OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 11:25:22 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Anglicans to reunite with Catholics!  (Read 10466 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,372



« Reply #45 on: March 16, 2007, 11:16:29 AM »

I ran across something interesting today.

Why Should Anglicans Accept Roman Ecclesiology?
http://all2common.classicalanglican.net/?page_id=551

It has links to another article describing Anglican ecclesiology as "parasitic".

It should be noted that the first article mentioned rejects Roman ecclesiology, and that the "parasitic" article was written by my old Tiber-crossing rector.

The crisis-of-the-day is that the election of Mark Laurence to be the next bishop of South Carolina has been rejected. Unfortunately for all, the circumstances of this are not clean. Each sitting bishop and each diocesan standing committee has to consent or reject, and if I recall correctly a simple majority of both is needed. It appears that a lot of standing committees didn't do anything, but the real sticking point appears to be that while a bare minimum of consents were apparently transmitted, some were not properly submitted and are being ruled invalid. Not surprisingly, a lot of people are upset. The general reason for rejecting Laurence is the perception that he is not committed to keeping his diocese in PECUSA no matter what. Now, there's noothing preventing the diocese from re-electing him putting everyone through the same process again. Rejections are extremely rare, and mostly have had to do with process irregularities which were then corrected. SOmehow I don't think it's going to be that way this time.
Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #46 on: March 16, 2007, 11:23:46 AM »

It should be noted that the first article mentioned rejects Roman ecclesiology, and that the "parasitic" article was written by my old Tiber-crossing rector.

To clarify, I posted it for Ebor as an example of the "I converted, you all need to convert now because you're not in a real church" phenomenon.  I also thought it explained why there was not and would not be a flood of former Anglicans/Episcopalians who would convert.  I also thought it was just interesting.

Quote
The crisis-of-the-day is that the election of Mark Laurence to be the next bishop of South Carolina has been rejected. Unfortunately for all, the circumstances of this are not clean. Each sitting bishop and each diocesan standing committee has to consent or reject, and if I recall correctly a simple majority of both is needed. It appears that a lot of standing committees didn't do anything, but the real sticking point appears to be that while a bare minimum of consents were apparently transmitted, some were not properly submitted and are being ruled invalid. Not surprisingly, a lot of people are upset. The general reason for rejecting Laurence is the perception that he is not committed to keeping his diocese in PECUSA no matter what. Now, there's noothing preventing the diocese from re-electing him putting everyone through the same process again. Rejections are extremely rare, and mostly have had to do with process irregularities which were then corrected. SOmehow I don't think it's going to be that way this time.

So a bishop who was lawfully elected to lead his diocese was just rejected because of a perception?  Do I understand that correctly?

[I found a news article that says this

Quote
The Very Rev. Mark Lawrence needed at least 56 "yes" votes to be elected bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. He got 57.

But because some of those votes were electronically submitted, Presiding Episcopal Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on Thursday invalidated the election. Canon law doesn't allow e-mail votes.

http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/default_pf.aspx?NEWSID=134837

Is this for real?]
« Last Edit: March 16, 2007, 11:34:04 AM by welkodox » Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,372



« Reply #47 on: March 16, 2007, 12:01:29 PM »

Yes. In the overwhelming majority of cases consents are routine; the general attitude is "far be it from us to argue with their choice." There have been several cases where consents failed due to perceived irregularities in the election process; in most if not all of those, the diocese went through the motions again and consents were obtained.

The most famous case of denied consents was that of James DeKoven, who was twice elected and twice failed to achieve the necessary consents. This was in the context of the "Ritualist" controversies, and as a defender of a more Catholic liturgy he was not liked by the anti-Roman set.
Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #48 on: March 16, 2007, 12:05:08 PM »

Perhaps you have a Papacy on your hands after all Keble!  Cheesy
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #49 on: March 20, 2007, 11:17:43 AM »

I ran across something interesting today.

Why Should Anglicans Accept Roman Ecclesiology?
http://all2common.classicalanglican.net/?page_id=551

It has links to another article describing Anglican ecclesiology as "parasitic".

Thank you. I'd come across that as I read some of the Anglican and RC blogging.  As Keble noted the "parasitic" article was written by a person who had been an Anglican priest for 25 years. I'm sorry if this sounds too grim or grouchy, but it's more of the 'slap down where I used to be to show that where I am now is Right' it seems to me.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #50 on: March 20, 2007, 11:36:15 AM »

Well, if you wanted to find some textbook examples of how to make a church unattractive to potential converts, I would say some of those comments in that blog would fit the bill.  They seem really, really troubled by the idea that Anglicanism has any legitimacy.

Was the priest in question formerly of the Anglo-Papalist or Anglo-Catholic strain?
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #51 on: March 20, 2007, 12:12:10 PM »

Well, if you wanted to find some textbook examples of how to make a church unattractive to potential converts, I would say some of those comments in that blog would fit the bill. 

You noticed that, too, did you?  Wink 

Quote
They seem really, really troubled by the idea that Anglicanism has any legitimacy.

They can't have Anglicanism having any legitimacy since they left that Church; they can't just go and leave her behind and move on.  They say that the body they have chosen to move to is The One True Church(tm) so they must somehow put down where they were.  There has, in the past, been some umm vigourous commenting in that when Al Kimel left the Anglicans he looked at both RC and EO and decided that RC was the way to go.  But he thought that EO was OK too, that the "only" choices for were RC or EO and that both were equal.

Quote
Was the priest in question formerly of the Anglo-Papalist or Anglo-Catholic strain?

Not papalist that I know of and not pinned to the ceiling AC. He was big on Cursillo and evangelicalism strains for a while.  One thing was that he was a proponent of decently and in order liturgy.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #52 on: March 20, 2007, 12:55:18 PM »

Ooiyyh.  Intellectual converts looking for the true church.  Count me out of that one.

Quote
Not papalist that I know of and not pinned to the ceiling AC.

Actual Anglo-Papalists in this country I think are fairly rare.  Nose bleed altitude churchmen are more common, but mostly restricted to their urban fortresses (with of course their congregational polity, the ultimate irony  Wink).

I was a nose bleeder, but in a broad to slightly affirming aff-kaffish type parish.  What actually got to me were two issues.

One that I perceived the leadership of the church to be a bunch of jerks (apologies if you have a different perspective)
Two, the agreements with the Methodists and Lutherans.  This point really troubled me.

For me, this wasn’t a big deal per se ultimately.  I had no practicing church background (although some family associations that made the ECUSA familiar) and had looked at Orthodoxy and Anglicanism beginning at the same time.  So I didn’t really feel like I was invested in anything, leaving anything behind, and I was just as comfortable in the DL.

It seems to me ECUSAers who take catholicity seriously have some tough choices now.

Stay put – ignore the craziness and some problematic ecclesiology issues and hope for the best.
The Continuum – Kind of a sectarian existence.
Full bore Byzantine – Good liturgy, but not yours.
WR Orthodoxy – Tepid support from the hierarchs, issues of continuity, no hierarchy of ones own.  Limited availability.
Novus Ordo RCC – No explanation needed.
Anglican Use RCC – Same issues as WRO with a crappy version of the prayer book.

No easy choices there.
Logged
MLPB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 67


« Reply #53 on: December 09, 2008, 04:10:38 PM »

This has me wondering now, did marrying into a House take over from one(s) that one was born into.
No.
At the coronation of HM Elizabeth II, in accordance with tradition, the Royal Family was led in the Cathedral by it's oldest member who happened to be her Majesty's Mother-In-Law, Princess Andrew of Greece and Denmark, who, by this stage had become an Orthodox Nun. Princess Andrew was born Princess Alice and was in fact St. Elizabeth's neice. She married into the Greek Royal Family, and later became an Orthodox Nun. At Her Majesty's coronation, she led the procession clothed in her habit (see below).

Princess Andrew was a Windsor, and not because her son married a Windsor, but because she herself was the Great Grand-daughter of Queen Victoria.
Cool picture.  Technical correction: Westminster Abbey is not a Cathedral.   Wink
Logged
Tags: Princess Alice St. Elizabeth Prince Charles 
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.056 seconds with 35 queries.