Branch Theory

[gitlance]

You know, reading things like this article can be damaging to your faith in some ways. I think it's so sad that some of our Roman Catholic and Orthodox friends treat the Anglican Communion with such contempt. What do you guys think?

http://www.westernorthodox.com/branch

In Christ,

gitlance

[Albion]

You know, reading things like this article can be damaging to your faith in some ways. I think it's so sad that some of our Roman Catholic and Orthodox friends treat the Anglican Communion with such contempt. What do you guys think?

http://www.westernorthodox.com/branch

In Christ,

gitlance

I can understand the saddness over this, but Anglo-Catholics don't seem to "get it" that creating a theory like this and calling yourself a "Catholic" doesn't make you one. Certainly not in the eyes of the Catholics. It can't be put more clearly than that article does--

"From the above citation from the OCDC, we note that the branch theory is said to be operative, not only when there is a tactile apostolic succession, but also …provided that it continues to hold the faith of the original undivided Church… Thus, if the theory collapses when this element is missing, then Anglicanism has no claim whatever to it in the present hour. Liberal modernists, who now control Anglican Christianity in England, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and who are in the ascendancy in the remainder of the Anglican world, are usually forthright in their condemnation of the ancient and patristic Faith. Certainly modernism is antithetical to beliefs such as the bodily Resurrection of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the existence of absolute and revealed standards of moral behavior (especially with regard to sexual activities), or the delineation of complementary male and female roles within the Church and family life."

It's not by covering oneself with external similarities that you become a Catholic. I asked into this several times myself and found the Anglo-Catholic response here to show no comprehension of the facts of the matter. *We accept the seven Ecumenical Councils,* was one response to a question about the consequences of having openly homosexual bishops. But read the above. (the existence of absolute and revealed standards of moral behavior (especially with regard to sexual activities). Living tradition is not optional or just a matter of lip service.

Then too, look at the part about Apostolic Succession. It is not just about a line of layings on of hands. There has to be a continuity in all respects. (not only when there is a tactile apostolic succession, but also …provided that it continues to hold the faith of the original undivided Church… Thus, if the theory collapses when this element is missing).

The answer's there and it can't be anything else. Who recognizes it, even if doing so is painful?

[TomUK]

What a marvellously arrogant article!

[gitlance]

The answer's there and it can't be anything else. Who recognizes it, even if doing so is painful?

And in recognizing it, what should one do? Should one give up Anglicanism for the Roman or Orthodox Church?

Is there something invalid about the Catholicity of the Anglican Communion?

[Wigglesworth]

The article appears to have been written by a former Episcopalian who has joined an "Orthodox" community having 19 parishes across North America. I wouldn't characterize it as presenting the official position of two-thirds of the branches of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

I do like the branch theory. I believe that some of the branches are dead, that some of the branches are crooked, and that some of the branches are producing thorns and bad fruit after having foreign limbs grafted into them. They still stick out of the same trunk.

Different people are called by the Lord to serve in different places. The reasons this author cites for leaving the Episcopal Church are the same you have heard from a growing, significant number of Anglicans. Whether it looks like a lack of Love or not, a lot of folks who call themselves Christians on this spinning ball of dirt have a problem with elephants and elephant keepers. ;) Some members of the Body are noses, and some are armpits. Just because the two can't get along working side by side, that doesn't mean they don't both have an important purpose.

Enjoy where you are on the way to where you're going. When you have room in the seat beside you, ask a friend to come along. If he declines, somebody else will probably get on the bus at the next stop. :thumbsup:

[Wigglesworth]

I do like the branch theory. I believe that some of the branches are dead, that some of the branches are crooked, and that some of the branches are producing thorns and bad fruit after having foreign limbs grafted into them. They still stick out of the same trunk.

I liked this so much, I decided to say it twice. :kiss:

[gtsecc]

I liked this so much, I decided to say it twice. :kiss:
I really liked to too. You have a gift for articulating the faith.

[PaladinValer]

The branch theory is rather valid IMO. That article is just...ick

[cenimo]

One of the things about the internet is that no matter what religion, or denomination, you want to research, you will find ex's criticizing it, and converts to it saying marvelous things about the very same one the ex's are running down.

There are true believers, and Doubting Thomases in every church out there.

[AveMaria]

Wow... just, wow.


Is there perhaps a different Anglican Communion he's talking about, that I don't know of? I don't dare say more, as I am having a horrible attack of PMS and I'm out of chocolate.

[gitlance]

I don't dare say more, as I am having a horrible attack of PMS and I'm out of chocolate.

I just want you to know that that was the funniest thing I've heard all day!!!!

:D

gitlance

[•Amadeus•]

Wow... just, wow.


Is there perhaps a different Anglican Communion he's talking about, that I don't know of? I don't dare say more, as I am having a horrible attack of PMS and I'm out of chocolate.

PMS = Please More Sweets

:hug:

[Albion]

And in recognizing it, what should one do? Should one give up Anglicanism for the Roman or Orthodox Church?

Is there something invalid about the Catholicity of the Anglican Communion?
I really applaud you, git, for a willingness to work with ideas. It's easy for anyone to take a stand and blow off at any contrary thinking, but that doesn't produce anything useful.

What I was trying to point out is that no one can just read himself into any movement by mentally and emotionally attaching himself to what he wants to identify with. In this case--Anglo-Catholicism--the Anglo-Catholics see themselves as being as Catholic as any Catholic, but saying it doesn't seem to bring any affirmation from the Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox who, after all, constitute most of the "Catholics" in the world. That's the problem. The thread is not about how Catholic anyone here is, but why that isn't recognized by the non-Anglican Catholics.

The question is asked by referring to the so-called branch theory. Yet, the branch theory is a purely Anglican attempt to explain how belonging to a Protestant Church shouldn't matter since, well, our hearts are in the right place and we profess Catholic beliefs instead of Protestant ones on this or that. To the other Catholics, the branch theory is bunk, a denial of historic fact and sound theology.

Do Anglo-Catholics then say that they don't care? No, they care! They won't drop it there but want the acceptance of the branch theory by the "other branches."

My comments were a try at having you or any other reader see the answer from the Roman Catholic or Orthodox side which is what you have to do. Maybe that article is arrogant, maybe not. But pointing out that aspect of it doesn't do a thing to resolve your problem. It would be easy to produce a hundred such articles among which, I'm sure, would be some that have a softer tone. The fact is that none of them is going to say "the branch theory is what we Roman Catholics believe, too."

Bottom line, if any Anglo-Catholic wants really to be accepted as a Catholic by most other Catholics, he has to convert. Otherwise, he is asking to be affirmed as a Catholic while carrying a membership card around with him that is stamped "holder is non-Catholic."

That is how they are always going to see the situation, and all the vestments, rituals, and confessional statements in the world will not be received as anything more than a veneer attached to an unacceptable base. Even if they feel some sympathy for what is in your heart, that's as far as it can go.

But you can always go further yourself and study what they see as the deficiencies in the branch theory and what they mean by "Catholic." This won't produce the acceptance that would be nice to have, but you won't be as perplexed at why Anglo-Catholics seem always to be being rejected by the people it sees as natural allies.

[gitlance]

I really applaud you, git, for a willingness to work with ideas. It's easy for anyone to take a stand and blow off at any contrary thinking, but that doesn't produce anything useful.

What I was trying to point out is that no one can just read himself into any movement by mentally and emotionally attaching himself to what he wants to identify with. In this case--Anglo-Catholicism--the Anglo-Catholics see themselves as being as Catholic as any Catholic, but saying it doesn't seem to bring any affirmation from the Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox who, after all, constitute most of the "Catholics" in the world. That's the problem. The thread is not about how Catholic anyone here is, but why that isn't recognized by the non-Anglican Catholics.

The question is asked by referring to the so-called branch theory. Yet, the branch theory is a purely Anglican attempt to explain how belonging to a Protestant Church shouldn't matter since, well, our hearts are in the right place and we profess Catholic beliefs instead of Protestant ones on this or that. To the other Catholics, the branch theory is bunk, a denial of historic fact and sound theology.

Do Anglo-Catholics then say that they don't care? No, they care! They won't drop it there but want the acceptance of the branch theory by the "other branches."

My comments were a try at having you or any other reader see the answer from the Roman Catholic or Orthodox side which is what you have to do. Maybe that article is arrogant, maybe not. But pointing out that aspect of it doesn't do a thing to resolve your problem. It would be easy to produce a hundred such articles among which, I'm sure, would be some that have a softer tone. The fact is that none of them is going to say "the branch theory is what we Roman Catholics believe, too."

Bottom line, if any Anglo-Catholic wants really to be accepted as a Catholic by most other Catholics, he has to convert. Otherwise, he is asking to be affirmed as a Catholic while carrying a membership card around with him that is stamped "holder is non-Catholic."

That is how they are always going to see the situation, and all the vestments, rituals, and confessional statements in the world will not be received as anything more than a veneer attached to an unacceptable base. Even if they feel some sympathy for what is in your heart, that's as far as it can go.

But you can always go further yourself and study what they see as the deficiencies in the branch theory and what they mean by "Catholic." This won't produce the acceptance that would be nice to have, but you won't be as perplexed at why Anglo-Catholics seem always to be being rejected by the people it sees as natural allies.


Wow.... well, thank you so much for that post.

Though I have done so much studying, and continue to study, I am still a new convert to Anglicanism. But I accept so much doctrine that is "Catholic." However, I think it should be noteworthy that my beliefs are more parallel to the Eastern Church. Right now I am reading about the beliefs of the ECFs on major doctrinal points, the Treatises of St. Athanasias, and the Confessions of St. Augustine. I find it interesting that there never really was a truly universal view on whether or not the Bishop in Rome had absolute authority as head of the Church, or whether he was equal to all the other bishops. Apparently that was just as much a subject of controvery in the first 10 centuries as it is now. I also have to admit that I despise some of this liberalism in mainstream Anglicanism; especially in the United States. This acceptance of feminine references to God, the ordination of gay priests/bishops who are not celibate, some churches trying to achieve inter-religious harmony at the expense of the exclusivity of the Gospel.... these things really disturb me. But I have found a home in the Anglican Church, and there is still so much good. I probably would have found a home in the Roman Church if it weren't for the fact that I can't yet find definitively that the ECFs acknowledged the BOR as being the head of the Church, and if it weren't for the fact that Vatican II seems to have "watered down" the liturgy. On the other hand, the East is not very accessible in America. I have seen all of two Orthodox parishes in my life... and the liturgy and language and culture are all so foreign.

As much as I wish that we Anglo-Catholics could at least be recognized as even semi-valid, I also have to realize that even our Roman brothers are not recognized as valid in the Eastern world. The east considers them to be heretics and schismatics.... and yet at times the Roman Church has wanted desparately to be recognized as valid by the East. So in some way, every group is invalid in another group's mind, right? Does it really matter anything at all then? My beliefs are orthodox. Just because some man who claims to be an Anglican priest says something unorthodox doesn't mean the entire Church is wrong. It's just like the Bishop scandal with the Roman Church recently... just because one bishop or one priest did something wrong doesn't make the whole system invalid.

I believe that as Anglo-Catholics, and really as the Anglican Communion in general, we have a claim to Catholicity that is equal to Rome and the East. We have the 7 sacraments, we have the Real Presence, we have the Apostolic Succession and the Apostolic Ministry, we have the Holy Scriptures, we maintain Holy Tradition, we have the fulness of the Faith as contained in the ancient Creeds. What more could we need? Our salvation is not dictated by Rome, the East, or even any Protestant. God alone knows our hearts, and God alone knows who will be saved.

Just because someone else doesn't like the branch theory or doesn't believe in it doesn't mean that it isn't true. In the understanding of the ECFs, we are just as much Catholic as Rome or the East. There was never this whole debate over who is Catholic and who isn't until 1054, when Rome decided to change the Creed without the consent of the other bishops. England never liked the fact that the Pope moved in and made them subject to him. That's why Henry separated. But along came Elizabeth, and she knew what she was doing.

So, with respect to our Roman and Eastern brothers and sisters, all of us who possess the ancient faith are truly Catholic, whether or not we may all like it. In the words of the English reformers: "Blessed are they who walk the middle way."

Christ's peace,

gitlance :crossrc:

[Iron Sun 254]

And in recognizing it, what should one do? Should one give up Anglicanism for the Roman or Orthodox Church?

Is there something invalid about the Catholicity of the Anglican Communion?

There is a certain irony in your posting of this article. You recently talked about the troubles you're having at Oral Roberts University. Some people there would consider your faith invalid for completely different reasons. As Anglicans we're destined to be stuck in the middle.

[pmcleanj]

There is a certain irony in your posting of this article. You recently talked about the troubles you're having at Oral Roberts University. Some people there would consider your faith invalid for completely different reasons. As Anglicans we're destined to be stuck in the middle.
Ironic, but unsurprising. When a person is experiencing overt rejection from a group with a strong mutual identity, it's entirely reasonable to look to other groups with a similarly strong mutual identify, in the hope of finding acceptance there instead.

I think we should all put our arms around Brother Gitlance, and sing Kum-bay-ya :groupray:

Gitlance, seriously, it's hard to get that same sense of group support from Anglicans. We don't have team uniforms, or a catechism that tells the world unambiguously who we are, or a team cheer, or detailed prescriptive statement of faith. We just are who we are, and the confidence and understanding of who and what that is comes with time and defies articulation (although as I've said before, it does have a lot in common with an incurable disease). It's not an easy identity to pull off, in a world of team-cheers and solidarity rallies. On the other hand, if you find it hard, you should try being Canadian at the same time -- a national identity that has the same low-key ambiguous lack of definition. And on the gripping hand, once you do become comfortable with having an unarticulated identity, you'll find that identity to be resilient to the point of being unassailable.

There are also some things that are distinctly Anglican that we could offer in solidarity in the meantime. We could put our arms around you and sing Venite in Anglican plainchant. We could say Morning Prayer together in virtual solidarity. It would be nice if we could all agree on the same prayer-book, but we can probably find those elements that overlap from the 1662 to the 1979, and use those.

It is seriously difficult, to be so new to Anglican practice and to be virtually isolated from it. Do you at least get to go to Anglican services on Sundays? I wonder what other Anglican support groups you could find in the vicinity. Maybe ORU needs a "Canterbury Club" :D

[Albion]

Wow.... well, thank you so much for that post.

Though I have done so much studying, and continue to study, I am still a new convert to Anglicanism. But I accept so much doctrine that is "Catholic." However, I think it should be noteworthy that my beliefs are more parallel to the Eastern Church. Right now I am reading about the beliefs of the ECFs on major doctrinal points, the Treatises of St. Athanasias, and the Confessions of St. Augustine. I find it interesting that there never really was a truly universal view on whether or not the Bishop in Rome had absolute authority as head of the Church, or whether he was equal to all the other bishops. Apparently that was just as much a subject of controvery in the first 10 centuries as it is now. I also have to admit that I despise some of this liberalism in mainstream Anglicanism; especially in the United States. This acceptance of feminine references to God, the ordination of gay priests/bishops who are not celibate, some churches trying to achieve inter-religious harmony at the expense of the exclusivity of the Gospel.... these things really disturb me. But I have found a home in the Anglican Church, and there is still so much good. I probably would have found a home in the Roman Church if it weren't for the fact that I can't yet find definitively that the ECFs acknowledged the BOR as being the head of the Church, and if it weren't for the fact that Vatican II seems to have "watered down" the liturgy. On the other hand, the East is not very accessible in America. I have seen all of two Orthodox parishes in my life... and the liturgy and language and culture are all so foreign.

As much as I wish that we Anglo-Catholics could at least be recognized as even semi-valid, I also have to realize that even our Roman brothers are not recognized as valid in the Eastern world. The east considers them to be heretics and schismatics.... and yet at times the Roman Church has wanted desparately to be recognized as valid by the East. So in some way, every group is invalid in another group's mind, right? Does it really matter anything at all then? My beliefs are orthodox. Just because some man who claims to be an Anglican priest says something unorthodox doesn't mean the entire Church is wrong. It's just like the Bishop scandal with the Roman Church recently... just because one bishop or one priest did something wrong doesn't make the whole system invalid.

I believe that as Anglo-Catholics, and really as the Anglican Communion in general, we have a claim to Catholicity that is equal to Rome and the East. We have the 7 sacraments, we have the Real Presence, we have the Apostolic Succession and the Apostolic Ministry, we have the Holy Scriptures, we maintain Holy Tradition, we have the fulness of the Faith as contained in the ancient Creeds. What more could we need? Our salvation is not dictated by Rome, the East, or even any Protestant. God alone knows our hearts, and God alone knows who will be saved.

Just because someone else doesn't like the branch theory or doesn't believe in it doesn't mean that it isn't true. In the understanding of the ECFs, we are just as much Catholic as Rome or the East. There was never this whole debate over who is Catholic and who isn't until 1054, when Rome decided to change the Creed without the consent of the other bishops. England never liked the fact that the Pope moved in and made them subject to him. That's why Henry separated. But along came Elizabeth, and she knew what she was doing.

So, with respect to our Roman and Eastern brothers and sisters, all of us who possess the ancient faith are truly Catholic, whether or not we may all like it. In the words of the English reformers: "Blessed are they who walk the middle way."

Christ's peace,

gitlance :crossrc:
There's a lot of good understanding in your post, my brother. Most if it need not be added to by me here, because it was so good. But maybe I could share just a few reactions.

1. Yes, in this triad, every group does discount to some degree the authenticity of the others, although it is more thoroughgoing with the RC and EO view of Anglicans than with each other. Still, you have a good perspective on the situation and aren't going to eat your heart out over a situation that you can, nevertheless, wish were better. (applause for you).

2. In that vein, I appreciate your thinking that, to you, what is right or wrong with your own church stands on its own and is not right or wrong depending upon what the others say. But that is what I thought was being asked when, in the OP, it was asked why they don't accept the branch theory. It now it looks to me that the question was more a simple inquiry and less one of "How can this be?!"
(applause for you again).

3. Even though I say the above, do try to see that--for them--authenticity as a Catholic depends upon an unbroken stream of Tradition. Anglicans, after all, did go through the Reformation, and no amount of arguing over which kind of Anglicanism is better, older, more important, etc. will compensate for the fact that a break did occur. Even if Anglo-Catholics distance themselves from every Protestant belief, their membership in an Anglican church is the bottom line to these other Catholics.

[Wigglesworth]

Is the Catholic church really catholic? I think not.

For a church to be catholic, it must believe those things that the church has always believed at all times in all places. Doesn't that narrow down mandatory beliefs to those pronounced in ecumenical councils. To mandate belief in dogmas pronounced in local, private, or exclusive councils is not catholic. To exclude folks from communion who believe in the pronouncements of the ecumenical councils, yet reject exraneous dogma, is not catholic.

:confused:

I say don't be manipulated by the usurper.

[gitlance]

Is the Catholic church really catholic? I think not.

For a church to be catholic, it must believe those things that the church has always believed at all times in all places. Doesn't that narrow down mandatory beliefs to those pronounced in ecumenical councils. To mandate belief in dogmas pronounced in local, private, or exclusive councils is not catholic. To exclude folks from communion who believe in the pronouncements of the ecumenical councils, yet reject exraneous dogma, is not catholic.

:confused:

I say don't be manipulated by the usurper.

You conveyed exactly what I have been thinking. I really appreciate that. I have been striving to follow the Ecumenical councils of the undivided Church, and I believe that the Anglican Communion as a whole strives for that as well. We don't accept as authoritative and absolutely necessary any doctrine that did not originate in the first 1000 years of the undivided Church.

Thanks so much for that insight. It really helps my situation.

gitlance :crossrc:

[Rilian]

The article appears to have been written by a former Episcopalian who has joined an "Orthodox" community having 19 parishes across North America. I wouldn't characterize it as presenting the official position of two-thirds of the branches of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Just to clarify, Fr. Gregory Mathewes-Green is a priest in the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese, which is one of the hierarchies represented in the standing conference of canonical Orthodox bishops in the Americas. The article is posted on the web site of a Western Rite parish within the Antiochian Archdiocese, though Fr. Mathewes-Green himself is not a priest within that rite.

He is a former Episcopal priest and helped draft the Baltimore Declaration back in 91.

[pmcleanj]

we have a claim to Catholicity that is equal to Rome and the East.

This is half the bottom line. Have confidence in it. Do Roman Catholics turn to Anglicans for validation of their catholicity -- or even to Eastern Orthodox? Of course not. Our catholicity is unshaken, if we are to stand 'cap in hand' in front of anywhere, let it be before the Throne of God and not the gates of the Vatican city.

membership in an Anglican church is the bottom line to these other Catholics

This is the other half of the bottom line. Roman Catholics believe that only Roman Catholics are Catholic. Some may bend a little on that stand -- say, acknowledge that we can describe ourselves as "catholic" as long as we don't use a capital 'C', or allow as how the EO may be Catholic but are in rebellion until they accept Papal authority. They really, honestly believe that -- and in OBOB they are entirely entitled to express that opinion. And they have their interpretations of history and their slant on events that are part of how they understand their exclusive claim to the term -- and on OBOB they are entirely entitled to those interpretations and slant, too.

So, if you are tempted to go over to OBOB for a visit, DO NOT try to persuade anyone there that your interpretation or slant is right. If you go to read and lurk and learn about their perspective, please do it in all humility. They have the same rule that we do: fellowship posts or questions only unless you're a member. So if you decide to post, don't refer to them as "Roman Catholic" because it implies there are other Catholics. If you ask a question, accept the answer -- not as being objective truth necessarily, but as being a valid statement of their answer. If the answer offends you, don't ask any more questions. If the things you read in other threads offend you, stop lurking there. And if in doubt, keep your fingers away from the post button!

[UberLutheran]

You know, reading things like this article can be damaging to your faith in some ways. I think it's so sad that some of our Roman Catholic and Orthodox friends treat the Anglican Communion with such contempt. What do you guys think?

http://www.westernorthodox.com/branch

In Christ,

gitlance

If the Catholics and Orthodox don't want to play nice with you, you can come over to our house and we'll have our OWN fun!

So there! :clap:

[UberLutheran]

You know, reading things like this article can be damaging to your faith in some ways. I think it's so sad that some of our Roman Catholic and Orthodox friends treat the Anglican Communion with such contempt. What do you guys think?

http://www.westernorthodox.com/branch

In Christ,

gitlance

Did you know that there are Lutherans (many of us, in fact) who view ourselves as "Reformed Catholic"?

Now, the Roman Catholic Church certainly doesn't view us as "Catholic" -- and even after 30 years' joint work on the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification the RCC views Lutherans as nothing more than an "ecclesial union" (thank you, Cardinal Ratzinger!) -- but we didn't ask for Rome's permission to break off from a corrupt church in the 16th century, we don't need Rome's permission to call ourselves a "church", and we certainly don't need Rome's permission for us to view ourselves as "Reformed Catholic"!

This clip of article from Factmonster.com about the different rites within the Roman Catholic Church may be of interest to you:
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0860782.html

There are within the church a number of rites, i.e., ancient, independent traditions of discipline and worship, differentiated through isolation (see also liturgy (http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0830005.html)). Besides the Roman rite, to which the vast majority belong, there are among Catholics five Eastern rites, used by a number of communities (Eastern Catholics or Uniates; see patriarch (http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0837869.html)). They are: the Byzantine (the rite also of the Orthodox Eastern Church (http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0836941.html), which is not in communion with Rome), to which belong many groups, including Melchites (http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0832575.html), Ruthenians, Romanians, and the Italo-Albanians of S Italy; the Antiochene (also the rite of the autonomous Jacobite Church (http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0825837.html)), to which belong the Maronites (http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0831921.html), the Syrian Catholics, and the Malankarese of Malabar; the Alexandrian, to which belong the Catholic Copts and Ethiopians (see Copts (http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0813491.html)); the Chaldaean (also the rite of the autonomous Nestorian Church (http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0835269.html)), to which belong Chaldaean Catholics and Syro-Malabarese; and the Armenian (also the rite of the autonomous Armenian Church (http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0804756.html)). These rites and communities have their own organizations under the pope and are protected from attempts to “Latinize” them. Best known, perhaps, of the non-Roman Western rites are the Ambrosian, the Dominican, and the Mozarabic.

I realize I can't speak for all Lutherans, but I've always thought of the Anglican Communion as a separate (but valid) branch of the Catholic Church. You have the Sacraments (intact); apostolic succession (intact); historicity of the Church (intact) -- but your "Pope" happens to be the Archbishop of Canterbury.

[Albion]

Did you know that there are Lutherans (many of us, in fact) who view ourselves as "Reformed Catholic"?

Now, the Roman Catholic Church certainly doesn't view us as "Catholic" -- and even after 30 years' joint work on the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification the RCC views Lutherans as nothing more than an "ecclesial union" (thank you, Cardinal Ratzinger!) -- but we didn't ask for Rome's permission to break off from a corrupt church in the 16th century, we don't need Rome's permission to call ourselves a "church", and we certainly don't need Rome's permission for us to view ourselves as "Reformed Catholic"!

This clip of article from Factmonster.com about the different rites within the Roman Catholic Church may be of interest to you:
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0860782.html



[size=2] I realize I can't speak for all Lutherans, but I've always thought of the Anglican Communion as a separate (but valid) branch of the Catholic Church. You have the Sacraments (intact); apostolic succession (intact); historicity of the Church (intact) -- but your "Pope" happens to be the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Let me be the first to point out that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not our "pope" in any sense of the term. He has no authority whatsoever outside England and even there has little more than a position of respect based upon the historic position of Canterbury.

[UberLutheran]

Let me be the first to point out that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not our "pope" in any sense of the term. He has no authority whatsoever outside England and even there has little more than a position of respect based upon the historic position of Canterbury.

I know the Archbishop of Canterbury does not function as a "Pope", at least in the Roman Catholic sense of the word.

[gitlance]

Uberlutheran,

Thanks so much for voicing your faith! I really appreciate it. Everybody has really done so much to help my struggles, and I'm really beginning to see and accept what you are saying. Rome doesn't have any authority to determine whether or not we are Catholic. We are Catholic because Holy Tradition says so, not because the Pope does.

Christ's peace,

gitlance

[UberLutheran]

I don't dare say more, as I am having a horrible attack of PMS and I'm out of chocolate.

Venezuelan dark semi-bitter, 61 percent cocoa butter.

Trust me: this is to die for. :thumbsup:

[Albion]

I know the Archbishop of Canterbury does not function as a "Pope", at least in the Roman Catholic sense of the word.
...as a metaphor for what? If there is no comparison, it seems misplaced (not that I think we should dispute the point, but that is what prompted my little footnote).

[UberLutheran]

...as a metaphor for what? If there is no comparison, it seems misplaced (not that I think we should dispute the point, but that is what prompted my little footnote).

...much as the Pope is the spiritual "leader" of the Roman Catholic Church.

That's all I was trying to say. There really are no ulterior motives, other than the fact that I'm trying to convert all Anglicans to Lutherans so we Lutherans are not stuck having to eat all that lutefisk by ourselves (bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!)!

http://www.norwaypost.no/images/bildearkiv/lutefisk.jpg

Lutefisk: The Piece of Cod Which Passes All Understanding

[Iron Sun 254]

The lutefisk has been banned from the Canterbury Alehouse.

[UberLutheran]

The lutefisk has been banned from the Canterbury Alehouse.

...that is an act of self-preservation! ;)

[RobNJ]

Lutefisk,,,the stuff that made the Vikings LEAVE Norway!!:sick:

[AveMaria]

Venezuelan dark semi-bitter, 61 percent cocoa butter.

Trust me: this is to die for. :thumbsup:

I knew I liked you for a reason. . . I'll be there in time for dinner. ^_^

But was the lutefisk picture really necessary? :sick:

[Brian Augustyn]

To the suggestion that lutefisk be banned from the Canterbury Alehouse...

That's not banning...that is an act of self-preservation! ;)

Oddly, lutefisk is also an act of fish preservation.

Brian
:holy: