Anglican Catholics and Western Rite Orthodox and Ordinariates, oh my.

Thank @Tiffy . I donechobyour concerns however feel safe with our liturgy for example eucharistic prayer B of CW says:

And so, Father, calling to mind his death on the cross,

his perfect sacrifice made once for the sins of the whole world;

rejoicing in his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension,

and looking for his coming in glory,

we celebrate this memorial of our redemption.

As we offer you this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving,

we bring before you this bread and this cup

and we thank you for counting us worthy

to stand in your presence and serve you.

 

*I do echo your concerns...apologies Typo

 

That's exactly what I had in mind when I stated the caveat.

This is such a heart warming description of what we are there at the Eucharist (Thanksgiving) to do. Only incongruously contradicted by this following prayer which some grovelingly obsequious churches insist on including immediately before distribution of the elements.

Lord I am NOT worthy to receive you,
but only say the word, and I shall be healed.

As if even after thanking God that he has counted us WORTHY to stand in God's presence, we then desperately feel the need to immediately contradict God's generosity of Spirit, in His counting us worthy, and once again fall back into doubt concerning God's ability to forgive and be gracious toward us, as we share in Christ's fellowship meal, prefiguring the heavenly banquet welcomingly prepared for all his disciples.
.

 

I don't see the contradiction. We are inherently unworthy but it is God that makes us worthy and we thank him for that when we receive His Body and Blood. We shouldn't presume we are worthy. In fact, this is what we say in the Prayer of Humble Access:

See also 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, where St. Paul mentions how some people consumed the Eucharist and got sick and died:

If I am misunderstanding what you're saying, forgive me.

 

No, you're not misunderstanding. Your points are of course very valid. We are all, including the priest who says the words, NOT worthy to even stand in God's prescence, let alone receive him symbolically, spiritually, into our souls, or (even as some believe, literally and physically into our stomachs).

The incongruity exists in the fact that AFTER the priest has only just established, on everyone present's behalf, that through the ministry of Christ's atonement, God counts us all worthy to stand in His prescence, (that is exactly why we came there, to draw near to Our Father), we then seem to almost immediately contradict God's graceous acceptance of our prescence before Him, and his nearness to us, by telling him again that we are unworthy, when God already knows that we are, and has excused it, and the priest has just told us that God has just graceously already overlooked our unworthiness, and effectively welcomes our prescence before him.
.

 

Old habits and traditions die hard, no matter whether good or bad. I agree, it's a bit of overkill on the unworthiness thing. I have long preferred to see myself as having been graced by God with the white robe of righteousness. I think that since He sees me that way, I ought to see myself as He sees me.

 

Good morning, Sig. Please look at my post in the Forum. I may be a good starter to answering the above’s particular question and the Continuing Movement churches.

To state simply, we are a branch of the true Church, not THE Church. You will find where the Orthodox Eastern Rite and the Roman Catholic disagree, you will surely find the G3 churches practicing the Faith in the English patrimony. The 39 Articles were an attempt, among other things, an effort to wrestle away the Romanish influences in the earlier English Church and should not be read as dogma (we have plenty of other sources for it: Holy Writ, the seven Ecumenical Councils, and our Church fathers/early theologians). As of the result of the English reformation, some of this Protestant “hangover” was later modified by members of the Church during the Oxford Movement of the 19th century thus where we are today.

I found this quote from my Bishop, Chandler Jones, from a Synod address made just a couple of years ago (he is a prolific writer. I strongly suggest researching his works). It and the accompanying picture I cropped from Facebook (I know, I know…. ) may help you in your quest and at least assure you the G3 churches are fully Anglican:

'By the mercy of God, we have inherited through no worthiness of our own the plenitude of the Christian Religion. We are now assuredly the orthodox Catholic Church of the West….we always have been, given our patrimony of the primitive and patristic. We are the Church, katholikon, ‘according to the whole,’ neither puritan nor protestant nor papal.'

Now grant us, Merciful Lord, thy faithful people pardon and peace; that they may be cleansed of all their sins, and serve thee with a quiet mind. Amen

 

Rex, my friend, it pains me to see you struggle. It’s time to get honest with yourself. You are soooooo Protestant! Thankfully we are all Brothers in Christ. Let us rejoice and be glad.

 

I cannot speak to the Eastern Orthodox churches (but I they do recognize Anglican orders as valid), but as it pertains to the Bishop of Rome’s papal bull (Apostolicae curae) it is what is absolutely null and utterly void not our Orders. The Church had been in England prior to St. Augustine of Canterbury’s arrival (597AD) and, including the time of the CoE’s formation, not once for some 1,200 years was their meaningful discourse regarding the legitimacy of its succession until Leo X. Ironically, if the Bishop were correct in his assertions and reasoning, it would invalidate all Orders within the Roman church since the Great Schism! So much for infallibility as such is not the case.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, much has been said on topic of which I’ve read some. My favorite is this missive written by my bishop, Chandler H. Jones, SSC. If interested, it can be found here.