Anglican? ECUSA? Old Catholic? Utrecht?

[Argent]

Help an ingnorant, redneck, fudamenatlist, right-wing, conservative Southern Baptist understand what you're all about.

My understanding:

Anglican Communion-Church of England, Episcopal Church USA-Liberal; no longer Bible-based as of last General Convention of ECUSA; primarily, although not excusively, administered by ordained women and gay men; priests may marry; perform gay marriages in their churches.

Old Catholic-traditional Roman Catholic without the "Roman" part; still Bible-based; headed by archbishop in Utrect, Netherlands; priests are celibate; homosexual sex is considered sin; doesn't ordain women.

So, what are these churches, apparently different in doctrines, doing together in the same section of the CF? Is it just because of their rejection of that old man in Rome?

[gtsecc]

My parish is ultra conservative.
We are in ECUSA.
We see a need for churches to be in a communion - that is what the church does.
We basically have 2 other choices Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy.
There are practical and theological problems with these that prevents us from simply changing.
So, being attached to a somewhat liberal group is still an essential for us.
Not being in communion, like Baptists, is theologically not possible anymore than deneying Christ's divinity.

[Wigglesworth]

Hi Argent!

I am a member of the Polish National Catholic Church, which is a church of the Old Catholic tradition. My first church was Fundamentalist, so we have some background in common.

Help an ingnorant, redneck, fudamenatlist, right-wing, conservative Southern Baptist understand what you're all about.

My understanding: . . . Old Catholic-traditional Roman Catholic without the "Roman" part; still Bible-based; headed by archbishop in Utrect, Netherlands; priests are celibate; homosexual sex is considered sin; doesn't ordain women.

Old Catholic bishops trace their heritage to the See of Utrecht, but Old Catholic churches outside of Utrecht are not "headed" by him. Celibacy is an issue of discipline, not doctrine, and it is not required in any Old Catholic churches that I am aware of. The approach taken by Old Catholic jurisdictions on the other issues you mentioned varies. My jurisdiction takes the conservative approach to those issues.

You can learn more about the Polish National Catholic Church at our website (http://www.pncc.org). A parish with some more detailed theological information is this one (http://www.bvmc.org).

Also, check out the sticky posts at the top of the forum.

Thanks for stopping by.

:crossrc:

[Wigglesworth]

So, what are these churches, apparently different in doctrines, doing together in the same section of the CF? Is it just because of their rejection of that old man in Rome?

We believe there is one church, as the Nicene Creed states. Moreover, we do not believe that the church should be separated by doctrinal differences in nonessential areas of theology. Doctrine divides. We are united by the Eucharist and our bishops. You can study this issue more by looking up the Lambeth Quadrilateral.

Old Catholics share this forum with Anglicans, because Old Catholics had no other place to call home on CF, and the Anglicans graciously and hospitably welcomed us, as is their custom.

:crossrc:

[No Swansong]

Help an ingnorant, redneck, fudamenatlist, right-wing, conservative Southern Baptist understand what you're all about.

My understanding:

Anglican Communion-Church of England, Episcopal Church USA-Liberal; no longer Bible-based as of last General Convention of ECUSA; primarily, although not excusively, administered by ordained women and gay men; priests may marry; perform gay marriages in their churches.

Old Catholic-traditional Roman Catholic without the "Roman" part; still Bible-based; headed by archbishop in Utrect, Netherlands; priests are celibate; homosexual sex is considered sin; doesn't ordain women.

So, what are these churches, apparently different in doctrines, doing together in the same section of the CF? Is it just because of their rejection of that old man in Rome?



I would argue that your understanding of both traditions is at best flawed.

Are there any of these misconceptions that we can clear up for you? Perhaps one at a time?
To answer your original question, yes both deny papal infallibility, but there is much more held in common. In fact there was a great deal of cooperation between the two in the early 20th century and there seems to be a new interest in such cooperation.

[gtsecc]

no longer Bible-based
Also - this is backwards.
The Bible is based upon the Church - not the other way around. The Bible proceeds from the church. The church does not proceed from the Bible.

That being said - the Church does not have the authority to contradict Scripture either.

[gtsecc]

We all see the Eucharist and Bishops as essential for the church, but we are not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox

[higgs2]

Help an ingnorant, redneck, fudamenatlist, right-wing, conservative Southern Baptist understand what you're all about.


Why?

[Argent]

My parish is ultra conservative.
We are in ECUSA.
We see a need for churches to be in a communion - that is what the church does.
We basically have 2 other choices Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy.
There are practical and theological problems with these that prevents us from simply changing.
So, being attached to a somewhat liberal group is still an essential for us.
Not being in communion, like Baptists, is theologically not possible anymore than deneying Christ's divinity.

Hi gtsecc,

Thanks for your response and explanations. I'm not quite exactly how you mean "Not being in communion, like Baptists"? We Baptists are in communion with all who have an orthodox understanding of the faith. Which, by definition, would exclude the majority of your denomination these days. Thanks again for your expalnations.:thumbsup:

[Argent]

Hi Argent!

I am a member of the Polish National Catholic Church, which is a church of the Old Catholic tradition. My first church was Fundamentalist, so we have some background in common.



Old Catholic bishops trace their heritage to the See of Utrecht, but Old Catholic churches outside of Utrecht are not "headed" by him. Celibacy is an issue of discipline, not doctrine, and it is not required in any Old Catholic churches that I am aware of. The approach taken by Old Catholic jurisdictions on the other issues you mentioned varies. My jurisdiction takes the conservative approach to those issues.

You can learn more about the Polish National Catholic Church at our website (http://www.pncc.org). A parish with some more detailed theological information is this one (http://www.bvmc.org).

Also, check out the sticky posts at the top of the forum.

Thanks for stopping by.

:crossrc:
Hi Wigglesworth,

Thanks for your response. I appreciate your taking the time to answer and for the links.

[Argent]

We believe there is one church, as the Nicene Creed states. Moreover, we do not believe that the church should be separated by doctrinal differences in nonessential areas of theology. Doctrine divides. We are united by the Eucharist and our bishops. You can study this issue more by looking up the Lambeth Quadrilateral.

Old Catholics share this forum with Anglicans, because Old Catholics had no other place to call home on CF, and the Anglicans graciously and hospitably welcomed us, as is their custom.

:crossrc:
I see. The Anglicans are a very welcoming crowd. I have to give them credit for that.:thumbsup:

[Argent]

I would argue that your understanding of both traditions is at best flawed.

Are there any of these misconceptions that we can clear up for you? Perhaps one at a time?
To answer your original question, yes both deny papal infallibility, but there is much more held in common. In fact there was a great deal of cooperation between the two in the early 20th century and there seems to be a new interest in such cooperation.

Hi jtbdad,

Thanks for your response. Flawed? Perhaps so, but I'm sure you acknowledge that I did come and ask for clarification. That is the whole point of my starting this thread. ;) As far as any of these misconceptions are concerned, you surely recognize the misconceptions better than I. So, please clarify as needed. Thanks.:thumbsup:

[Argent]

Why?

:scratch:

[Fairbairn]

Anglican Communion-Church of England, Episcopal Church USA-Liberal; no longer Bible-based as of last General Convention of ECUSA; primarily, although not excusively, administered by ordained women and gay men; priests may marry; perform gay marriages in their churches.

Old Catholic-traditional Roman Catholic without the "Roman" part; still Bible-based; headed by archbishop in Utrect, Netherlands; priests are celibate; homosexual sex is considered sin; doesn't ordain women.

So, what are these churches, apparently different in doctrines, doing together in the same section of the CF? Is it just because of their rejection of that old man in Rome?

The Church of England contains the full range of churchmanships - evangelical, liberal and catholic. That is because it has a duty to minister to everyone in England, regardless of their worship tastes and theological outlook.

Despite the impression you may get from CF, most Anglicans have some of each churchmanship. An evangelical, like myself, will also have a liberal and catholic side. That means while scripture is dominant for me, I am also called to be open-minded and also have an appreciation for sacraments and tradition. I would say that most people in the CofE are middle of the road - pulled equally in the three directions.

I really don't think Rome gets on the radar screen for me, tbh. I will welcome a RC to my church with just as much enthusiasm as anyone. They are more than welcome to come to the Lord's Table, more or less, unconditionally. But if people find a path to God in the RCC, then God bless them.

[Argent]

The Church of England contains the full range of churchmanships - evangelical, liberal and catholic. That is because it has a duty to minister to everyone in England, regardless of their worship tastes and theological outlook.

Despite the impression you may get from CF, most Anglicans have some of each churchmanship. An evangelical, like myself, will also have a liberal and catholic side. That means while scripture is dominant for me, I am also called to be open-minded and also have an appreciation for sacraments and tradition. I would say that most people in the CofE are middle of the road - pulled equally in the three directions.

I really don't think Rome gets on the radar screen for me, tbh. I will welcome a RC to my church with just as much enthusiasm as anyone. They are more than welcome to come to the Lord's Table, more or less, unconditionally. But if people find a path to God in the RCC, then God bless them.

Very interesting, Fairbarin! I didn't know that there were evangelicals in the CofE. As far as the "middle of the road" goes, I assume you are refering just to the CofE in the the UK, or are you talking about the Anglican Communion as a whole?

[Fairbairn]

I would say that Middle of the Road may be peculiar to England, as other provinces seem to have a dominant churchmanship - but those provinces don't have the duty to minister to the whole population, nor do they have the duty to influence laws (some CofE bishops are actually lawmakers in the UK). The English culture is very compromising, and this is reflected in the church.

There are lots of Evangelicals in the CofE - it's historical Anglicanism. In each deanery (geographical group made up of a few towns, with maybe a dozen deaneries making up a diocese) will have a range of churchmanships, so any given person can find what they want without travelling too far.

[gtsecc]

Hi gtsecc,

Thanks for your response and explanations. I'm not quite exactly how you mean "Not being in communion, like Baptists"? We Baptists are in communion with all who have an orthodox understanding of the faith. Which, by definition, would exclude the majority of your denomination these days. Thanks again for your expalnations.:thumbsup:
Your Bishops are?
I mean - our understandings are different obviously.
The traditional understanding is that we share the same Bishops - but, um that must mean something different for baptists. Not being critical - just pointing out that baptists don't even speak the same language. OO, OC, EO, RC and Anglicans all speakk the same language.

[gtsecc]

In addition - I think if you went through the Nicene creed line by line, you would find you have a very different understanding of the faith, which would be shown as different from the historical faith thereby making it difficult to reconcile with an “orthodox” view, as you put it in your post. Please don’t think I am being mean or whatever – I am just trying to clearly point out the differences, of which you are probably not even aware.

I would not receive communion in your church because it means something different.
Likewise, you would not receive in a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox parish, nor they in a Baptist parish.

[Argent]

Your Bishops are?
I mean - our understandings are different obviously.
The traditional understanding is that we share the same Bishops - but, um that must mean something different for baptists. Not being critical - just pointing out that baptists don't even speak the same language. OO, OC, EO, RC and Anglicans all speakk the same language.
In the Baptist faith we believe in the "priesthood of the believer." We believe the RCC/OC model, and all it's derivitives, are unbiblical, and therefore human constructs. We are very much "Sola Scriptura." And you're right: We don't speak the same language.

[gtsecc]

Don’t forget the Eastern Orthodox, and even the Coptic, who broke off in 412 AD all have a 3 fold ministry. What is your explanation for the entire church having Bishops, Priests, and Deacons until the reformation? Did they simply get it wrong from the get go or what?

[Argent]

In addition - I think if you went through the Nicene creed line by line, you would find you have a very different understanding of the faith, which would be shown as different from the historical faith thereby making it difficult to reconcile with an “orthodox” view, as you put it in your post. Please don’t think I am being mean or whatever – I am just trying to clearly point out the differences, of which you are probably not even aware.

I would not receive communion in your church because it means something different.
Likewise, you would not receive in a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox parish, nor they in a Baptist parish.



Well, the Nicene, as well as all the others "creeds" are unbiblical, human constructs, from a Baptist/Reformed position, (not necessarily sin, mind you) but if I were to go though line by line, (which I have, btw) I don't think I would see a very different understanding of the faith. As far as "orthodox" is concerned, those who agree on the essentials of the faith, which I believe the RCC, OC and Baptists (among others) do, do share an orthodox understanding of the faith. It's those who have disposed of the Bible, and hear "God still speaking" who appear to be taking very, very unorthodox positions on issues in the faith. I might be less unaware than you think.:)


But I have reveived communion in an Episcopal parish, by invitation, as a baptized believer in Jesus Christ.

[gtsecc]

How is the Bible not a human Construct and the Creeds are?

[Argent]

How is the Bible not a human Construct and the Creeds are?
We believe the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God. It is not a human construct, but a divine revelation. We don't really see the creeds in that same way.

[gtsecc]

Right - but all Christians held the creeds the same way. Untill the reformation, and even them, most held them that way. It is much much later that they were held by anyone differntly. So, to hold that view you have to think everyone got it wrong from day one until a couple of hundred years ago, and then only a tiny fraction of the church got it right.

[Argent]

Right - but all Christians held the creeds the same way. Untill the reformation, and even them, most held them that way. It is much much later that they were held by anyone differntly. So, to hold that view you have to think everyone got it wrong from day one until a couple of hundred years ago, and then only a tiny fraction of the church got it right.

Well, the creeds aren't from day one. They were from hudreds of years later. And yes, as a Reform Christian to the core, I believe there have been a lot of things that the "church" has gotten wrong along the way.

Oh, and 30,000,00 reform evangelicals are not a "tiny fraction", but we won't hold that against you (well, not all of us anyway!:D )

Peace

[gtsecc]

Bible isn't from day one either - Bishops and the Eucharist are.
Seriously - your position holds thatthe entire church was in darkness until the reformation more or less.

[Argent]

Bible isn't from day one either - Bishops and the Eucharist are.
Seriously - your position holds thatthe entire church was in darkness until the reformation more or less.


Much more less than more.:thumbsup:

[higgs2]

You portray yourself as simply wanting information, but I believe it is becoming obvious that you have your own agenda for this thread.

[karen freeinchristman]

This is a moderator announcement. Non-Anglican/non-Old Catholic visitors are welcome here posting questions. They must refrain from debate, however. Debate consists of arguing, presenting your own position as a counter-argument, and comments of an opinionated nature.

Thank you for abiding by CF rules.

[Wigglesworth]

Glen,

Let our Baptist brother take a breath! It takes one step at a time to comprehend all this stuff. It took me years to figure out what apostolic succession and the Real Presence were.

;)

[Fairbairn]

In the Baptist faith we believe in the "priesthood of the believer." We believe the RCC/OC model, and all it's derivitives, are unbiblical, and therefore human constructs. We are very much "Sola Scriptura." And you're right: We don't speak the same language.

Your Baptist beliefs are similar to the Evangelical Anglican beliefs.

[Fairbairn]

We believe the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God. It is not a human construct, but a divine revelation. We don't really see the creeds in that same way.

To us, the creeds are a statement or affirmation of faith. We don't believe in the creeds - the creeds are a description of what we believe, ie in the Trinity, the Resurrection etc.

[gtsecc]

All the people here who baulk at anything Roman ought to baulk at that. It came to us right out of Vatican 2.
The 1928 Prayerbook doesn't have it.

[gtsecc]

Your Baptist beliefs are similar to the Evangelical Anglican beliefs.


Not really - look at the ways I pointed out, specifically creeds and the Eucharist.
No Anglican parish can disavow the creeds, and none can invite laity to celebrate communion. It is important to focus on the similarities, of which there are many. But, I think it is important to clearly articulate the fundamental differences, and point out we don’t even speak the same language.

But, really you are right - even Anglo-Catholics are going to agree with most of what Baptists believe.

[JasonV]

Oh, and 30,000,00 reform evangelicals are not a "tiny fraction", but we won't hold that against you (well, not all of us anyway!:D )

Peace

With over a Billion Roman Catholics, 300 Million Orthodox, and 80 Million Anglicans.....30 million is but a fraction by comparison.

[gtsecc]

:doh:

30 million Christians ¸2 Billion Christians = 1.5 percent


fixed!

[No Swansong]

Well let's start with your synopsis of the Anglican Church. I realize that you may not debate here and will try to answer these in a non confrontational manner.

Glen covered the Scripture issue although the answer can go into much more depth. I believe you made the comment that the Church was in most part run by ordained Women and Gay men. Of course you have hit on the hot button issues of the Anglican Communion. To begin with no province including ECUSA has a higher percentage of Gay men and Women compared to straight men. Women clergy and homosexual men are in the minority. This does not mean that their voice is not heard however. It is and it should be. Within the majority of the Communion many do not ordain women, most do not consecrate women as Bishops and most do not ordain openly homosexual men.

Yes all clergy in the Anglican Church can marry. As for performing "Gay Marriages" I am sure that it is possible that some do perform same sex committments of some kind. But as far as I know there is no rite approved within the Church for same sex committments. But even if there is, this again would be a very small minority compared to the entire Communion.

[Wigglesworth]

2 Billion Christians / 30 million Christians = 1.5 percent

Actually 2 billion / 30 million = 6,666.7%.

They have us overwhelmingly outnumbered!

:cool:

[karen freeinchristman]

Actually 2 billion / 30 million = 6,666.7%.

They have us overwhelmingly outnumbered!

:cool:
smart-alec! :D



30,000,000 Baptists/2 billion Christians = 1.5%

[DeoJuvante]

I really resent the way that fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholics come here and post things like 'I know that most of the Anglican Church is in complete error but why do the rest remain in communion with them.'

You know, some of us here don't believe the Anglican Church to be in error. In fact, I would say that that is almost a requisite for being here. I happen to think that Southern Baptists have it pretty much completely wrong but I have never felt the need to wander over to their board and start rubbishing their beliefs.

And yes, I did notice that you haven't said this directly but in my opinion no amount of tact and careful wording can justify what is effectively rubbishing the beliefs of a significant proportion of the Anglican Communion.

In any event, I think you have the answer to your question. I hope that you are not attempting to pursue an agenda here (without suggesting that you are).

[Argent]

Well, sorry you feel this way. It's your fellowship section. So, I'm not going to dissect your post, frought with error that it is, in my opinion. I just asked some questions, reponded without intention to debate. Some have been very helpful in answering those questions, in the thread and via PM. I appreciate that helpfulness. I do like to learn new things. We had some laughs along the way, too.

Take care.

[gtsecc]

Well, sorry you feel this way. It's your fellowship section. So, I'm not going to dissect your post, frought with error that it is, in my opinion. I just asked some questions, reponded without intention to debate. Some have been very helpful in answering those questions, in the thread and via PM. I appreciate that helpfulness. I do like to learn new things. We had some laughs along the way, too.

Take care.
I don't mind at all. From your perspective, you honestly do wonder what on earth we are doing, and that is probably the only way you can ask a question. The primary differnce is weather one sees the Bible or the Church as God's authority on earth. Keep asking questions.

[No Swansong]

And please remember we are here to answer questions. I would suggest however that you ask the question and not make sweeping and incorrect generalizations. Are you still interested in me addressing the incorrect assumptions made of the Old Catholics?

Additionally come around to fellowship too.

[DeoJuvante]

Well, sorry you feel this way. It's your fellowship section. So, I'm not going to dissect your post, frought with error that it is, in my opinion. I just asked some questions, reponded without intention to debate. Some have been very helpful in answering those questions, in the thread and via PM. I appreciate that helpfulness. I do like to learn new things. We had some laughs along the way, too.

Take care.
Fraught (note spelling) with error? LOL. I made statements of feeling and of opinion but not assertions of fact, so there is not much scope for my post to be fraught with error. It seems to me that comments like this are intellectually dishonest because you are saying, 'well, I can see problems with your post; I won't tell you what they are of course; just know that they are there.'

But I digress. Feel free to ask questions, if you genuinely seek the answers. But I ask that you refrain from expressing your distate for certain trends and movements within the Anglican Communion while you are here.

[kiwimac]

I am also happy to answer questions on the Old Catholics.

Rev. Ray McIntyre,
Priest
Anglican Church International

[Iosias]

Argent,

Read these (http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/articles/articles.html) :)

[chalice_thunder]

Don’t forget the Eastern Orthodox, and even the Coptic, who broke off in 412 AD all have a 3 fold ministry. What is your explanation for the entire church having Bishops, Priests, and Deacons until the reformation? Did they simply get it wrong from the get go or what?
I just need to put a clarification in here.

Let us not forget that our church has FOUR-fold ministry.

From our Book of Common Prayer:
"The ministers of the Church are lay persons, bishops, priests, and deacons."