Interesting path to Conversion

I couldn't disagree more with the sentiments of this man mainly because somewhere along the line he lost all perspective on the Anglican communion which outside of the US and the UK is overwhelmingly orthodox ie no women priests, no divorce, no euthanasia, Christ is present in the Eucahrist and the Bible is emphatically NOT some sort of allegory. I could go on, but outside of the several million Anglicans found in the US and UK there are tens of millions of Anglicans who hold true to what the church has always taught and they believe it and they are willing to give their lives for it.

The primates of the global Anglican church just finished their regular convention and the African, Asian and South American bishops refused communion with those archbishops who were in support of the gay bishop and of gay marriage. They also firmly told these bishops that they were not welcome on the council that make major decisions for the communion until they repented of their positions and their unilateral actions which strike at the heart of Christian teaching. The two bishops on the outside were steam rolled by the great majority of the communions bishops.

Right now these bishops are trying desparately to keep the communion whole by punishing the errant bishops in the hopes that they will repent but they have made no bones about this being the last chance. They will not hesitate to cut all ties with these bishops if they pass on this last opportunity.

As for those Episcopalians who don't really believe in the Christian faith, their churches are dying while those churches like mine that hold true to the faith and believe it totally are thriving and gaining new members all the time. Rather than being a faithful remnant in an apostate church, we will very shortly be the last churches left alive and thriving. We will be the Anglican church in America.

I say this because i perceive quite a bit of bigotry here towards Anglicans and Orthodox. Bigotry comes from ignorance. I won't fool myself into thinking that I convince anyone here that the Orthodox and Anglican churches are every bit as apostolic as the Roman one, but I can clear up misinformation.

You have no idea of the energy and passion and inspiration that is being aroused in the faithful Anglican parishes around the world in order to save our church. We are down but not out. There is life where everyone else sees only death. We aren't ready to submit to ecclesial euthanasia. Not by any stretch. Considering the talent that I have seen personally in my parish coupled with the talent coming down the pipe from the seminarians we support and multiply this by the other faithful parishes and diocese which are doing the same and I can confidently say that rumors of our demise are being greatly exagerated.

I am and will remain a faithful Anglican. I am not ashamed to say that I am.

at this point I dont expect for my prior post to be allowed to post, but I want to say one other thing that I noticed. In the article, the terms Episcopalian and Anglican are used interchangably as if they meant the same thing when they don't. In other words J Bud and his Catholic interviewer condemn an entire global church which happens to be adamantly opposed to everything the liberal dominated Episcopalian church does because of the example of the Episcopalian church alone.

J Bud didn't leave Anglicanism. He never really knew it. He left the Episcopalian church because he had the misfortune to run into nothing but wishy washy episcopalian churches and one semi warm one. Then he declared the whole enterprise dead based on the actions of two rouge dioceses in a communion of some 40 dioceses most of them archly conservative. He didn't wait for what happens next. He didn't wait for the end of the story. He gave up any hope of redemption and then he made sure that he was no longer tainted by association with the rougues by leaving them.

I have many problems with the kind of thinking where one decides that something is an authority then submits completely to an authority in spite of serious objections with the view that any objections must be wrong and the authority right. I did my fair share of deep thinking over many years about which of the apostolic churches I would join. I came to the conclusion that authority can go wrong and when it does it is the job of the family to confront it. I also saw in the Anglican church a bridge between the Romans, the Orthodox and the Protestants under attack by evil. Where does evil go to damage the good? It goes for the jugular. It attacks Catholic priests and Anglicanisms famed tolerance and moderation and turns them into stumbling blocks.

I dont see people around here mention him too much, but I most certainly believe in the evil one. I saw his work writ large on September 11th.
He wants to undermine all Christian faith. He wants to destroy the trust betwenn Romans and their priests and he wants to destroy from within the best chance of getting all of Christian faithful back together again and that is Anglicanism. He wants to take the bridge most used by protestants back to a catholic faith and bring it crashing down. He wants to see the closeness and dialouge and understanding between the Christian church of England and Nigeria etc and the national churches of Russia and Greece and Syria etc to be wrecked. He wants their reapproachment to cease. He doesn't want icons in Anglican churches. He doesn't want Anglicans to pray for the Patriarch Bartholomew and the Pope at every Mass. He doesn't want faithful Anglicans revering Roman saints and reading the Roman Doctors. He doesn't want a church to survive that already acts in many ways if not in every way as if the divisions in Christianity were already behind us.

I love that about the Anglican church that I know. I love that those who want to can pray the Rosary and say the Hail Mary and that those who aren't there yet can still be comfortable because their feelings are respected. I love that Protestants can be drawn into the beautiful Anglican high liturgy without being put off at the first before they have a chance to understand. I love that Frederica Matthews Green, a famous and gifted writer and Orthodox convert will be our Easter season speaker this year. This is what Anglican tolerance is all about. Its about reunification beginning with us. Its not about "anything goes" and neither is it about submit to the dictates of the Pope like it or not or else. Above all in its ideal form Anglicanism is a true bridge church, a true middle, a true faciltator with true love and not scorn for the various Christian traditions without compromising in faith or morals. It is ideally the door by which many could enter. It is ideally a church which can bring Christians together. Already, the Orthodox church is responding to this but as long as Rome clings to its imperial airs instead of acting as a good father as it should, this wont ever happen for Rome. I think you just might wake up some day and find that the Anglican and Orthodox have already renewed their communion and left you behind.

I dont mean that in a snotty way. I just mean that mutual respect not imperiousness is what will bring the Christian bodies back together. Calling the Anglican church a protesant church only 500 years old is deeply offensive to Anglicans who are catholic in every respect except in our protest of the Pope's manner of excercising his headship. (We would, BTW, gladly accept that headship again if it was but fatherly once again instead of imperial as it is now) Casting scorn on the Orthodox for doing the same and for insisting that bishops be elected by local Christian synods rather than be appointed by the Pope to be his men rather than equals to be respectfully consulted. They too have no problem with papal primacy but they have every problem with papal imperialism and with the Pope appointing the bishops who decide doctrine. In what world can such an assembly work where all the delegates making decisions are hand picked for their loyalty to the head of the body????

If you had an ounce of Christian decency and charity around here, you would be praying for the restoration of the Anglican church (the very church by the way responsible for Wilberforce who brought about the abolition of slavery throughout much of the world) as it has an important role to play in re-uniting protestants to the apostolic churches. You would also be praying for God to take your high hands down and lower your noses from the high altitudes. Most people won't see the Roman argument for the arrogance and smug self satisfaction with which the many of the most evangelical Romans conduct themselves.

Well, ok, I guess I had more than one thing more to say! heh!

A list of the people Anglicans honor throughout our liturgical year. You just might recognize some people. They go all the way back to the church's founding in England in the 5th century and even beyond that. This is our unbroken heritage.

William Wilberforce's biography can be found on this page.

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/bioalpha.html

Here are some links that you might find educational about what is happening in the Anglican church in America.

Our leader against the liberals running amuk Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburg.

Blog http://www.pgh.anglican.org/bishopblog

The Anglican Communion Network

http://anglicancommunionnetwork.org/purpose/

Forward in Faith

http://www.forwardinfaith.com/

Anglican Global Mission Partners

http://www.globalmp.net/

Alright Peggy...so far I've let Jay dialogue with you but after reading the above comments I just had to put in my two cents worth.

First, least we forget, the "Anglican" church was founded in ENGLAND. So to imply that it is no big deal that the Church of England (UK) is falling into moral and theological ruin is a gross understatement. It sounds to me like the "axe is laid to the root of the tree" (Lk 3:9).

Second, I did a little research and found the terms Anglican and Episcopal used in relationship with one another:
The Anglican Domain
This site provides links to all the homepages of the various Anglican and Episcopal churches and explains who really is "Anglican" and who isn't, fasinatingly enough, the Church of England hold a place of special importance (the following is a direct quote):

If an Anglican church is a member of the Anglican Communion, it is said to be "in communion", or "in communion with the See of Canterbury". Otherwise it is said to be "not in communion." Generally, Anglican churches that are not in communion with the See of Canterbury have withdrawn because of doctrinal differences. In recent years those differences have included the ordination of women priests and the attitude of the church towards sexuality.

I found this particularly interesting in that it directly refers to the "See of Canterbury", so in denying the "See of Peter", Anglicans have set up their own See... Ironic isn't it?! So on what authority are these other bishops breaking away? Are they not breaking away from the Anglican foundation, the Church of England?

You can keep beating that "Anglican" drum, just don't forget about the "axe", it's not a pleasant experience to be in the tree when it comes crashing down...

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,

First of all Episcopalian is a word used to describe the American church and it is the result of historical circumstance. The word Anglican was abandoned as the name of the church in post colonial times because of its strong association with England. Episcopal was chosen because it was considered to be the next best thing to call themselves as it basically means "bishop" church.

Only in America is Episcopal and Anglican used interchangably. We are Anglican in origin and Episcopal in our American identity. It would make no more sense for a Nigerian to call themselves Episcopalians than it would for that same Nigerian to insist that they are an American. The Episcopal church is one member of the Anglican communion. It is therefore inaccurate to confuse this American church and its problems with the majority of the communion which is very much opposed to its actions. It is inaccurate to say that because it is dying right now, the rest of the communion is also dying when the rest is in fact thriving. It is also inaccurate to say that because the Episcopal church has nothing to say of any import to faithful Christians, therefore the whole communion is bankrupt as well.

As for the churches in England and the US, it is very premature to say that they are dead beyond any hope of revival. How arrogant a thing to say coming from an outsider. The liberal parts of the church are dying off. Liberal parishes are the ones that are empty. But the faithful parishes are growing. They are full. They are active in the movement to restore their national churches to right order and belief. They are also very evangelical in spirit. By what stretch of the imagination are the churches of England and America therefore entirely dead and without hope? Is this not evidence of life and reason to hope? Who are you to say that these signs of life aren't in fact life?

Do the math. Liberal parishes die off. Conservative parishes grow. In time who will be the church of England and the church of America???

So there is life in these national churches and a spirited movement to restore them. The majority of Anglicans in the world are faithful Christians holding to the apostolic faith and doctrine. This is a picture of a troubled church but not of one on its death bed. And the majority of this communion are working vigorously on those problems.

I do not expect you as a convinced Roman, to understand the concept of national churches and independent arch-bishoprics chosen from local councils rather than being handpicked by the Pope. But I have studied this issue and I believe this was indeed the original model of the church. The evidence to me is overwhelming. These independent bishops would meet to decide church doctrine. The Pope played the role of "first among equals" He was the father of the church, not ruling like an emperor, but ruling it as good human father with respect and with due consultation with the family but also with some authority. He did not lord it over the others but he was deferred to in matters of tie votes and his guidance and opinion carried an added weight without cancelling the authority of the duly elected bishops of other dioceses. Over time, due to fallen human nature and to historical and cultural circumstance the Roman see grew more imperial. This in turn clashed terribly with the inherant and deeply felt democratic lean of the Greek churches who it must be admitted understood the role that some limited democracy in the church far better than Rome did. We all know in these days what is the value of checks on human power and authority and particularly on concentrated power. In time, the relationship deteriorated with the Pope becoming ever more imperial and the Greek bishops becoming ever less inclined to defer to him and more rebellious. This led to them making a decision out of desparation and neccesity to take themselves mutually out of communion with one another. This is the same process which occurred much later with the national church of England. The delay was also due to circumstances historical and cultural ie the national church submitted sometime after its founding to the gaurdianship of Rome for a variety of good reasons. But the eventual break was also due to these same circumstances ie differences in historical and political developments and in national culture. At that point the national church of England reasserted itself and felt it had to break from Rome in protest as our Orthodox bretheren did. The result was the quite necessary establishment of a see in Canterbury as there is a see in Constantinople. In these difficult and less than ideal circumstances, these churches needed an ultimate authority in order to govern themselves properly. But both churches would much rather go back to the old model. These sees weren't established in denial of the Pope's claim. They were founded as a less than ideal measure while the Pope gets all the old Roman imperialism out of his system for once and for all and finally reverts to his redeemed and enlightened headship of the whole Christian church.

This is why the Orthodox pray for the Pope at every Mass. This is why Anglicans pray for the Pope at every Mass. (You, I am certain, do not pray for our heads at Mass) We are well aware that the ideal is for the national churches to be under the Popes leadership and we want to be reunited with him without losing our self respect or compromising on the original vision of what headship and family means. I've got news for you. There are more defintions of headship and the family than the Roman model and frankly, the Orthodox/Anglican model is the better one. If lived out in today's world, it would not only reunite the churches but it would also prevent any further problems. Every successful, happy family is guided by those principles. Even Romans follow this principle of enlightened and respectful headship in their own families. And yet the see of Rome still won't let go of the imperial idea where the emperor handpicks his governors more for loyalty to him and his ideas than anything else. The Orthodox/Anglican view of a more organic family with bishops chosen by local synods with, and I emphasize this, final approval from the head of the church to avoid out and out heretics from being elected, is the better model ensuring independence in the bishops but also order in the church. This model worked great for about a 1000 years and it can again.

Sorry for this post but I am trying to see if my response to Joe posted this morning is really lost or just delayed. I still dont see it.

Jay, thanks for bringing to light an interesting account of someone's journey to accept both the general authority of the Roman Catholic Church and the specific teachings.

For me, the last thing I accepted was general authority. When I was about to return to the Roman Catholic Church, I had many difficulties with specific doctrines (some of them Marian, most from the Council of Trent) and also with general doctrinal authority (I believe CS Lewis said this was his reasons for remaining out of communion with Rome). The priest said that despite the anathemas of the Council of Trent, he said I could nevertheless return because my difficulties stopped short of outright denial and I was not attempting to teach or lead others away from the Church's teachings. I was a little hesitant but I trusted the priest's judgement.

Years later, I realized that when it came to the four life issues of contraception, abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment - the Catholic position was demonstrably correct apart from any appeal to its authority. Each of the four issues is a yes-no question. Thus there are only 16 possible responses to four yes-no questions. There are 50000 Protestant denominations and yet not one can manage to answer these four questions correctly. Even 1600 monkeys with little assistance from the holy spirit would be able to produce about 100 monkeys correct answers. When I realized that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Christian group to answer these four fundamental questions correctly, I decided to trust the teaching authority of the Church on other matters such as the Council of Trent and the Marian dogmas.

I find it interesting that others would accept the general authority of the Church after overcoming some of their objections/obstacles but not all.

Peggy,

I hate to tell you that you are dead wrong...but you are dead wrong about the use of the titles Anglican and Episcopal in countries other than the U.S. Saying that Episcopal only applies to churches in America reflects how little you really know about the "universal" aspect of your religion. Here's a list:

A National Church is a self-governing member of the Anglican Communion. Episcopal churches in countries not listed below are part of one of the Transnational Provinces. Individual dioceses are listed on the "Dioceses" page.

The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia
The Anglican Church of Australia
The Church of Bangladesh
A Igreja Episcopal do Brasil
The Church of the Province of Burundi
The Anglican Church of Canada
The Episcopal Church of Cuba
The Church of England
Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui
The Church of North India
The Church of South India
The Church of Ireland
Japan: Nippon Sei Ko Kai
The Anglican Church of Kenya
The Anglican Church of Korea
La Iglesia Anglicana de México
The Church of the Province of Myanmar
The Church of the Province of Nigeria
The Church of Pakistan
The Anglican Church of Papua New Guinea
The Philippine Episcopal Church
The Lusitanian Church of Portugal
The Province of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda
The Scottish Episcopal Church
The Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church
The Church of Sri Lanka (extra provincial)
The Episcopal Church of the Sudan
The Church of the Province of Tanzania
The Church of the Province of Uganda
The Episcopal Church in the United States of America
The Church in Wales
Macao
The Diocese of Puerto Rico
The Diocese of Venezuela

As you can see there are "Episcopal" churches in Brazil, Cuba, Sudan, Rwanda (both Sudan and Rwanda are in Africa, I might add), Scotland, Philipines, Spain, AND the United States. So to "Americanize" the use of the word "Episcopal" is inaccurate.

Also, we have many documents from the first centuries showing deference being given to the "Bishop of Rome." In terms of Scripture, Acts 15:7-12 clearly attests to St. Peter's authority. Also, I'm not the one arguing with you about "National Churches", I'm just pointing out that the "Anglican Communion" is tied to unity with the "See of Canterbury." Call it what you will, if nothing else the Church of England hold the place of historical significance in terms of the Anglican/Episcopal Churches, since it was from there that your church was formed and promulgated. Even in Africa, the ONLY reason the Anglican/Episcopal churches are present there is due to missionary efforts after Henry VIII split from the Catholic Church...just study your church(es)'s history...it's all there. Also, from my understanding of this list - if you are on the list...you are in union with the Anglican Communion, which I would assume promulgates whatever the "See of Canterbury" is promulgating.

To compare the Anglican/Episcopal churches to the Greek Orthodox is another sign of your misconceptions about these matters. The Orthodox Patriarch, at the time of the Greek Schism, was the only person excommunicated and by a Cardinal at that. It was more over a misunderstanding than anything else. Whereas the Anglican "break" was due to Henry VIII's demand for a divorce....period. He may have raised other objections, but the heart of the matter was the divorce. Also, in case you didn't know, any and all bishops and priests who refused to break with him were executed...that is a historical fact! Those that did break cut themselves off in doing so. So there is no valid priesthood in the Anglican/Episcopal churches. Just read the writings of St. Thomas More if you think I'm making all this up. That, however, did not occur in the Greek Schism. There was no mandate to "join or die". So the priesthood lived on in the Greek Orthodox Church.

I particularly found this comment interesting:

We are well aware that the ideal is for the national churches to be under the Pope's leadership and we want to be reunited with him without losing our self respect or compromising on the original vision of what headship and family means. I've got news for you. There are more defintions of headship and the family than the Roman model and frankly, the Orthodox/Anglican model is the better one.

Really? I haven't heard the Anglican bishops demanding or requesting to be reunited under the Pope... In regards to your last point, you must be joking right? Approved homosexuality, "legitimate reasons for an abortion", contraception, gay marriage, etc...these make up your "better model"...just think about it. Also, please email me the details of the Anglican/Episcopal model so I can do a comparison.

Lastly, in regards to your comment about my "premature" judging of the Anglican/Episcopal churches I will say this. It was Christ who said:

Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. - Lk 3:9

Look at the theological and moral "fruits" of the Anglican/Episcopal churches over the past century. Enough said.

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,

This post doesn’t have anything to do with the Anglican/Roman split. I thought I would throw my two cents in on the article itself. (and yes I will respond to your post below eventually)

The article was interesting on the whole, but this passage struck me as more than a bit concerning:

“Some years ago, during a long conversation with a Catholic friend who knew of my attraction to the Church, I indulged in a bit of bellyaching. "I can’t call this an objection to Catholic doctrine," I said, "but you can’t deny the flat tonelessness of the language coming from some of the liturgical reforms. Besides, the Church puts up with forms of popular piety that are utterly inconsistent with its own teachings." My example was an urban Catholic church I knew that displayed the motto "MARY, SAVE US" in enormous letters. I said, "You know, I know, and the Church knows that Mary doesn’t save us. Mary points to her Son. Jesus saves us. So why is this tolerated?"

My friend leaned back and answered, "All of this is true. These are real problems. The Church knows about them. But in 200 years they’ll all be taken care of."

It was a preposterous reply, and on another evening, in another mood, I might have considered it glib. That evening, though, it struck me that my friend was viewing things from the perspective of the Church. As a Protestant, I realized that I had a much shorter timeline and that much of what I considered wisdom might actually be impatience. The mystery of the endurance of the Church through the centuries sank in a little deeper.”

Is this the attitude of the Catholic Church!?!?! “Oh yes we are aware of the institutionalized false doctrinal statements made by our churches, and we will get around to correcting them eventually. It may take us a couple hundred more years, but we have more important things to do right now than making sure that sound doctrine is taught within the Church. In the meantime there will be several generations and hundreds and thousands of people that will believe this false gospel on our watch and their soul will perish because of it. Oh well . . .” How utterly horrifying! “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.” I will pray for the continuing reformation of the Catholic Church, and will keep myself and my family far away from it at least until after they have cleaned up their own shop. I can’t imagine sending my kids to a Church where the leadership knows that wrong doctrine is taught and yet they do nothing about it. To me this is one of the greatest sins a church can commit. At least the Anglican Churches have an honest if mistaken belief that they are right.

In Christ,

Thomas

Joe,

Your drive to prove me wrong has led you to distort almost everything that I said.

My main points which you have entirely ignored.

The Anglican communion is not the same as the Episcopal church in America or in The Church in Canada (or what ever it is called) The vast majority, in the tens of millions, refute and reject the teachings and actions of these churches.

You take my contention to the most literal extreme when I said that the terms Episcopalian (note the capital "E") and Anglican are different and not interchangeable. The first is an historical name which came into use first in America. Your argument assumes that I am making the case that absolutely no other church uses the word Episcopal in their name. I never said that. I said the word Anglican denotes our origins. It is not accurate to say that the Episcopalian church in America is the same church as all the other churches in the communion and it is not accurate to say that as it goes so goes the whole lot. But in your desparation to prove me wrong and paint me to be some ill-informed idiot for your friends around here, you have misread the spirit and intent of just about everything I have said. You missed the whole point which was to refute that American Episcopaliansim is synonymous with Anglicanism.

I have no idea where you get the idea that i am denying that the Pope was deferred to in the first centuries of the church. Neither the Anglican nor the Orthodox deny this. The disagreement is not that he is considered the head of the church but how he is supposed to enact that role. The model I speak of, is of a headship model. But in your headlong rush to discredit me you jumped to the conclusion that I was talking about moral teaching ignoring of course, everything that I have said repeatedly about the majority of Anglicans hating these moral teachings imposed by liberals in power and working vigorously to roll them back that includes liberal teachings on divorce, contraception, abortion, euthanasia and women priests. The majority of Anglicans reject these teachings and these teachings are recent aberrations that the majority of Anglicans through time would have also rejected. It is a sign of illness and not death in much the same way that pedophile priests are a symptom of an illness in the Roman church which has to be purged by the majority. That purging is taking place as it should. The process is beginning.

I don't know where you get the idea that I consider the Anglican church to be somehow "universal" I have no idea what contortions you went through to interpret my meaning in this way. At what point did I ever deny that the different Anglican churches were the products of colonial missions? At what point did I say that these churches just sprang up out of the ground? It is a fact that there are national Anglican churches throughout the world. I didn't argue anything more than that.

If I praised certain virtues of the Anglican church, I did so with a clear-eyed sense that it is also a troubled church. I dont subscribe to the bigotted attitude that if some church is troubled then it is without any merit at all. Which is what you seem to be saying. The Anglican church has a lot of merit. Particularly in its being a good bridge church for Protestants into catholic worship and teaching. It is also a strength that this church alone has no trouble honoring the perspectives of other two. I said that this church once reformed could play a vital role in erasing all Christian divisions. I never made any statement that it should be the one church that everyone should join.

As for what the see of Canterbury is promulgating, we are having a bad time right now with the man currently occupying that post. It is a huge mistake to say that because of one weak and confused and out of his depth leader that whole tradition is doomed to come crashing down. Both the Romans and the Greeks have had their share of bad or weak leaders and have survived. We have had our share of great and strong leaders and will likely do so again if the trends continue since the only Anglicans left will be orthodox ones. Rowan is a temporary affliction but I pray for him because he is so outmatched by his southern bishops and yet he tries so to be a peacemaker. I want him to get the help he needs to keep things together and heal the rifts.

I have already said what I have to say about your interpretaion of Anglican history so I wont restate it. I do not agree and the evidence bears that out. You subscribe to a black and white cartoon version of history with the guys in white on one side and the purely evil villian on the other. It didn't happen the way you say but I understand that you have to believe as you do in order to be certain about your choice to be a Roman. Can't have any nasty doubts can we? Can't entertain any possibility that there is any validity in Anglicanism.

I fail to see why our bishops should be clamoring for reunification under the Pope if they believe that the ideal situation is to be under his reformed headship. They will clamor for that reunification when the papacy reforms and renounces its imperial demands. The pope is both father and king but he should be more a father and less a king. You quite conveniently ignored this point entirely. How should the Pope be Pope? Is it right for him to act as an emperor lording it over his appointed underlings? Or is this a family based on balance of consensus, consultation, mutual respect, authority and order? We don't see that. We see Rome arguing that we are not in the least valid and that it is the only church. We see the situation as being that of valid parts of the church estranged from one another.

When you say that none of our priests are valid you only illustrate my point about your being a bigot.

As for the fruits of the Anglican church, the end of slavery in the world is one. The proper relation between church and state is another. The acheivements of British Empire and the legacy of England in the world also occured under the Anglican church's watch. C.S Lewis was an Anglican. There have been Anglican martyrs for the Gospel even into recent times. Anglican church music is a fruit of the Anglican church. Our lovely collects are the fruit of this church. The insitution of the vestry, which is an elected lay body which is responsible for all temporal matters governing each parish is a grand Anglican tradition and gives the laity decision making power over church property and land. The man who wrote "Cry the Beloved Country" against apartheid was a fruit of the Anglican church. I am a fruit of the Anglican church.

If you equate perfection with validity, then by that reckoning, the Catholic chuch is invalidated by any number of things. I could say that the pedophile scandals is proof that the Roman church is dead. But I dont. I say that its under attack by the devil because he hates the good in the world and wants to compromise it. I believe that all the churches are suffering such afflictions because it makes the Christian faith look bad.

A bigot is someone who refuses to see the good in another and refuses to be educated any differently. You fit that definition. I have enjoyed coming here in spite of the smug sniping at my church that you tend to indulge in because I was learning quite a bit about catholic beliefs in general and Roman belief inparticular. You have definitely swayed me away from the Catholic church and finally away from your website because of your arrogant and bigoted attitudes. Its a shame. If there is never reunification, it will be because of people like you who have to attack others and insult them in order to feel more secure in the superiority of their own beliefs.

Good Bye.

Peggy,

I will reply to you in reverse order. My comment that the priesthood of the Anglican/Episcopal church has nothing to do with the character of the individual priest nor perfection. It has everything to do with the nature of Holy Orders, who can infer it, and what constitutes valid priesthood. In order for an ordination to occur a bishop must be in union with the Church, namely with Magisterium. This union, or better yet, Apostolic Succession ceased to exist when Henry VIII had all bishops and priests in union with the Catholic Church martyred. The bigot was Henry VIII.

The Catholic Church has condemned the terrible sexual abuse crimes committed by Catholic priests. Reform is occurring, however, the Catholic Church never crossed the line of condoning those sins, as the Anglican Church has done in their teachings on homosexuality, abortion, contraception, and gay marriage. The Church, through Her moral teaching, has remained consistent in guiding humanity to moral wholeness and ultimately holiness. The sins of individual men and women within the Church are actions of free will. I don't pass judgement on any good-willed Anglican priest, but I can say that the sacrament of Holy Orders in the Anglican Church is not a "valid" or "apostolic" priesthood, for it is a HISTORICAL FACT.

The fruits that you speak of are good, but they relate, for the most part, to the actions of individuals...not theological truth. The fruits that I mentioned above were theological in nature. I can say with sound reason that C.S. Lewis would have walked out of the Anglican Church if he had forseen the path it has led since his death.

You're the one who said the Anglican Church wanted to be reunited with the Catholic Church...

My point about the See of Canterbury had nothing to do with the quality of the man occupying that position but rather that the union of other churches with this "See" is interesting to me, in light of the Anglican Church's separation from the See of Rome. By the way, the Pope doesn't act as an emperor or dictator but rather as a loving father, and when a father knows what is best he must act accordingly for the good of his family. Your comments above attempt to make the papacy something it isn't.

If headship isn't grounded in morality what good is it? Seriously... The purpose of Christ's mission to humanity was to save us from our sins and to give us grace in order that we might live lives modeled on His. Morality must naturally go hand-in-hand with theology.

Finally, Episcopal and Anglican churches hold to the same heritage and brief system. It's really that simple. They may differ on different doctrines but they consider themselves to be member of the same "Anglican Communion". Lumping them together isn't a gross distortion or misleading, for they do it themselves. Just go visit that site I linked to above.

In Christ,
Joe

Hi, I got here through the reference in the "Catholic Carnival." I don't have time to wade into the discussion as much as I'd like to, but two things leapt to mind after reading Peggy's impassioned defense: first, she suggests that Catholics don't pray for Anglican leaders at Mass. Not true. The Archbishop of Canterbury isn't named in Catholic ritual, but the Mass includes prayers for all Christians. And while I think it's great that Anglicans pray for the pope, I'd also point out that in Catholic theology, the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't hold a comparable office, so to think of the situation as analagous to "two leaders" is misleading-- only one of them pastors the universal church.

Second, I'm not conversant with ecclesiastical politics among the Anglican churches, but any reader of Christopher Johnson's blog "Midwest Conservative Journal" knows that while Peter Akinola and his African bretheren set a shining example of fidelity to traditio, it's not just in the United States that the Anglican/Episcopalian church is weak. Canadian bishops seem equally lost in many respects. This implies that J. Bud's observation about the state of his former church is on point, albeit painfully so.

I seem to be a bit late to get in on the heated discussion, but here's my bit:

It seems that Peggy suggests that Anglicans/Episcopalians/etc would accept the authority of the Pope if he bowed to their expectations. That is no acceptance at all.

Chris