It’s true. Fortunately all of its customers Divine Management’s limited menu is always available. 24/7 All you need is be ready to receive.
Lol! I watched that the other night and was shocked! To be honest they didn't do well on any of the questions that night. But really!! You should have been able to have absorbed that via osmosis just by living in western society. I mean, I'm not Muslim but I could answer questions about some of its basics.
Unless Anglo-Catholicism gains traction in places like Africa or Asia I don't think Anglo-Catholicism would amount to anything other than a minority view in Anglicanism.
Size does not matter. My interest is not size but to share the richness of my faith as experienced in the Anglican tradition which began approximately 1400 years ago and delivers today the Gospel in a level of dignity, beauty and simplicity so justly deserving of the Son of God. I do hope orthodox Anglicanism takes root across the globe in the same manner I desperately want to have my tiny parish overflowing each Sunday so others can experience what I have felt for decades. But I will not advocate for compromise for this temporal world in the name of popularity. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church must prevail.
I read a post tonight on Twitter stating the Anglican faith is confessional. If that is the case then we are indeed Protestant (with an episcopate). For the orthodox AngloCatholic such is not the case.
The Anglican tradition began developing approximately 500 years ago when Henry VIII broke away from Rome and established his own national church in England, and culminated in the standardization of Anglicanism with the 39 Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Book of Homilies in the 1600s. The strand of Anglicanism known as Anglo-Catholicism was an outgrowth of the Tractarianism in the 1830s and 1840s, which was largely an innovation in the Anglican tradition in order to reconcile Anglicanism with the Catholicism which came before Henry VIII broke with Rome. The thing is that Catholicism wasn't even the original Christianity in England. The English were Orthodox before 1066 - back then they followed their Byzantine Christian brothers in rejecting the use of filioque in the Nicene Creed, and because of the East-West Schism 12 years prior, the English weren't part of the Roman Catholic Church. One of the reasons why William the Conqueror invaded England was because the Roman Catholic Pope at the time wanted to bring the English under the fold of the Catholic Church and get them to accept the filioque. In addition, the Sarum Rite, which was revived in Anglicanism by the Tractarians and Anglo-Catholics, wasn't developed until 1078 by Saint Osmund, a decade after the Roman Catholic Normans took over England. Prior to 1066, they used a locally developed Celtic-Anglo-Saxon rite.
From a purely practical standpoint, I disagree. A certain amount of patronage is needed to keep the lights on.... barring any Maccabean Miracles of course https://slate.com/business/2023/07/church-real-estate-development-west-park-presbyterian.html
That's interesting. You're acknowledging that the RCC has a historical track record of forcing itself (its beliefs, doctrines, etc) upon indigenous populations by means of military might. How does that behavior line up with the teachings of Jesus? When you realize that you've aligned yourself with that sort of mindset and track record, does it bother you somewhat? If the RCC were to regain its former political and economic clout, what would stop them from resuming past, dictatorial behavior? Would we again see them assert, as they did for so many years, that there is no salvation outside of the RCC?
There is no guarantee that any religious movement, upon gaining political and economic clout, won't be doing dictatorial behavior. One saw the same thing in the Protestant Reformation, where the Calvinists in the Netherlands and the Lutherans in Northern Germany fought brutal wars to eliminate not only Catholicism, but rival Protestant Churches, in order to enforce Calvinism or Lutheranism in their respective countries. The Puritans under Cromwell used military force to attempt to eliminate Catholicism from Ireland and enforce Puritanism. The Anglicans in England later banned not only Catholics, but also various dissident Protestants, forcing Catholics and dissident Protestants to France, the Netherlands and to America. Massachusetts for the first 72 years of its life was a Puritan theocracy who frequently forced out dissidents from its lands. In the 19th century, the United States went to war with many Native Americans, and after winning said wars, forced Native Americans into reservations and tried to force Protestant Christianity upon them. The Quakers were heavily involved in this. Before the East-West Schism in 1054, the Franks and the Byzantines successfully used military might to convert the former Gothic kingdoms which took over from the Western Roman Empire over from Arianism. Previously, the Gothic kingdoms themselves did the same to convert the native population to Arianism. The Franks also successfully used military might to convert the Saxons to Christianity in the Saxon Wars. The Byzantines successfully persecuted the Monophysites out of existence in their empire. Elsewhere around the world, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, members of other religions, pagans, and atheists/agnostics all have a historical track record of invading other countries, forcing their beliefs upon the indigenous, persecuting those who do not agree with their beliefs, and so forth. The Roman Catholic Church is not special at all in this regards.
From my minimal reading on the topic, I believe it was St. Augustine who went to convert the Angles. I have read that year was approximately 597. It is from that date at least the Church of England considers the “birth of the Church”. But I’m not as hung up with dates (but to your point, they are important milemarkers) as I am in the manner in which we profess the faith today and [the often] venerated minds that shaped what is the AngloCatholic expression of the faith which is canonically binding, liturgically beautiful, and above all scripturally sound. Given that premise, I’m not one to give that up for the sake of more numbers. I left TEC and it’s large beautiful, well attended, socially comfortable Cathedral because earlier this year I experienced a road to Damascus type moment where I realized the the Truth was not “just another valid opinion” and in an effort to “get along/ bring more under the big tent” the expression of apostasies and schisms was not acceptable. So as I reaffirm the faith once delivered onto the saints I will do so as I grab onto the plow to till the rich ground of the English expression of the Catholic faith in hopes of a bountiful harvest at my tiny APA parish. Please pray for me that I don’t look back.
Interesting second lesson (Luke 11:14-28) in today’s Morning Prayer (BCP 1928) which reads in part: Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? Pray for the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. Amen.
Nearly all the examples cited are an apples-to-oranges comparison to what the RCC became and did. The RC pope and hierarchy controlled and directed numerous monarchs, effectively making them puppets of Rome to do the pope's bidding. This was done through threats of damnation but also through economic and temporal threats. Look at the contrast. Did the Protestant churches forcibly direct and control the governments of Germany and Netherlands? Did the Anglican Church forcibly direct and control the monarch of England? (It was more the other way around.) Did the Puritans coerce Cromwell at all, let alone make him invade some other country as a means to spread Puritanism? Did some Protestant church group use threats of damnation or coercion to force the US government to invade Native American lands? Really, there is no comparison at all between the corrupt RCC and the rest of Christianity. The RCC is the only Christian (or allegedly Christian) denomination that strived to conquer and control the entire known world. The Church at Rome became, for centuries, the most wealthy, most powerful organization on the planet. They made "converts" through force. I ask again: How did that behavior line up with the teachings of Jesus?
In the articles of religion concerning justification by faith and the corresponding homily on the same, it is difficult to justify Anglicanism ever being labeled as Roman Catholic rather than Protestant.
Yes, with its historic insistence on sola Scriptura and Justification by Faith, Anglicanism falls indisputably on the Protestant side of the Protestant/Catholic divide, and this was manifestly the intent of the English Reformers. We are a Protestant family of Churches, divided along national lines, that simply retained the episcopal structure (and we are not unique in the Protestant world for having done so). If we had truly retained the apostolic office during and after the Reformation, Rome and the Orthodox would recognize it as such, despite the Schism, but they don’t, and the reason why they don’t is perfectly clear: the English Reformation, in common with the Lutherans and with the continental Reformed, rejected the very idea of the Christian ministry as a sacrificing priesthood, which is essential to the canonical understanding of Holy Orders for Rome and the Eastern Churches. It’s deeply puzzling, at least to me, why or how something so basic could be in dispute in some quarters after nearly five centuries of established belief and practice, apart from simple ignorance. It’s certainly understandable that some or even many would want Anglicanism to be truly ‘catholic’ and ‘apostolic’ in the sense that Cardinal Newman in his Anglican years thought it ought to be, but that is a separate issue entirely from whether Anglicanism actually is and has been ‘catholic’ and ‘apostolic’ in the pre-Reformation sense as a matter of historical record. Personally, I do not think Anglicans should feel obligated to conform to Rome’s or the East’s definitions of what ‘the Church’ should be in order to have a valid mission or ministry in the world, despite the growing menace of American-style evangelical revivalism, which itself bears little resemblance to either historic Christianity in general or historic Protestantism in general, yet claims to be the only authentic way to “follow Jesus.”
Very well said. And it is fair to ask what is common to the mindset of each of these disparate groups that leads to such similarly appalling behavior. An otherworldly ethic? An anti-realist epistemology? Etc.
Indeed. If we wanted to remain Roman we certainly had that option, didn’t we? Clearly we are not infused with our own righteousness, as the RC’s claim. We must repent before Almighty God who reckons upon us his perfect righteousness. This one particular error (among others) was in order during the Reformation yet while maintaining the sacraments, the Apostolic succession and our Canons maintain our catholicity. After which we remain very much our Catholic faith, just not of the Roman persuasion.