Criticizing Roman Catholicism

[Walter]

Seriously, whats the bloody difference?

Two distinct camps. The Anglo-Catholic camp has become more accepting of Women's Ordination in the past few years and is more apt to use 'inclusive' language in their liturgies. Traditionalists Anglo-Catholics are set on keeping themselves in line with Rome and EO in matters of doctrine.

The evangelical camp would be much closer to the theology you embrace and MUCH different in the liturgical practices of Anglo-Catholicism.

I have attended Anglo-Catholic masses here in the states that are closer to the liturgy of pre-Vatican II than they are to current Catholic liturgies. One such church was St. Mary the Virgin in NYC. Also known as 'Smokie Mary's' because of the amount of incense used in their solemn high mass. There is a joke that no one has seen their altar for years and that cars must turn on their headlights when they open the front doors after mass.

 

[Matt Black]

The English Trad A-Cs are a dying breed - many defected to Rome 20+ years ago over the OoW and most of the remainder swam the Tiber more recently over the threat of women Bishops, via the Ordinariate established by +++Benedict XVI. +++Francis I has hinted that he'll get rid of the Ordinariate.

Oh, and what Walter said re A-C services: they tend to be more Catholic than the Pope and nosebleed high.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The English Trad A-Cs are a dying breed - many defected to Rome 20+ years ago over the OoW and most of the remainder swam the Tiber more recently over the threat of women Bishops, via the Ordinariate established by +++Benedict XVI. +++Francis I has hinted that he'll get rid of the Ordinariate.

Oh, and what Walter said re A-C services: they tend to be more Catholic than the Pope and nosebleed high.

He has? Where? I would like to read his statements.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

The English Trad A-Cs are a dying breed - many defected to Rome 20+ years ago over the OoW and most of the remainder swam the Tiber more recently over the threat of women Bishops, via the Ordinariate established by +++Benedict XVI.

Many have also left for the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions outside of the official Anglican Communion but which hold to the central tradition of the undivided Church, per the Affirmation of St Louis. However, even within the ACNA here in the States, there are still many with more of a catholic bent (or at least who observe central churchmanship).

 

[Matt Black]

Here is the 'hint' - element of Chinese Whispers in it I guess

 

[Walter]

Many have also left for the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions outside of the official Anglican Communion but which hold to the central tradition of the undivided Church, per the Affirmation of St Louis. However, even within the ACNA here in the States, there are still many with more of a catholic bent (or at least who observe central churchmanship).

The Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, ACNA (where I live) tends to have an Anglo-Catholic leaning. The vast majority of Episcopal churches in this diocese withdrew from TEC a few years back. There is only one that I know of that would be considered 'nose-bleed' high church and that is St. Columba's in Fresno. Our Lady of Guadalupe Anglican Church (the fastest growing church in this area) in Fresno leans heavy towards Anglo-Catholicism as well but uses a more contemporary liturgy.

I have friends who belong to the Anglican Catholic Church and also The Anglican Church of America. My observation is that most of the churches in these two 'continuing' jurisdictions tend to have an Anglo-Catholic bent. The opposite might be said of the Reformed Episcopal Church which tends to be 'low' church.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

The Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, ACNA (where I live) tends to have an Anglo-Catholic leaning. The vast majority of Episcopal churches in this diocese withdrew from TEC a few years back. There is only one that I know of that would be considered 'nose-bleed' high church and that is St. Columba's in Fresno. Our Lady of Guadalupe Anglican Church (the fastest growing church in this area) in Fresno leans heavy towards Anglo-Catholicism as well but uses a more contemporary liturgy.

I have friends who belong to the Anglican Catholic Church and also The Anglican Church of America. My observation is that most of the churches in these two 'continuing' jurisdictions tend to have an Anglo-Catholic bent. The opposite might be said of the Reformed Episcopal Church which tends to be 'low' church.

Fort Worth tends to be more on the catholic side of things, as well as Forward in Faith. Actually, the REC has over the past few decades drifted more to a classical (central) Anglican position.

 

[Yeshua1]

We're saved on the meritorious GROUND of Christ's work alone which we apprehend by faith apart from the deeds of the Law (Rom 3:28). However, we are only in Christ (where our righteousness lies) by a LIVING faith which results in WORKS--the proof and fruit of a living faith. Paul even said that it's only a FAITH WORKING THROUH LOVE that avails for anything IN CHRIST (Gal 5:6). A workless 'faith' (or a bare intellectual assent to the gospel) is dead and cannot save or ultimately justify anyone (per James 2).

Only those truly ABIDING in CHRIST by a LIVING FAITH will have both: (1) HIS perfect rigtheousness/merit imputed to them (Rom 8:1, John 5:24, 2 Cor 5:21); and (2) works of love, or fruits of their faith, that is the PROOF that they are actually in CHRIST (John 15:1-6).

One MUST be justified by God BEFORE they can EVEN exhibit ANY fruit, for that fruit/good works are those deeds done by the Sprit of God residing in us, and those cannot occur unless one has been saved by god first!

You cannot have any works to be saved for that would merit salvation, and negate the cross!

Paul is SO clear in Romans that faith in the person and work of Christ freely and fully justifies us, and once we are in that state, james would come along to tell us to strt living now as new creatures in christ!

NOT in order to get saved, but as a result of being saved!

calvin had this aspect right, for its by faith alone that we are saved, but that kind of saving faith will not be alone, but be shown by good works/fruit!

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Thanks for the more fulsome response. I have to say that I disagree with the interpretation put forward by the article cited by you (surprise!) and I could cite any number of articles by covenant-baptisers, paedo-baptisers and baptismal regenerationists in support of the contrary interpretation of that Scripture. But where would that get us? As Bro James might say, "Now what?"

You believe as you will about it, and I'll do the same, and we'll still both meet in heaven.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

One MUST be justified by God BEFORE they can EVEN exhibit ANY fruit, for that fruit/good works are those deeds done by the Sprit of God residing in us, and those cannot occur unless one has been saved by god first!

You cannot have any works to be saved for that would merit salvation, and negate the cross!

Paul is SO clear in Romans that faith in the person and work of Christ freely and fully justifies us, and once we are in that state, james would come along to tell us to strt living now as new creatures in christ!

NOT in order to get saved, but as a result of being saved!

calvin had this aspect right, for its by faith alone that we are saved, but that kind of saving faith will not be alone, but be shown by good works/fruit!

Thanks for the Explanation Y but was not the article I posted sufficient?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Two distinct camps. The Anglo-Catholic camp has become more accepting of Women's Ordination in the past few years and is more apt to use 'inclusive' language in their liturgies. Traditionalists Anglo-Catholics are set on keeping themselves in line with Rome and EO in matters of doctrine.

The evangelical camp would be much closer to the theology you embrace and MUCH different in the liturgical practices of Anglo-Catholicism.

I have attended Anglo-Catholic masses here in the states that are closer to the liturgy of pre-Vatican II than they are to current Catholic liturgies. One such church was St. Mary the Virgin in NYC. Also known as 'Smokie Mary's' because of the amount of incense used in their solemn high mass. There is a joke that no one has seen their altar for years and that cars must turn on their headlights when they open the front doors after mass.

Im asthmatic so I avoid those places. The American Episthepole Church I last visited with, the priest was giving a seminar on something or other & made the statement he supports abortion (he did this openly!!) & nobody uttered a word.....I stood up & expressed my revulsion for him & his message & stormed out. Come to think of it, it was & is Bishop Spong's home church so what could I expect. Yuk!!!

 

[NetChaplain]

Thanks for the more fulsome response. I have to say that I disagree with the interpretation put forward by the article cited by you (surprise!) and I could cite any number of articles by covenant-baptisers, paedo-baptisers and baptismal regenerationists in support of the contrary interpretation of that Scripture. But where would that get us? As Bro James might say, "Now what?"

Hi Matt - Thanks for your kind reply and if you desire, I would like to pursue with you what you mean by "I disagree with the interpretation put forward by the article cited." I would reply but I'm too uncertain of your meaning.

God's blessings to your Family!

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I saw the following description of liturgical practices at RC churches during Holy Week:

"Maundy Thursday...solemn translation of the Blessed Sacrament to the Altar of Repose, adoration of Blessed Sacrament.
Good Friday...veneration of the Cross (in England was known as 'creeping to the Cross') genuflecting to or kissing the Cross as a sign of reverence. Mass of the Pre-Sanctified (Communion from the Reposed Sacrament).
Paschal Vigil...Litany of Saints: 'Saint N...Pray for Us'.

Also there are the prayers over the baptismal water, that God will sanctify it as a thing in and of itself. The bishop actually talks to the water, telling it to be sanctified. It's even worse in "Traditionalist" churches, where they pray that God will bless the Paschal Candle and then speak directly to the candle, of bees, of wax, and of mysterious things - all in Latin, of course."

And then this: "The Rector used the English Missal and I remember him blowing across the Baptismal Waters in the form of a cross at the Paschal Vigil. On Good Friday he placed a huge crucifix in the Chancel and approached it barefoot up the nave, stopping three times to prostrate himself face down on the floor with outstretched arms."

How is this not superstition and, worse, idolatry?

 

[Matt Black]

You believe as you will about it, and I'll do the same, and we'll still both meet in heaven.

Amen to that!

 

[NetChaplain]

I saw the following description of liturgical practices at RC churches during Holy Week:

"Maundy Thursday...solemn translation of the Blessed Sacrament to the Altar of Repose, adoration of Blessed Sacrament.
Good Friday...veneration of the Cross (in England was known as 'creeping to the Cross') genuflecting to or kissing the Cross as a sign of reverence. Mass of the Pre-Sanctified (Communion from the Reposed Sacrament).
Paschal Vigil...Litany of Saints: 'Saint N...Pray for Us'.

Also there are the prayers over the baptismal water, that God will sanctify it as a thing in and of itself. The bishop actually talks to the water, telling it to be sanctified. It's even worse in "Traditionalist" churches, where they pray that God will bless the Paschal Candle and then speak directly to the candle, of bees, of wax, and of mysterious things - all in Latin, of course."

And then this: "The Rector used the English Missal and I remember him blowing across the Baptismal Waters in the form of a cross at the Paschal Vigil. On Good Friday he placed a huge crucifix in the Chancel and approached it barefoot up the nave, stopping three times to prostrate himself face down on the floor with outstretched arms."

How is this not superstition and, worse, idolatry?

I realize it's difficult to believe that one claiming to be Christian who is involved with false doctrine could be a Christian. To me one can get it wrong in various beliefs but if they've got faith in Christ right, it is irrelevant concerning their being saved; they just won't we growing in their salvation, same as any Christian who doesn't grow in their salvation.

In my opinion, if one is involved with a high volume of error, it's possible and maybe even likely they've also got faith in Christ wrong.

Concerning idolatry, i believe that's something one would have to be knowingly aware of doing, as intentionally paying homage or worship to.

 

[Matt Black]

Hi Matt - Thanks for your kind reply and if you desire, I would like to pursue with you what you mean by "I disagree with the interpretation put forward by the article cited." I would reply but I'm too uncertain of your meaning.

God's blessings to your Family!

Thanks! And to you and yours too.

Time does not permit me a full reply but suffice it to say that I found the article's negation of the physical to smack too much of gnosticism for my liking. IMO, it makes the cardinal error of assuming that because Paul was against circumcision as a physical act of incorporation in the New Covenant, he was against physical acts of incorporation period. To me, that misses the Pauline elephant in the drawing room of the correspondence of Old Covenant circumcision with New Covenant baptism as laid out by him in Col 2:9-12; he is therefore against circumcision not because it is a physical act but because it is an act of the Old Covenant and, whilst it is important to undergo a spiritual circumcision of the heart, that does not negate the importance of the physical act of covenantal incorporation: circumcision under the Old, baptism under the New. In both cases, a spiritual circumcision is necessary in addition to the physical act, but to dismiss the importance of the physical is to tend to gnosticism: we are creatures of spirit and body, and the methodologies of membership of both Covenants relate to both aspects of our being.

 

[Yeshua1]

I realize it's difficult to believe that one claiming to be Christian who is involved with false doctrine could be a Christian. To me one can get it wrong in various beliefs but if they've got faith in Christ right, it is irrelevant concerning their being saved; they just won't we growing in their salvation, same as any Christian who doesn't grow in their salvation.

In my opinion, if one is involved with a high volume of error, it's possible and maybe even likely they've also got faith in Christ wrong.

Concerning idolatry, i believe that's something one would have to be knowingly aware of doing, as intentionally paying homage or worship to.

many have been saved in the catholic church, buts that was TOTALLY due to the grace of god, for being chosen by him to be saved, despite and instead of their false gospel!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

many have been saved in the catholic church, buts that was TOTALLY due to the grace of god, for being chosen by him to be saved, despite and instead of their false gospel!

Yes, true.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

many have been saved in the catholic church, buts that was TOTALLY due to the grace of god, for being chosen by him to be saved, despite and instead of their false gospel!

Yes, true.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, true.

and once saved, they need to come out from among them, and go join a real christian Church!