A question about traditional anglican churches

[Simon_Templar]

Hello everyone, I intend nothing in the way of debate, but merely would like some info.

I was raised non denominational charismatic but for a number of reasons I've been investigating Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican churches.

I'm not interested in churches that ordain women, but I did run across a group called the "traditional Anglican communion" and also a group called the anglican catholic church. I'm interested in these groups but I havn't been able to find much info other than whats on their websites. So I'm wondering if anyone around here may belong to them, or could tell me more about them.

Specificly I'd like to know if they are in communion with one another, do they recognize both high and low church services or do they only recognize high church?

any other information would be appreciated as well.

Also, as a side note, if anyone knows of anything like a recreation of the old anglo-saxon church prior to its subjugation in the norman conquest, I'd love to hear about that too.

[gtsecc]

I think you might want to look here;
http://www.christianforums.com/t1161975-the-utrecht-union-of-old-catholic-churches.html

[Cjwinnit]

Also, as a side note, if anyone knows of anything like a recreation of the old anglo-saxon church prior to its subjugation in the norman conquest, I'd love to hear about that too.

When I go home (northern England) I attend a parish church that has been around in varoius forms since the seventh century. It was rebuilt heavily during the thirteenth century but parts of the original walls survive.

[Simon_Templar]

maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see anything in the Utrecht Union of churches that gives any information about the traditional anglican communion, or the Anglican catholic church in america

Cj,

Very cool. :) The one thing I regret most about living in America is the lack of such history, visible and still standing all around.

[gtsecc]

maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see anything in the Utrecht Union of churches that gives any information about the traditional anglican communion, or the Anglican catholic church in america

Cj,

Very cool. :) The one thing I regret most about living in America is the lack of such history, visible and still standing all around.

Well, you have been visiting Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican Churches.

You said you are not interested in Churches that ordain women.
Weel, that rules out any part of the Anglican Communion.

Old Catholics, can be seen as very similar to an Anglican Church that does not ordain women.

They are not in communion with Rome, or the Eastern Orthodox.

They are in communion with the AC.

They do not ordain women.

Their liturgy is basically Roman (Anglican) as opposed to Eastern Orthodox.

The only other option is to find a Forward in Faith, Anglo-Catholic, or a parish run by a Priest with SSC next to his name (Societas Sanctae Crucis), or as they don't support the ordination of women. T

http://www.forwardinfaith.com/

http://www.sanctaecrucis.org/

http://societies.anglican.org/anglocatholic/

[Bonifatius]

Old Catholics, can be seen as very similar to an Anglican Church that does not ordain women.

They do not ordain women.



Hi,

well, most Old Catholic Churches of the Utrecht Union actually ordain women to the priesthood.

I am not sure about the OC our Father Rick belongs to, but European OCs certainly have women priests.

All the best
Tom

[ethereal hope]

Hi, I'm in the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC). I think are a few others on this forum besides me who go to what are called "Continuing Anglican" parishes (ones who left the AC in the 70s when the AC started allowing women's ordination). Basically, they kept the old 1928 Common Prayer book (no Rite I/Rite II), but can vary in worship styles (high v low church).

Over and above Continuings, there's a movement within the Episcopal church called the AMiA, but I don't know anything about AMiA churches except they don't recognize women's ordination.

Oh, and there's Anglican Use, which is Catholic (under Roman authority) but uses the Anglican worship style service.

While I personally think it would make sense for the various Continuings to share resources (esp schools or publishing resources), I sense that there's a deep satisfaction with the status quo.

Which, actually, is a nice feeling.

[CSMR]

You said you are not interested in Churches that ordain women.
Weel, that rules out any part of the Anglican Communion.
Many Anglican churches do not ordain women.

[CSMR]

I was raised non denominational charismatic but for a number of reasons I've been investigating Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican churches.
What are these reasons may I ask?

[murron]

Hello everyone, I intend nothing in the way of debate, but merely would like some info.

I was raised non denominational charismatic but for a number of reasons I've been investigating Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican churches.

I'm not interested in churches that ordain women, but I did run across a group called the "traditional Anglican communion" and also a group called the anglican catholic church. I'm interested in these groups but I havn't been able to find much info other than whats on their websites. So I'm wondering if anyone around here may belong to them, or could tell me more about them.

Specificly I'd like to know if they are in communion with one another, do they recognize both high and low church services or do they only recognize high church?

any other information would be appreciated as well.

Also, as a side note, if anyone knows of anything like a recreation of the old anglo-saxon church prior to its subjugation in the norman conquest, I'd love to hear about that too.
Howdy. I'm a member of the TAC. I'm not sure what exactly you are wanting to know about our communion, but I'd be happy to answer whatever questions I have the knowledge to answer. Our particular parish is 'high church'. I haven't attended any other TAC parishes (because we are one of only two in our region), so I can't say that all TAC parishes are high church or not.

The TAC is a fairly large communion, made up of diocese all over the world. Unfortunately, many of the continuing anglican communions are not in communion with each other. However, the TAC has been in talks with the Vatican to establish communion with Rome.

I personally love the TAC and the tenets we follow, but I do realize not everyone enjoys the traditional/conservative stance.

If you have specific questions about the TAC, feel free to PM me if you'd like.

Murron

[R.J.S]

for a number of reasons I've been investigating Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican churches.

Join the club brother ;)

[Albion]

I was raised non denominational charismatic but for a number of reasons I've been investigating Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican churches.

I'm not interested in churches that ordain women, but I did run across a group called the "traditional Anglican communion" and also a group called the anglican catholic church. I'm interested in these groups but I havn't been able to find much info other than whats on their websites. So I'm wondering if anyone around here may belong to them, or could tell me more about them.

Sure. The Traditional Anglican Communion (worldwide, its US affiliate is the Anglican Church in America) and the Anglican Catholic Church are two of the several churches that come from the Congress of St. Louis that in 1977 set up a replacement church for ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada. Both are quite High Church/Anglo-Catholic. Both have made serious efforts to be accepted by Rome and/or the Orthodox Eastern Patriarchies, but without success as yet.

Specificly I'd like to know if they are in communion with one another,

Officially, they're not.

do they recognize both high and low church services or do they only recognize high church?

They're High Church almost exclusively. Very High Church for the most part.

[Simon_Templar]

Albion, Ethereal, and Murron,

Thanks very much for the replies and information :) its appreciated and helpful. Before coming to the boards here I was unaware of the AMiA and that has raised another question. Do any of you know what how the continuing churches view the AMiA?
Also, do you know wether people from my background who join the Anglican church (specificly the continuing variety) are required to be baptized and confirmed again?


gtsecc,

thanks for the help, I read through the Utrecht page, also because I had not heard of this group before and wanted to learn more about it.


CSMR,

Sure, you can ask about my reasons. I didn't want to lead off with a big long rambling about myself etc, polluting up the Angilcan's forum :) but I'm more than happy to talk about it.

This will be the extremely abreviated version, because its a long story :)

Well, I was raised not realy belonging to any particular school of doctrine etc. My pastor who was also my father, didn't have formal seminary training, but was just a man who studied the bible and tried to let it speak for itself. He was elected as an elder by the church, and then when I was in my teens the previous pastor retired and the congregation chose my dad to be the pastor.
As a result I wasn't raised committed to any particular set of doctrines, but simply trying to align myself to the scriptures. When I got to the point that I was taking part in broader discussions within the faith, both doctrinal discussions between denominational groups and also appologetic discussions with non believers I became more aware of the various view points and schools of doctrinal thought.

Most of my discussions during this time were between Calvinism and Arminianism, and on charistmatic vs. non charismatic doctrinal issues. I also partook in alot of appologetic debate. Most of the time in doctrinal discussions I found myself caught in the middle unable to agree fully with either calvinism, or arminianism.

As my knowledge and understanding of scripture grew, I began to realize that there were significant problems both in doctrines and in practices that were pretty prevalent within the charismatic non denominational church.. and there were many smaller groups within the church that were really off the wall.
After going on for years like this, I got to the point at which I realized the problems I was seeing were not exceptions.. in most cases they were the rule. I am focusing mainly on the charismatic church here.. but the same was true in my experience with various evangelical, but not overtly charismatic groups.

The problems I was seeing are almost too many to mention, but I came to the conclusion that there were several root issues behind most of them. Of greatest importance was that the evangelical church was largely humanistic, in the sense that man (and particularly self) was really the central point and focus of their worship. I didn't recognize this one right away, but now, looking back, I see that another root problem is that the evangelical church has become very materielistic, meaning that their tendancy is not to believe in supernatural things, but to relegate everything to symbolism and natural, materialistic views. this is very ironic considering the large focus that many of the groups in the non denominational and charismatic church put on angels and demons (often times improper focus). However, when it comes to the actual relationship of believers to God, and the worship of the church, the tendancy is to see everything in naturalistic materialistic terms.

Another ironic problem I was greatly disturbed by was that the church which once made its stand on "sola scriptura" scripture alone, was now largely setting scripture in the back seat to both personal revelation from God, and also cultural norms. More and mroe often I was seeing people in the church (even teachers) who were given callings, or messages by God that directly contradicted scripture and this didn't matter in the least because "God had told them". I didn't have a name for it then.. but essentially it was the montanist heresy.

Another problem I began to run across alot was that there is a culture of prideful ignorance in the evangelical church. Many times I encountered situations where I was viewed with suspicion and even dismissed with patronizing content because I was deemed to be too intellectual and too educated. Lest anyone get the wrong impression.. I'm just beginning to delve into the vast sea of what there is to know in the heretige of the church and in scripture.
Time and time again, however, I was confronted by even leaders and teachers in the church who felt that study of church fathers, and EVEN study of certain topics in scripture themselves was a waste of time and something to be disdained as "vain argument and head knowledge"

Anyway, I stayed in the church even though I got the point that I didn't want to give myself the labels non denom. or Charismatic because I didn't want to be lumped in the vast abuses I saw in the church. I stayed because I was in submission to the leaders of my local church (my dad being the pastor) and also because I believed that as bad as things were, my local church was good and the people there were testaments to the true side of the evangelical charismatic church.

Then about 8 months ago.. the elders of the church conspired in secret to force my father to resign as pastor, even going so far as to call him on the phone and threaten him that there would be "dire consequences" if he didn't resign immediately. He was told that this was "the word of the Lord". It became apparent that the elders, their wives, and two of the deacons and their wives had been actively conspiring for months, talking behind people's backs. They kept it secret from th congregation at large, and particularly from those of us they know would disagree. When I finaly found out what was going on, I found that people who weren't even members of the church knew about the situation and were involved in gossiping about it.
I myself, who was almost entirely oblivious to the situation, and when my brother and father had voiced concerns about it I told them not to think the worst of people, and to allow that it was just the enemy trying to bring discension, I found out that they had been saying that I was involved in trying to subvert the church, along with one of my brothers.

These were people that I had known literaly my entire life, even one of my brothers, a sister, and her husband were involved. In any case, my dad gave in to their demands that he resign, after they refused his request that the allow him to stay on two more months to get his affairs in order. These people had lied, gossiped and deliberately undermined the pastor, and generaly behaved in a hateful manner.

The criticisms they offered were different from person to person (some of them being contradictory) but among them were that he "talked too much about the truth" an exact quote. What it came down to for most was that they didn't like the topics he taught on. They wanted to become a "seeker friendly" church and focus on running add campaigns etc, and as part of that they wanted him not to talk about things that people might not want to hear.

The ironic thing was that most of the new members of the church were routinely coming to my father to tell him how much they were moved by his sermons and how they were learning so much. These people of course were not told about anything until my dad resigned.

The result of this was that it destroyed my illusions about my the people in my local church. I realized that we really weren't any different than the other places I was seeing all these problems. We were just more arrogant and coniving about it. It simply confirmed everything I had already seen and quite literaly forced me to leave the church.

Now, I had already had some discussions with Orthodox people and had been shocked to realize that theologicaly and even doctrinaly, I was much closer to them than I expected.. in many ways I was closer to them than I was to standard protestantism. I still, however, had a largely symbolic view of both baptism and communion. I had also been reading C.S. Lewis (rereading actually) and Had just read GK Chesterton's Orthodoxy, and I had felt a pull to start studying the early church and even the medieval church.

After being forced out my church I started running into orthodox and catholic people and getting into discussions.. and a friend of my brother's converted to orthodox so we got into a long (still ongoing) debate/discussion with him. During the course of that I got into a discussion on infant baptism, because of a friend who's inlaws are lutheran and they were pressuring his wife to baptize their new born twins. As a result of the discussion I decided to read every refrence in scripture I could find that spoke about baptism. When I was done, I was convinced from scripture itself that baptism is much more than a symbol or a statement of faith etc. I was convinced from scripture that baptism when mixed with faith, is a work of God, which he uses to regenerate us and wash away the sins of the old man. (as a side note, I still don't believe that people who die before they can be baptized are condemned, and I'm still not entirely convinced that infant baptism is necessary, or the best way... I'm not opposed to people who want to practice it though.)

From there I started reading the early church fathers and studying communion in scripture.. and again found that my views on it were very lacking. I found that the doctrine of real presence really was the original apostolic doctrine, and that communion (or eucharist) should be one of the central points of any christian worship service. It is a powerful blessing that God uses to unite us as believers, and a church, and to unite us with his Son. I honestly think that the neglect of this understanding and practice is one of the main reasons that the protestant church is going astray so fast, and why they are loosing the centrality of Christ in their worship.

There are still a number of points on which I disagree with orthodox doctrine or practice and roman catholic as well. As far as I can tell, however, (aside from infant baptism) I seem to be very closely in line with traditional anglican views... however there is no traditional anglican church in my area. (no orthodox either for that matter).. the closest ones are around 100 miles away.

I can't go back to the tradition I came from, because God has really opened my eyes to alot of things... I don't want to sound arrogant at all, but I really feel that God has been guiding me to this path all along, and preparing me to accept what he wanted to show me. Like Chesterton.. I am boldly rediscovering england. My understanding of the Faith is much better than it was, and the Faith I understand is much more beautiful than it was.

Yet, at the same time, I don't seem able to move forward because there are no churches available to me that really fit what I am seeking.

Also, I've had a greatly increased desire to see all true churches brought back into communion with each other. I realize how impossible this seems but I think the church really needs a restoration (not a reformation). Core truths should not be sacrificed for unity.. and unity should not be sacrificed for pride and non essential doctrines or traditions.
some how we need to agree on what the necessary core is :)

[Colabomb]

Hello everyone, I intend nothing in the way of debate, but merely would like some info.

I was raised non denominational charismatic but for a number of reasons I've been investigating Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican churches.

I'm not interested in churches that ordain women, but I did run across a group called the "traditional Anglican communion" and also a group called the anglican catholic church. I'm interested in these groups but I havn't been able to find much info other than whats on their websites. So I'm wondering if anyone around here may belong to them, or could tell me more about them.

Specificly I'd like to know if they are in communion with one another, do they recognize both high and low church services or do they only recognize high church?

any other information would be appreciated as well.

Also, as a side note, if anyone knows of anything like a recreation of the old anglo-saxon church prior to its subjugation in the norman conquest, I'd love to hear about that too.
I cannot speak authoritatively on those two bodies.

But, I am a Conservative Anglican. There are many places for people like us. The REC, the AMIA, the APA, and many other groups.

None of them ordain women, or approve of Homosexuality. d

[Colabomb]

Join the club brother ;)
The Holy Spirit is moving People Home! :)

[murron]

Albion, Ethereal, and Murron,

Thanks very much for the replies and information :) its appreciated and helpful. Before coming to the boards here I was unaware of the AMiA and that has raised another question. Do any of you know what how the continuing churches view the AMiA?
Also, do you know wether people from my background who join the Anglican church (specificly the continuing variety) are required to be baptized and confirmed again?


For us in the TAC, if you were baptized in the Trinity, you won't need to be baptized again (with some exceptions - LDS, etc), but you would probably need to go through confirmation. However, you can attend without confirmation; and in some parishes they will give you communion without confirmation (but not generally - policy is closed communion).

[Colabomb]

Hello everyone, I intend nothing in the way of debate, but merely would like some info.

I was raised non denominational charismatic but for a number of reasons I've been investigating Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican churches.

I'm not interested in churches that ordain women, but I did run across a group called the "traditional Anglican communion" and also a group called the anglican catholic church. I'm interested in these groups but I havn't been able to find much info other than whats on their websites. So I'm wondering if anyone around here may belong to them, or could tell me more about them.

Specificly I'd like to know if they are in communion with one another, do they recognize both high and low church services or do they only recognize high church?

any other information would be appreciated as well.

Also, as a side note, if anyone knows of anything like a recreation of the old anglo-saxon church prior to its subjugation in the norman conquest, I'd love to hear about that too.
Also, Brother, I wanted to note, that I too have made a long Journey to orthodox catholicism. Before discovering the Beauty of Traditional Anglicanism, I was an Apostolic (otherwise known as Oneness Pentecostal), which ironically was not apostolic.

I started out fundementalist, went Apostolic, returned to the Trinity, tried some various Churches and found my way home.

[Albion]

Albion, Ethereal, and Murron,

Thanks very much for the replies and information :) its appreciated and helpful. Before coming to the boards here I was unaware of the AMiA and that has raised another question. Do any of you know what how the continuing churches view the AMiA?

I think it's accurate to say that the continuing churches generally are sympathetic to AMiA, the American Anglican Council, the Network, Forward in Faith, and all the "conservatives" who are trying to bring the Anglican Communion and ECUSA around. AMiA is trying, you know, to be in the Anglican Communion as part of some replacement for ECUSA or at least in its own right.

The continuing churches, however, feel that this is a lost cause and do not, for the most part, aspire to reach some accomodation with the Anglican Communion. Not only is it a lost cause, but they see the so-called conservatives in AMiA and these other organizations as conservative mainly on the Bishop Robinson issue. Most of them, for instance, don't object to (and include in their number) women priests.

As a result, there is some sympathy as I said, but there are some reservations of consequence, too. And AMiA, claiming to be still in the Communion through its bishops overseas, tends not to want to be very cognizant of the continuing churches lest that association hurt them with the people they are looking to in the Anglican Communion.

[Polycarp1]

Over and above Continuings, there's a movement within the Episcopal church called the AMiA, but I don't know anything about AMiA churches except they don't recognize women's ordination.

Hi, Ethereal Hope! :wave: I need to nitpick: AMiA is a relatively small group that explicitly withdrew from the Episcopal Church and has a "bishop" who was formerly an Episcopal priest illicitly consecrated by the Bishops of the Province of Rwanda and the Archbishop of Singapore. To refer to them as "a movement within the Episcopal Church" is about like referring to the Anglican Communion as "a movement within the Catholic Church," which may make sense to us but would surely irk our brothers and sisters in OBOB! :)
[Note: Prior to edit I'd referred to them as a "schismatic group," intending the term in its technical meaning, but I do not want to give offense to any AMiA members who might be insulted by the more common offensive if not precisely accurate usage of "schismatic" -- so if any saw this and were disturbed by it, please accept my apologies; the intent was to describe the split, not to insult.]

Oh, and there's Anglican Use, which is Catholic (under Roman authority) but uses the Anglican worship style service.

I'd be interested in finding out more about the parishes where this is practiced. I might also add something called the Western Orthodox Church, which is in communion with OCA and the other Eastern Orthodox, but a separate group using the BCP (sometimes, also with some churches using the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in English, from what little I've read about it) and some Anglican traditions.

Do feel free to post more about the ACC here, and perhaps put a post with a link to its website in the sticky thread of Useful Links!

[Simon_Templar]

Thanks for the responses everyone, I look forward to learning more through such conversations :)

RJS and Colabomb,

Its nice to know there are other wanderers and travelers, a comfort to this sojourner. It reminds me of one of my favorite lines, from my favorite author... "not all who wander are lost". I look forward to chatting more.

[Father Rick]

For the record...

Most OC jurisdictions ordain women, as this is the official stance of the Utrecht Union. For the OCCNA, of which I am part, we have one female priest and one female deacon that I am aware of. We allow it, there just are not that many that choose to pursue orders.

[ethereal hope]

Hi, Ethereal Hope! :wave: I need to nitpick: AMiA is a small schismatic group that explicitly withdrew from the Episcopal Church and has a "bishop" who was formerly an Episcopal priest illicitly consecrated by the Bishops of the Province of Rwanda and the Archbishop of Singapore.


Whoops! First I'd heard of AMiA was on that AMiA thread yesterday, and I posted when that thread had been closed (and not so much info was posted about it).

Am I wrong is thinking that the AMiA is "betting" on the AC tossing out ECUSA? Or are there talks between ECUSA and AMiA? (Just curious.)

Here's the The Anglican Catholic Church web page (http://www.anglicancatholic.org/).

And I wish there was a better link for Anglican Use than The Holy See (http://www.vatican.va/)! Well, there's a good wikopedia article about Anglican Use (http://www.answers.com/topic/anglican-use) parishes, which explains that they're former Anglican churches that still use Anglican-sounding liturgy, but are under the authority of the Vatican. (Here's one place where Roman Catholics get their MARRIED PRIESTS!)

[PaladinValer]

Just a note: the Vatican Catholic Church "allows" married priests in the Latin right only when the priests come from a different denomination or church and were already married.

I believe the only exception are the smaller Eastern rites, to which a priest may actually marry while having always been Vatican Catholic.

[Albion]

And I wish there was a better link for Anglican Use than The Holy See (http://www.vatican.va/)! Well, there's a good wikopedia article about Anglican Use (http://www.answers.com/topic/anglican-use) parishes, which explains that they're former Anglican churches that still use Anglican-sounding liturgy, but are under the authority of the Vatican. (Here's one place where Roman Catholics get their MARRIED PRIESTS!)

There are, however, only about 6 or 7 Anglican Use parishes in the US and almost all are in Texas. They typically are tiny and meet in some out of the way place. Doesn't seem as if the RCC wants to make too much out of this phenomenon.

[Fish and Bread]

Yet, at the same time, I don't seem able to move forward because there are no churches available to me that really fit what I am seeking.

Simon, my best advice to you, given the circumstances, would be to give the nearest ECUSA parish a chance. If you decide it is not for you, you've only wasted an hour or so of your life checking, and if you get anything from it at all, it's not even a completely wasted hour. The upside potential, on the other hand, is tremendous. I know a lot of traditionalists who feel very much at home in their ECUSA parish. No one would make you affirm anything that isn't in the prayer book as a condition of membership and you would be free to be as conservative as you wish.

John

[pmcleanj]

In fact, no one would make you affirm anything that IS in the prayer book as a condition of membership, unless it is also supported by Scripture, since part of our history is that no doctrine can be required of anyone unless it is read in, and tested against, Holy Scripture.

[Fish and Bread]

Our esteemed moderator is absolutely correct. During confirmation, one does have to affirm the Nicene Creed, but that is based entirely in scripture as it has been traditionally interpreted since 325AD. Someone who's unbaptised might also have to affirm the Apostle's Creed, but it sounds as if you've already been baptised.

John

[Albion]

Thanks for the responses everyone, I look forward to learning more through such conversations :)

RJS and Colabomb,

Its nice to know there are other wanderers and travelers, a comfort to this sojourner. It reminds me of one of my favorite lines, from my favorite author... "not all who wander are lost". I look forward to chatting more.

Simon,

We all wish you to find your place. As I read your comments, a couple of thoughts came to me.

1. Are you SURE that there is no traditionalist Anglican church near your home? Just about all of them are known to one or another of us or are listed somewhere online, but I find that many people think there is no nearby congregation when there actually is. If you don't want to reveal to much, perhaps you could name a state and see what we can come up with


2. Is Lutheranism an option?

[Simon_Templar]

Albion,

I live in Eau Claire Wiscosnsin.. the nearest traditionalist church I have been able to locate is in minneapolis, St. Dunstans of the T.A.C.

I've considered LMS lutheran as I have a friend in that, its a small offshoot of the LCMS. That church is about a 45 minute drive or so. The main reason I havn't considered them too much is because I've been too busy investigating the churches with apostolic succession.

That brings up another question to me actually.. does the anglican church include the apocryphal books in the canon?

[Colabomb]

Albion,

I live in Eau Claire Wiscosnsin.. the nearest traditionalist church I have been able to locate is in minneapolis, St. Dunstans of the T.A.C.

I've considered LMS lutheran as I have a friend in that, its a small offshoot of the LCMS. That church is about a 45 minute drive or so. The main reason I havn't considered them too much is because I've been too busy investigating the churches with apostolic succession.

That brings up another question to me actually.. does the anglican church include the apocryphal books in the canon?
Some do, some don't.

[ethereal hope]

That Forward in Faith group has a parish in Altoona, and one in Owen. Is that close?

I think any parish using the BCP recognizes the deuterocanonical books (like Wisdom, etc) --at least, they're referenced in the prayer books. :)

[murron]

Simon,

We all wish you to find your place. As I read your comments, a couple of thoughts came to me.

1. Are you SURE that there is no traditionalist Anglican church near your home? Just about all of them are known to one or another of us or are listed somewhere online, but I find that many people think there is no nearby congregation when there actually is. If you don't want to reveal to much, perhaps you could name a state and see what we can come up with


2. Is Lutheranism an option?
Albion makes a good point and I'm sorry it didn't occur to me to mention this sooner. I know the TAC website isn't exactly up-to-date. So Albion is correct, there very well could be a traditional Anglican parish near you that simply isn't on the website. If you are interested, I would be happy to contact our Bishop for information on parishes near you.

[Simon_Templar]

Altoona is actually very close (provided its the same one) I'll have to look that up

thanks very much :)

[Albion]

Altoona is actually very close (provided its the same one) I'll have to look that up

thanks very much :)

Hmmm. This may be tougher than I hoped. The Episcopal Diocese of Eau Claire is more traditional than most ECUSA dioceses, and this has probably resulted in few conservative non-ECUSA Anglican parishes being found in the area. In fact, I can't find a one. :( The Forward in Faith ECUSA parish might be the best bet.

The Deutero-Canonical books are not in use in the Continuing and similar Anglican churches although, as noted, there is a provision for their use in the ECUSA 1979 book.

[Colabomb]

Hmmm. This may be tougher than I hoped. The Episcopal Diocese of Eau Claire is more traditional than most ECUSA dioceses, and this has probably resulted in few conservative non-ECUSA Anglican parishes being found in the area. In fact, I can't find a one. :( The Forward in Faith ECUSA parish might be the best bet.

The Deutero-Canonical books are not in use in the Continuing and similar Anglican churches although, as noted, there is a provision for their use in the ECUSA 1979 book.
Not True, Albion. The REC allows for the USe of the 1928 Prayerbook, which does use the Deuterocanon.

[Albion]

Not True, Albion. The REC allows for the USe of the 1928 Prayerbook, which does use the Deuterocanon.

You are right, Cola. They are appointed to be used in the way that the Articles of Religion describe them--writings to be studied for the purpose of understanding morals and manners but not for the purpose of establishing any doctrine as we do with scripture. I don't think that they were to be found in the REC Prayerbooks before the most recent revision, but if you say that the appointed readings from the 1928 also were carried into you most recent edition, I'm interested to know that.

[Colabomb]

You are right, Cola. They are appointed to be used in the way that the Articles of Religion describe them--writings to be studied for the purpose of understanding morals and manners but not for the purpose of establishing any doctrine as we do with scripture. I don't think that they were to be found in the REC Prayerbooks before the most recent revision, but if you say that the appointed readings from the 1928 also were carried into you most recent edition, I'm interested to know that.
I have a couple copies of the most recent (2003) edition of the book. I have found no use of the duterocanon.

I will find a copy online for you to check it out.

[Albion]

I have a couple copies of the most recent (2003) edition of the book. I have found no use of the duterocanon.

I will find a copy online for you to check it out.

So are you saying that the 2003 incorporated the 1928 but not with the readings for Morning and Evening Prayer--the only place, I think, where there would be any use?