Posted on 06/02/2005 12:15:16 PM PDT by sionnsar
"The form of worship is similiar but the underlying theology is very different."
Not to express agreement with the position, but the form of worship is all that really matters to the great majority of people, I think.
Re: your post # 20
I concur that there are serious theological differences. But Anglicanism is not a well defined theology even within their own body. You have liberals of all sorts & stripes on the one side and you have at least three different groups of conservative Anglicans on the other. Among the conservatives they start (roughly from left to right on the theological spectrum) with the evagelical low church types. They favor a very Bible oriented faith that is close to that practiced by many less structured fundamentalist Protestants. Then you have the more High Church types who are you basic series II or 1928 BCP Anglicans. They are staunchly in favor of the 39 Articles but are not comfortable with the theology of either the social/theological evangelical wing or of the more right wing group... the Anglo-Catholics. This last group is theologically much more in line with either Roman Catholic or Orthodox (as in Eastern) theology and may not be all that enamored of the term "Protestant" in the self view. Many of these latter use terms like "Mass" for their liturgy and they DO in fact believe in the real presence as also all seven of the sacraments. So its hard to indicate what conservative Anglicans feel about the Roman church because there are so many distinctly different versions of "conservative" Anglicanism.
It's not so unfortunate. It's just how it is. People are simple and liturgy expresses and defines the faith for them. That's why it's so important; lex credendi and all that.
To an evangelical, the concept of the development of doctine is foreign (although they develop doctrine as well). For example, evangelicals point to St Paul's declaration that Christ is our only mediator as being contradicted by the dogma of Mary being the mediatrix. Most complaints about Catholicism by evangelicals center around Mariology. They further point to growing support of the doctrine that Mary is co-redemptrix. Just as the Episcopal Church has taken the notions of inclusion and social justice way too far; so have some in the Catholic Church taken Mariology too far.
Ultimately, no two churches will agree on everything. Even every parish does things different. Does anyone actually believe the Cardinals are in complete agreement with each other on everything all the time? No. Are they all in Communion with each other? Yes. Where should the line be drawn?
You make an excellent point here, jec. I am attempting to found an Anglican mission and am confronted with the situation that, on the one hand, an Anglo-Catholic, staunchly conservative, would prefer very High Church, nearly Roman services (I am rather in sympathy here). On the other, I have an evangelical traditional Anglican, who might prefer I wear cassock, surplice and stole. Both are repelled by ECUSA for what come out as opposite liturgical reasons and apparently very different in theology. How shall I split the difference?
Might I point out that we would not all be in this boat if we all had a bit more charity and a bit less tendency to triumphalism. It was that 'we can define it when we see the worth' that led to the unsought impositions of IC/Assumption. It was long the Church's most sensible position that she will worship her Founder and minister to His flock and only strictly define what her charge means when absolutely forced to. And that means the emergence of an arch-heretic. Now, IMHO, the propositions for female and active homosexual ordination/consecration, serial monogamy, allowance for abortion and same-sex unions being shifted into ECUSA and ACC represent just that kind of thing and would/should stimulate a doctrinal response in the OEcumencial Church. Problem is, we're still eyeing each other warily, unwilling to concede that Orthodox, Roman and Anglo-Catholic might actually have joint authority to rule in such a question and even be able to promulgate the result.
But that last a tad over-estimates the situation for Anglicans. Should my own province, APCK, agree, would the AMiA? How about the ACC, ACA, REC or APA? And that leaves out the overarching Communion. Sadly, there ain't nobody sufficiently in charge in Anglicanism to really go to and that all comes back to what I see as the gravamen of the article: until Anglicanism proposes and accepts a Magisterium, it will fail of unity and be unable to discipline wayward sons and daughters. After all, Our Lord charged His apostles to "Go therefore, and teach all nations...teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..."
That sounds like a clear Scriptural requirement to build a reputable, competent and universal Magisterium to me. Such a thing, being so clearly expressed in so central a document as Matthew's Gospel, should appeal to Anglicans, yes?
In Christ,
Deacon Paul+
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.