just flat out amazement that this is true, and I didn't know.

Did you think I was trying to contradict? I wasn't! "This is all very interesting". Is that unclear?

I'm still rather amazed. I thought I spent enough time looking at the relationship between the Episcopal Church, at least (and by extension, then the Anglican -- but maybe that's where I fall down), and the Catholic (Roman) Church, that I wouldn't be able to be surprised. Clearly I was wrong. Taken off guard. That's my point. "This is all very interesting". Again. And I still have questions about the sanctioning of that priesthood. Like if it got behind the one bishop's diocese. Like is that really ok with the Vatican. Stuff like that. I'm very surprised to know this story.

I would think all that was clear enough. Sorry if it wasn't, but I think it was. So what's your point in asking, Ridgeback? Are you suspicious of my being "sinister" again? Or do you think my suprise somehow requires me to be contradictory? Really I wanted MickColins to elaborate -- which he did, thankfully, prior to your post.
1/28/12 2:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
667 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01/28/12 2:58 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 8710
MickColins - I had a teacher in college that was a married Catholic priest. When we asked him how that was possible, he told us he'd been Anglican his whole life, was an Anglican priest but got tired of the CoE/ Anglicanism becoming so doctrinally liberal/ soft. He talked to a Catholic bishop that told him he could convert to Catholicism, still be a priest and keep his wife/kids. So he did it. Phone Post


Was Jeffrey Steenson your teacher?

I've clearly been out of the loop (on purpose, I suppose) -- but just happened upon this article on a yahoo page:


http://voices.yahoo.com/article/9277317/pope-embraces-anglicans-us-ordinariate-10778627.html?cat=34


Pope Benedict XVI is continuing his efforts to welcome members of the Anglican and Episcopal Churches into communion with the Catholic Church, Following the successful establishment of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham for England and Wales on January 15, 2011, he has established the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter for the United States.

The new Ordinariate will allow members of the Anglican and Episcopal Churches in the United States, as well as ministers and entire parishes, to become a part of the Catholic Church but retain some of their traditional prayers, hymns and services. The Ordinariate will function very much as a diocese but on a national level. CNS reports that the first Ordinary is Father Jeffrey N. Steenson, who once was an Episcopal bishop but is now an ordained Catholic priest. He is married, and has three children and a grandson. His married status bars his elevation to the rank of bishop in the Catholic Church.

The Ordinariate will be administered from the parish of Our Lady of Walsingham, an Anglican use parish in Houston. Several other such parishes received into the Church over the last three decades exist. More than 100 ministers and over 1,000 individuals nation wide have expressed interest so far in joining the Ordinariate. Last fall two entire parishes were received into the Catholic Church as preparation for joining the Ordinariate after it was established.

Anglicans have been welcomed by the Catholic Church since 1980, subject to the approval of individual diocesan bishops. The rites and forms for Anglican Use parishes are well established. The creation of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter moves that process to a national level. The Ordinariate for England and Wales has establish e d more than 50 groups, the equivalent of parishes, in its first year. The Ordinariate of the United States, on January 1, 2012, has none but that can be expected to change rapidly as preparations have been under way for some months.
1/28/12 3:43 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
TheStewedOwl
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/8/02
Posts: 7931
Yeah, I met a Catholic priest of the Anglican Ordinariate here in town. He has 3 kids. It'll be interesting to see if it affects the celibacy discipline for other priests over time. I remember reading that it caused some serious rifts in England re church property.

1/28/12 5:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 26962
Ali - I wasn't making a point to contradict, Ridge. Just to say I thought I'd have a background where I would know, but I'm in wonderment that I didn't. Really, just flat out amazement that this is true, and I didn't know.

Did you think I was trying to contradict? I wasn't! "This is all very interesting". Is that unclear?

I'm still rather amazed. I thought I spent enough time looking at the relationship between the Episcopal Church, at least (and by extension, then the Anglican -- but maybe that's where I fall down), and the Catholic (Roman) Church, that I wouldn't be able to be surprised. Clearly I was wrong. Taken off guard. That's my point. "This is all very interesting". Again. And I still have questions about the sanctioning of that priesthood. Like if it got behind the one bishop's diocese. Like is that really ok with the Vatican. Stuff like that. I'm very surprised to know this story.

I would think all that was clear enough. Sorry if it wasn't, but I think it was. So what's your point in asking, Ridgeback? Are you suspicious of my being "sinister" again? Or do you think my suprise somehow requires me to be contradictory? Really I wanted MickColins to elaborate -- which he did, thankfully, prior to your post.

 As I am sure you know, the statement "this is all very interesting" is very often used in a sarcastic tone and your post certainly came off as a "is that so" kind of response.
1/28/12 5:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
667 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01/28/12 6:03 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 8711
Ridgeback 
 As I am sure you know, the statement "this is all very interesting" is very often used in a sarcastic tone and your post certainly came off as a "is that so" kind of response.


That's entirely your misreading. All of the hostility was yours.
1/28/12 6:50 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 26967
Ali - 
Ridgeback 
 As I am sure you know, the statement "this is all very interesting" is very often used in a sarcastic tone and your post certainly came off as a "is that so" kind of response.


That's entirely your misreading. All of the hostility was yours.

 Well it hardly rose to the level of hostility (which is now your own interpretation of my words).  Your post came off as sarcastic and I was responding to the perceived sarcasm.  Since you have clarified that this was in no way your intent, I apologize for misreading your post.  I should have asked for clarification.  

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.