Angry Anglicans

[7 Sorrows]

[quote=luckyfredsdad;5932704]

Originally Posted by jordananglo

Hi folks, I see that I am coming late to this party. I want to say a couple of things:



Firstly! As a Traditional Anglican, I wish you well and God speed!

Secondly! How do you as an Anglican marry up the doctrines of two thousand years of catholicity with accepting the modern innovations of medieval Rome?




As you are, an Anglican, a member of a two thousand year old Church, give or take a year or two, you and your family will have participated in the Sacraments and have used the facilities of the Body of Christ provided by the faithful of the past as well as today. Is it so easy to cast the Body of Christ to one side, have you no loyalties to the suffering Communion?

The decision is yours to make and I have no doubt you have used up many prayers and much supplication as well as meditation on the step you're contemplating!

Anglicanism is by no means dead, or even seriously injured,look at the statement by Archbishop Haverland! We have more than our fare share of weaker brothers and basically we are simply Catholics. Would you not prefer to stay and struggle?

i love the anglican communion and i don't know of the Archbishop will eventually put the two track system in place, but, for many of us, we are tired of the struggle and simply want to be able to move on with our faith. if the anglican communion had remained how it was when i was a child growing up in the 50's and early 60's, i might not have converted to Catholicism. i think there are many Catholics as well who would like the church to return to the way it was pre-Vatican II. the Archbishop of Canterbury is not a strong enough leader to prevent fractures within the communion. don't know if this answers your points you made to another poster, but this is how i feel.

[BernadetteM]

Originally Posted by jordananglo

Hi folks, I see that I am coming late to this party. I want to say a couple of things:

First, as a life-long Anglo-catholic, raised in an Anglo-Catholic family, I am thrilled with this development. Where do I sign? It is the answer to our prayers of many years. I attend church at an Anglican Church in America parish, which is a TAC jurisdiction in the USA. I know there have been some saying that no laity will come. I can attest that I am contact with the members of my parish, and at least half of them are in favor of joining the Personal Ordinariate, many joyously so. I also that many of my fellow laity in the ACA are also happy (though not all).

There has been a great deal of naysaying coming from Anglican circles about how this will all add up to nothing. I heartily disagree. I have close connections with people also in the ACNA who many have said will politely decline this invitation. I say different! There will be many laity and clergy that will come in from places like Ft. Worth (I know it well), but it may take a little time. The first wave will come in over the next two years, but this door is open into the unknown future. It is shameful to see the bitter nastiness of many that oppose this tooth and nail. Let them run around like headless chickens for all the good it does.

This is a very exciting time for me, and for many of my friends and family. The future looks bright, and I know that the nurturing and stability of the Anglican patrimony within the Catholic church will be a firm foundation for my family, and my children's family.

Welcome home! You might get posts asking how you can leave the church you have belonged to for your whole life. I have noticed many posts on forums where the person who now is moving on to Rome is laid with quilt over their decision. From my own experience it is spiritual growth that leads us home to Rome. Yes as an Anglo Catholic we had many catholic traditions and as I recall we even prayed for the Pope, but we were not part of the Catholic Church in the fullness of the Faith. I have found a peace in the Church that I never found as an Episcopalian. Even though I have to attend a Latin Rite parish, I know that this is where I am to be.

It is not for others to determine your spiritual journey, each of us have our own journey to take that leads us to a closer walk with the Lord. If you are able to have an Anglican Use parish to attend you are very fortunate. Great minds like Cardinal Newman was led to the Catholic Church and I surely don't have his intellect, nor do most of the posters on any forum, they have their emotions and those emotions lead them to criticize us who have become Catholic, they just can't see why we do what we do. Sometimes there is much hostility on their parts, maybe they are jealous for being left behind with no clear direction from their leaders. I don't know the answer. Every Christian should just be glad that another has found where they feel Christ wants them.

The Catholic Church is the only church that I have see growth in by addressing the moral problems of the day. The Church doesn't back down on her teachings of 2000 years.

It is different is some ways than being Anglican, but the changes are all to the good. Of course there are problems within the Church, but the Church is made up of individuals and we all sin, but the Chuch itself if Holy.

Bless you and your family in your journey into the Church.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

[PTD]

...It comes down to fear on the part of some. How will this affect the group I am leading or in now. To be honest they have invested alot of time, energy and spirit into these various and many groups. For some, they are not catholic. The vast majority of Anglicans are protestant in theology, churchmanship and thinking. And I should say how they view authority verse the right of individualism. For most anglicans individualism will be the dominate factor. As a Baptist minister, I constantly heard...that is ok for you, my interpretation of this is different and just as good. While not as bad in Anglicanism, it is there. This is just something I tell Catholics you can not understand until you have lived or suffered through it for many years. Though I am beginning to see this rear its head in the Church....

Fr. Mark
ACNA[/quote]

Fr. Mark's explanation, excerpted above, was gracious and informative. As a cradle Catholic, I have difficulty understanding the Anglicans who are trying to re-group independently of the Episcopal Church. The Anglican Communion is not yet as liberal as the Episcopal Church, but the Church of England is moving in that direction, as are Anglican churches in other countries. I am glad to see flourishing, and orthodox churches in Africa, and admire Archbishop Duncan for the courage of his convictions. But I suspect several decades ago the head of the C of E, or the head of the Episcopal Church, were just as orthodox. The same processes that allowed them to go astray, or compromise will also be guiding the church in Africa and ACNA.
The history of break-off Anglican denominations has not been one of unity, even among orthodox Anglicans. We live in a time when the national political/media establishment is not inclined to "live and let live" when it comes to orthodox Christians. This is not the 1950's, when orthodox Christians were allowed to flourish even if separated. Today, as long as Orthodox Christians are scattered in different denominations, we will be less able to resist rampant secularism, either nationally or in your home city. You KNOW the Catholic Church will still be there, and still teaching the same theology when your grandchildren are grown up. I encourage you to become Catholic. (But if not, just be the holiest priest in ACNA).

Paul

[7 Sorrows]

Originally Posted by PTD

...It comes down to fear on the part of some. How will this affect the group I am leading or in now. To be honest they have invested alot of time, energy and spirit into these various and many groups. For some, they are not catholic. The vast majority of Anglicans are protestant in theology, churchmanship and thinking. And I should say how they view authority verse the right of individualism. For most anglicans individualism will be the dominate factor. As a Baptist minister, I constantly heard...that is ok for you, my interpretation of this is different and just as good. While not as bad in Anglicanism, it is there. This is just something I tell Catholics you can not understand until you have lived or suffered through it for many years. Though I am beginning to see this rear its head in the Church....

Fr. Mark
ACNA

Fr. Mark's explanation, excerpted above, was gracious and informative. As a cradle Catholic, I have difficulty understanding the Anglicans who are trying to re-group independently of the Episcopal Church. The Anglican Communion is not yet as liberal as the Episcopal Church, but the Church of England is moving in that direction, as are Anglican churches in other countries. I am glad to see flourishing, and orthodox churches in Africa, and admire Archbishop Duncan for the courage of his convictions. But I suspect several decades ago the head of the C of E, or the head of the Episcopal Church, were just as orthodox. The same processes that allowed them to go astray, or compromise will also be guiding the church in Africa and ACNA.
The history of break-off Anglican denominations has not been one of unity, even among orthodox Anglicans. We live in a time when the national political/media establishment is not inclined to "live and let live" when it comes to orthodox Christians. This is not the 1950's, when orthodox Christians were allowed to flourish even if separated. Today, as long as Orthodox Christians are scattered in different denominations, we will be less able to resist rampant secularism, either nationally or in your home city. You KNOW the Catholic Church will still be there, and still teaching the same theology when your grandchildren are grown up. I encourage you to become Catholic. (But if not, just be the holiest priest in ACNA).

Paul[/quote]


i have seen what has happened within the anglican communion in the last 50 years. even in judaism, there are many different branches now - more than reform, conservative and orthodox. the Catholic church is whole at this point and time and i pray that it will continue to remain united. i do know that there are people within the Catholic church right now who want female priests, are pro-choice and think that homosexuality should be accepted (usually these are parents who have children who are homosexual). perhaps the Pope IS hoping that by welcoming in anglicans and episcopalians who are more orthodox in their faith, he will help strengthen the conservative side of the church. i can remember that when i was an episcopalian, i think i went through a phase where my individualism made me think it was good not to be united with Rome, but that was when i was young and before i had seen what has happened within the anglican communion. i love the anglican way and i love being Catholic and i do respect the Catholic church and feel it is the one, true church, so, hopefully, someday, i can practice both within the Catholic church.

[jordananglo]

[quote=luckyfredsdad;5932704]

Originally Posted by jordananglo

Hi folks, I see that I am coming late to this party. I want to say a couple of things:

Firstly! As a Traditional Anglican, I wish you well and God speed!

Secondly! How do you as an Anglican marry up the doctrines of two thousand years of catholicity with accepting the modern innovations of medieval Rome?

As you are, an Anglican, a member of a two thousand year old Church, give or take a year or two, you and your family will have participated in the Sacraments and have used the facilities of the Body of Christ provided by the faithful of the past as well as today. Is it so easy to cast the Body of Christ to one side, have you no loyalties to the suffering Communion?

The decision is yours to make and I have no doubt you have used up many prayers and much supplication as well as meditation on the step you're contemplating!

Anglicanism is by no means dead, or even seriously injured,look at the statement by Archbishop Haverland! We have more than our fare share of weaker brothers and basically we are simply Catholics. Would you not prefer to stay and struggle?

Hello luckyfredsdad,

Let me first say `thank you' for your well wishes. This is a decision that I have not taken lightly, and have been in prayer about this for literally all of my adult life. It is difficult to express the emotions I feel after the release of this announcement and constitution. One of the things I have experienced is a great peace. I have not worried about whether or not my parish church will take this; I have not worried about the reactions about the rest of the Anglican world, I have not had fear about what will happen in the future.

You ask about doctrinal issues - the Anglican bishops, under whose teaching authority I reside, have all publicly signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church as their expression of their beliefs and teaching. They are still Anglican bishops, even if some would disagree - we forget that Anglicanism was never intended to be a "protestant denomination" in the modern sense. This is the doctrinal norm of the Personal Ordinaries. I have seen too many Anglican friends of mine fall into the trap of "private judgement" when it comes to what they believe. This is what has lead the Anglican communion to the crisis it now faces; regardless of what the particular issues exist.

You also ask about my sacramental life. I find that there are two kinds of "converts" (although if you have the same beliefs after as before, can it really be described as "converting"?) - (1) those who view the change as a repudiation of all that is past, taking a "scotched earth" approach to their past (sadly many former Anglican in the Catholic Church do seem to do this, especially if they come from a revisionist group); and (2) those who view the change as an addition and expansion of their spiritual life - and not a denial of it.

It is absolutely clear to me that if you read the constitution, Pope Benedict XVI want those coming in to take position #2. Otherwise, he would not have done this! He recognizes something very special about our tradition, something that is "a precious gift" to the wider Catholic church. Something to be "treasured" and not cast aside. It is incredible that I am seeing this - and I cannot help but to be deeply moved by it. We are not asked to repudiate and disown our past sacramental life, and I don't plan on doing it. I perfectly understand why Rome will not now recognize Anglican orders - because many of them are now clearly invalid. Again, these are not easy issues, and a great deal of prayer and thought was required for me to be here.

Finally, you ask if I have no loyalty to the suffering communion. Well, I have "been loyal" to it my entire life, in the sense that I have remained an Anglican Catholic my whole life. (And guess what, I will now be a "Catholic Anglican" - you see the vast changes taking place?). However, and this has been part of my discernment process, which suffering communion do you refer to? The Episcopal Church, the church I was baptized and raised in? Those in communion with Canterbury (which still, despite all, includes TEC)? Those churches in the "continuum" (those who despite the Catholic names, are not in communion with anyone except themselves?)- incidentally, I am being loyal to the continuum church to which I actually current belong - the Anglican Church in America - they are the ones that helped to get this going .

I guess it comes down to a few things: (1) It is not all about me. I think about the spiritual stability of my children, and their future, but also about all the other children out there, and the larger world that so desperately needs a united (and not dissipated) traditional Christian witness. (2) We have a direct command from our Lord that we should be one. Think about that. It is easy to be distracted from it. (3) I view this as not so much about who we now are (as many have been writing about), but rather who we will become, and what our future is. Some have used this as an occasion to write pages and pages about the sufficiency of Anglo-Catholic position. I love the Anglo-Catholic tradition as much as the next man (probably more), but one of the traditional goals of the movement (exemplified by the SSC for example), was reunification with Rome. Now that dream has been accomplished, for those that will receive it.

I hope this answers the questions you asked of me - or at least gives you a little more perspective on who I am.

I wish you the best for your future.

[Ridgerunner]

This may be the least enlightened and enlightening post in the thread. But I'm going to say it.

I trust the Catholic Church will be receptive to the liturgies of those Anglicans who do decide to cross the Tiber. It's hard to explain why, but I'm going to try.

My ancestery is not English in any respect. I'm mostly Irish, with some Italian and Alsatian added in. My surname is Norman-Irish, or an Anglicized version of a Norman Irish name, but that was virtually an embarrassment to my ancestors. To my ancestors in this country, English mattered only because it was the language of America. Up until VII, the language of the Mass was Latin, and notwithstanding that changed with VII in the U.S., and notwithstanding that I am not learned in Latin, I knew enough that I could tell the words of the liturgies communicated more than just the direct meaning of the words. After VII, we went to "plain language" liturgies; sort of like those insurance policies where all the "lawyerese " is said in a different way. That was okay. I love the TLM, but I love the NO too, so I was upset only by excesses.

But there is something different about Anglican liturgies; certainly the "Anglican Use", which I assume is a lot like the TAC liturgies. Say what one will about Anglicanism, it knows the language. I majored in English literature in college and; while no word-crafter myself, I did at least gain some knowledge of the profound beauty there can be in the English language...how it, like Latin, can communicate more than the direct meaning of the words. But you have to use it in its fullness or something is always missing.

I feel that way about the Anglo Use prayers and liturgies. There's more in them than just the words. They have that "extra ring" to them, sort of like the reverberations of a bell long after it has been struck. Anglicans, or at least some of them, have hammered and forged the language of their liturgies for a very long time, and there isn't a lot of dross in what I, at least, have heard of it.

And we, of Irish and Italian and Alsatian ancestery, or whatever, who have been, these years, swimming in a half-Anglicized U.S. without ever quite being a part of that, ought to realize there are all kinds of things we have absorbed without knowing it, and that fully and expertly crafted English usage reverberates with it.

I think, in this way, if in no other, those TAC people who cross the Tiber, have a lot to offer the rest of us. I hope and trust they will, as to language, keep one foot in the Thames when they do cross the Tiber.

[GKC]

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

This may be the least enlightened and enlightening post in the thread. But I'm going to say it.

I trust the Catholic Church will be receptive to the liturgies of those Anglicans who do decide to cross the Tiber. It's hard to explain why, but I'm going to try.

My ancestery is not English in any respect. I'm mostly Irish, with some Italian and Alsatian added in. My surname is Norman-Irish, or an Anglicized version of a Norman Irish name, but that was virtually an embarrassment to my ancestors. To my ancestors in this country, English mattered only because it was the language of America. Up until VII, the language of the Mass was Latin, and notwithstanding that changed with VII in the U.S., and notwithstanding that I am not learned in Latin, I knew enough that I could tell the words of the liturgies communicated more than just the direct meaning of the words. After VII, we went to "plain language" liturgies; sort of like those insurance policies where all the "lawyerese " is said in a different way. That was okay. I love the TLM, but I love the NO too, so I was upset only by excesses.

But there is something different about Anglican liturgies; certainly the "Anglican Use", which I assume is a lot like the TAC liturgies. Say what one will about Anglicanism, it knows the language. I majored in English literature in college and; while no word-crafter myself, I did at least gain some knowledge of the profound beauty there can be in the English language...how it, like Latin, can communicate more than the direct meaning of the words. But you have to use it in its fullness or something is always missing.

I feel that way about the Anglo Use prayers and liturgies. There's more in them than just the words. They have that "extra ring" to them, sort of like the reverberations of a bell long after it has been struck. Anglicans, or at least some of them, have hammered and forged the language of their liturgies for a very long time, and there isn't a lot of dross in what I, at least, have heard of it.

And we, of Irish and Italian and Alsatian ancestery, or whatever, who have been, these years, swimming in a half-Anglicized U.S. without ever quite being a part of that, ought to realize there are all kinds of things we have absorbed without knowing it, and that fully and expertly crafted English usage reverberates with it.

I think, in this way, if in no other, those TAC people who cross the Tiber, have a lot to offer the rest of us. I hope and trust they will, as to language, keep one foot in the Thames when they do cross the Tiber.

It is anticipated that the liturgies will be an improvement, re: the tone of the language, even over the AU.

GKC

[7 Sorrows]

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

This may be the least enlightened and enlightening post in the thread. But I'm going to say it.

I trust the Catholic Church will be receptive to the liturgies of those Anglicans who do decide to cross the Tiber. It's hard to explain why, but I'm going to try.

My ancestery is not English in any respect. I'm mostly Irish, with some Italian and Alsatian added in. My surname is Norman-Irish, or an Anglicized version of a Norman Irish name, but that was virtually an embarrassment to my ancestors. To my ancestors in this country, English mattered only because it was the language of America. Up until VII, the language of the Mass was Latin, and notwithstanding that changed with VII in the U.S., and notwithstanding that I am not learned in Latin, I knew enough that I could tell the words of the liturgies communicated more than just the direct meaning of the words. After VII, we went to "plain language" liturgies; sort of like those insurance policies where all the "lawyerese " is said in a different way. That was okay. I love the TLM, but I love the NO too, so I was upset only by excesses.

But there is something different about Anglican liturgies; certainly the "Anglican Use", which I assume is a lot like the TAC liturgies. Say what one will about Anglicanism, it knows the language. I majored in English literature in college and; while no word-crafter myself, I did at least gain some knowledge of the profound beauty there can be in the English language...how it, like Latin, can communicate more than the direct meaning of the words. But you have to use it in its fullness or something is always missing.

I feel that way about the Anglo Use prayers and liturgies. There's more in them than just the words. They have that "extra ring" to them, sort of like the reverberations of a bell long after it has been struck. Anglicans, or at least some of them, have hammered and forged the language of their liturgies for a very long time, and there isn't a lot of dross in what I, at least, have heard of it.

And we, of Irish and Italian and Alsatian ancestery, or whatever, who have been, these years, swimming in a half-Anglicized U.S. without ever quite being a part of that, ought to realize there are all kinds of things we have absorbed without knowing it, and that fully and expertly crafted English usage reverberates with it.

I think, in this way, if in no other, those TAC people who cross the Tiber, have a lot to offer the rest of us. I hope and trust they will, as to language, keep one foot in the Thames when they do cross the Tiber.

thanks for your post. i hope others will be drawn to it also.