Posted on 01/14/2009 8:15:10 PM PST by hiho hiho
As a member of the very conservtive Ft.Worth branch of the Anglican church, and who has VISITED Saddleback Chruch, I can tell you that while the main church is no place I would want to practice my faith, but they have so many places for a variety of worship services that smells and bells are very possible.
High church Piskies are "more Roman than Rome" and have no doctrinal problems with the Catholics, other than the supremacy of the Pope and the validity of Anglican Orders (and, as my husband said to our new rector, "We can deal.")
Evangelical or "low" Anglicans will have more of a problem because there are distinct theological differences as well as the ritual/vestment/smells & bells questions . . . .
“High church Piskies are “more Roman than Rome” and have no doctrinal problems with the Catholics, other than the supremacy of the Pope and the validity of Anglican Orders”
AND, the crappy music!
2. Our parish doesn't have crappy music, except for an occasional tacky hymn we throw at the old hippies to keep them quiet. Chant, Renaissance polyphony, Anglican anthems of the 16th and 19th cent mostly, and enough good modern music to keep us entertained.
Last night at choir practice we rehearsed Wood's "O Thou the Central Orb", a Christopher Tye anthem whose name escapes me, Britten's "O Come Let Us Sing", the anonymous "Rejoice in the Lord Alway" and that's just the English stuff! I told our choirmaster we really appreciated not having to leave the worthwhile stuff behind.
Uh. . .what?
Maybe I missed something, but the article sounded to me like Warren was offering the use of the building, since it appears those Anglican congregations that break with the liberal 'head' will lose their church building.
Is it possible for one to be Anglican and Roman Catholic at the same time?
I think Warren was offering a place for displaced Anglican congregations to worship. The church spaces they offer would be a good fit for the happy clappy type Anglicans.
As a high church Anglican, I would not find their church (auditoriums) very conducive to worship.
Well, yes and no . . . depending on where you're standing.
The Anglicans (at least the "high" ones) have always maintained that they have just as valid Apostolic Succession as the Roman Rite Catholics. The Catholic Church disagrees . . . hence the Bull Apostolicae Curae.
Reader's Digest Condensed Version: when Edward VI was king, his radical Protestant advisers changed the words of the consecration of bishops (removing references to the sacraments and the Holy Ghost and also the intention to supernaturally ordain) and by 1662 when they changed them back, a century had passed and the succession was extinct.
Canterbury and York fired back with the response Saepius Officio, which basically is "Is Not Either!" Their position was that Anglican Orders, having originally stemmed from the Catholic Church, remained valid despite the change in wording.
And there the matter stood for almost a hundred years, with the Anglicans maintaining they were Catholic (if not Roman) and the Catholic Church saying, 'uh uh'. Some Anglicans maintain that their Apostolic succession actually stems from the ancient Celtic Church, but that's just wishful thinking, because there are no records of ordination.
There was talk in the 60s and 70s of revisiting Apostolicae Curae, presumably with the idea of coming up with some sort of conditional ordination . . . but the antics regarding ordination of women and homosexuals, etc. put the quietus to that.
200 or so years of family tradition is a hard thing to shake.
Have High Church Anglicans backslid to acceptance of the papal doctrine of the mass as a repeated propitiatory sacrifice?
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, responding to Apostolicae Curae in Saepis Officio, pointed out that the standard used to invalidate Anglican Orders would also invalidate Roman Orders as the early medieval ordination rights did not include the language Rome was looking for. Basically it was a “So are you” response.
That issue aside, my question comes down to this: in order to be Roman Catholic, one must profess belief in and acceptance of, among other things, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, Clerical Celibacy and Roman practices regarding the elevation of the Host and the adoration & invocation of Saints, Images and Relics. Anglican beliefs flat out reject Purgatory, the “Romish doctrines concerning images and relics” and any other doctrine that cannot be proved by the plain words of Scripture. My question therefore is, how does the “Anglo-Catholic” pick and choose between Roman doctrine and discipline and Anglican doctrine and discipline?
The XXXIX are also in some ways a political compromise. Affirmation of the XXXIX was required for a lot of things (for example to matriculate at one of the Universities) but the two extreme ends of the Church simply blinked at them or explained them away. (Some things in there, like XVI and XXXIX, were just as difficult for certain Dissenters and Puritans to swallow as XXII and XXVIII for the Catholic wing).
So, the technical language of the XXXIX may reject quite a number of doctrines on both ends of the scale, but in practice a "high" parish is essentially Catholic if not ultra-Catholic (see, e.g., "Smoky Mary's" in NYC) and a "low" parish is plain white-bread Bible Protestant.
The first time I took my raised-Methodist husband to the somewhat notorious Our Saviour Virginia-Highlands, it was Easter Sunday and the long-time rector Fr. Pettway (may he rest in peace) preached on Purgatory. Which confused my husband somewhat.
But, of course, C.S. Lewis believed in Purgatory and the Real Presence. There's a lot of wiggle room in the Anglican Church and always has been.
P.S. . . . celibacy isn't a doctrine, it's a discipline. And I never in 47 years saw an Episcopal Church where the Host wasn't elevated at the Consecration.
For us, the Mass stands outside of Time. It's the same sacrifice, re-presented in an unbloody fashion, as Christ Himself instituted (or pre-presented) at the Last Supper.
And High Anglicans believe just that.
Good on him...much more than I expected of him.
Well, sorry if the graciously offered space is not to your liking, but I consider this a friendly gesture to provide space for congregations that lose their church facilities.
It would probably be temporary and certainly better than the local coffee house where I understand some of the Fort Worth people are meeting. (those that didn’t go with Bishop Iker)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.