Goodbye ACNA --> Hello TEC

After six months attending a ACNA parish, I decided to return to my previous TEC parish. There are several reasons for the return, many of which I do not want to go into online at this time. Let me say, however, that my soul missed the total TEC experience. This morning the TEC rector welcomed me back. My soul is good.

If you left a TEC parish, I encourage you to go back and give it try. Whatever reasons you had for leaving TEC, there are more reasons to return.

...Scottish Monk

 

Welcome back, brother!

 

I guess KJS and Apostasy are great reasons to go back to TEC?

 

IF that were true, the question is, would those reasons be more crucial to the faith than the reasons for leaving?

If I lived in a diocese with an orthodox bishop, that would be good -- but if I knew that my orthodox bishop was in Eucharistic fellowship with apostate bishops and an apostate denomination, I don't see how I could be a part of that.

I just don't see how anyone can stay in a denomination which voted in favor of an actively homosexual bishop, and blessing of same-sex unions. I am seriously wanting to know how one's conscience allows a person to be in fellowship with such a denomination, if one is orthodox morally and ethically. Maybe I'm missing something here.

 

He might go back to ACNA yet, don't forget that it could be that the ACNA church where he is could be small, but there are many other good bible-believing ACNA churches out there.

 

Here is a more established ANiC church in Rutland, Vermont U.S.A All Saints
http://acsamrutlandvt.org/

 

You both assume that ACNA doesn't have any problems. Also, ACNA is not part of the Anglican Communion, for those of us who are churchmen, this matters.

 

Also, ACNA is doing quite well where Scottish Monk lives and has several large parishes.

 

You are correct about ACNA not being with Canterbury's Recognition, but the Anglican Network in Canada is because of our oversight of the Southern Cone, and Archbishop (Primate) Tito Zavala

 

We are Anglicans not Chileans.

 

Interesting point, Hackney. Being High-Churchmen in the original sense (not in the perverted liturgical-ritual sense) means that we have to stay with the Mother Church in her authority. Until ++-elect Welby formally brings ACNA into communion, what can we do as Anglicans but remain in obedience, despite pressure? This is not about us, our tastes, or opinions - but about the unity of the Body of Christ.

In Essay III, Francis Bacon said:

The fruits of unity (next unto the well pleasing of God, which is all in all) are two: the one, towards those that are without the church, the other, towards those that are within. For the former; it is certain, that heresies, and schisms, are of all others the greatest scandals; yea, more than corruption of manners. For as in the natural body, a wound, or solution of continuity, is worse than a corrupt humor; so in the spiritual. So that nothing, doth so much keep men out of the church, and drive men out of the church, as breach of unity. And therefore, whensoever it cometh to that pass, that one saith, Ecce in deserto, another saith, Ecce in penetralibus; that is, when some men seek Christ, in the conventicles of heretics, and others, in an outward face of a church, that voice had need continually to sound in men's ears, Nolite exire, - Go not out.

 

Exactly, it is our duty to be faithful to our respective national Churches.

 

I'm not assuming that at all. One thing I know is that it doesn't have an actively homosexual bishop -- it does not approve of that and so will not have one; it does not and will not approve of same-sex unions. It is staunchly pro-life.

Those are crucial issues. For a denomination to call homosexual behavior good and support abortion makes it apostate. I cannot be in fellowship with such.

 

Even if they have departed from the faith?

It's more important to be faithful to the Gospel.

 

So, you're a separatist, not an Anglican. Fair enough.

 

Especially if some of the bishops have left the faith.

Regardless, my bishop hasn't departed from the faith.

 

Why does this matter? The Anglican Communion is a relatively new invention in Anglicanism. Besides, requireing the consent of a foreign bishop as the basis being authentically Anglican is oppositional to the clear teaching of the anglican Reformation and the 39 Articles. If I have to be beholden to the Archbishop of Canterbury because he hold the seat of the first English See, I might as well be beholden to the the Bishop that sent and established that See, which would mean I'd have to become Roman Catholic since St. Augustine's trip to England was financed and authorized by Pope Gregory the Great, and he came to teach the Romanist version of Christianity. This whole idea of being Anglican being contingent on the A of C recognizing you seems papist and untenable.

 

It is our duty to be faithful to God. Archbishops may think they are the head of the church, but there is but one head and chief cornestone and he does not occupy the seat of Canterbury, Rome, Constantinople, are any earthly throne. I am an American Anglican, my church did not get its episcopal legitimacy from England at all, but from Scotland. I owe no more allegience to the A of C or the C of E or the AC than I do to any other Christian authority or body, that is, so long, and insofar as they follow Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, I will support them but there is no formulary , canon, or article that requires me to accept heresy or error to be an authentic Anglican and I resent implication.

 

Better a speratist than a heretic. Are you really endorsing that Anglicanism truly supports abortion and homosexuality? You and I have very, very different understandings of Anglicanism

 

No, but I am endorsing that Anglicanism is loyalist.