thanks, but for myself I don’t mind the discussion of WO in this thread, in part because for me it is an open question that I’ll have to wrangle with. As a Roman it has thankfully not been much of an issue. now that I find myself seriously in doubt about the Roman claim of infallibility, the questions about those “settled” matters again crop up, demanding new answers not rooted strictly in “the church teaches.” it occurs to me now how brittle the infallibility claim renders the rest of the Roman teaching. Once infallibility is out, the house of cards really starts to wobble
And then how do you tell what’s infallible or not? There are absolutely no definitive universally recognized markers for what makes something infallible, except perhaps “solemn ex cathedra” by which metric only 2 teachings are infallible in all of RCism, both having to do with Mary (immaculate conception etc)… To Pope Francis nothing previously said about womens ordinstion seems to be infallible which is why he’s trying to institute women deacons, lay women cardinals etc Anyway this is what we recognized at the Reformation, that something outside the Church has to be infallible in order for Christian teaching to be truly unchangeable… so for instance even if all Anglicans in the world tomorrow adopted WO, they wouldn’t change the Anglican doctrine itself, it wouldn’t change the Bible, it would just make all those people incompatible with it…. Whereas my fear is that RCism not only can change doctrine but also redefine what orthodoxy is, to bring everyone for the ride with no undo button The evangelicals erred on the other side that if “something else” were infallible, that the Church therefore becomes irrelevant, whereas we say, no pox on your house too: the church has authority in matters of doctrine… it’s just that that authority is derived from that “something else,” and has it only insofar as it submits to it
That’s a big question I’ll have to come to grips with. Certainly I can accept as infallible those teachings that are catholic… the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, the early councils etc. I think the Real Presence falls into this category, but Transubstantiation does not. It is a fine thing to treat the Blessed Sacrament with the respect it is due. But whether bread and wine are ontologically transformed into flesh and blood? There is no universal theology of this across the ancient churches. It is a matter that I think you have to work through on your own, and importantly, be permitted to come to a conclusion (even a provisional one) that you can live with. The thing I have trouble with is the constant self-battering of my head and heart into accepting the entire teaching of the catechism. Most of it is laudable. But some of it just confuses me.
Ultimately the question is, does the "matter" of infallibility reside in the Church, or does it reside outside the Church and function as its chain and anchor?... if it resides within the Church, then what the Church says, anything it says, becomes infallible, and that is the quick road to progressivism What's funny though, is that the Roman church didn't progressivise as quickly as the western Anglicans did, and my theory is it was because of a media propaganda by Leo XIII and Pius X, etc, who painted it as "the home" for conservatives... movies like A Man for All Seasons and hagiographies of "St. John Henry Newman" continued to perpetuate the mythology.... So an intrinsically progressivist church managed to portray itself as the ultimate home for conservatives.... And thus when the western Anglican provinces experienced their own struggles, and all those conservatives exited, those provinces collapsed to the forces of the enemy, meanwhile the conservatives in their new Roman home helped to slow down the decline So if you measure this contest between our two churches by decades, the Romans have taken the upper hand, but if you measure this context by centuries/millennia, the progressivism in Rome will out itself, whereas there is no place for Anglican progressives to go, except become "less Anglican" and get cut off from the rest of the communion Over the next 100-200 years I have no doubts that orthodox Anglicanism will remain largely the same, while orthodox Romanism will become unrecognizable
Not "false" that anyone can prove, but not "true" that anyone can prove. We can't substantiate it because we have no statistical evidence regarding number of Anglicans who favor or oppose WO (and that is what was asserted, not how many clergy or dioceses are for or against). Agreed!
We can infer it, though. Anglican bishops aren’t dictators. The typical Anglican variant of episcopal polity includes lay representation, sometimes approaching the form of a virtual lay veto. The Anglican dioceses worldwide which have approved female clergy, which are the overwhelming majority, did so with the consent of their lay representatives. The fact that there was not a mass exodus after these decisions were made indicates that the lay representatives’ consent accurately reflected what the majority of the laity were willing to approve. And there may very well be more direct statistical data out there regarding actual lay preferences. I haven’t spent any time looking for it because it wouldn’t prove anything, nor would it alter the status quo. Female clergy are here to stay and nothing is going to change that.
The thing I like about my Anglican parish is, at almost any Sunday service I can hear our rector tell us in the homily, in some manner or fashion, that the essence of Christianity is trusting in Christ and following His example in our lives. Whereas in the RCC I usually heard them saying that the essence of Christianity is belonging to the RCC and obeying their terms. Huge difference.
This (Low) Sunday I ventured out to my local Episcopalian church and had much the same experience. it’s a neat little place; it has an image of Our Lady of Walsingham up front, between two candlesticks, with red votive lights. The priest’s chasuble was laid out neatly over the communion rail, the congregants were warm and friendly in the extreme compared to those at my Catholic Church. The priest’s message didn’t dwell on obligatory expectations, nor on opaque theological distinctions. He spoke plainly about Thomas, his doubt, and our common lot with him in our often difficult lives as believers. it was unexpectedly refreshing. Not what I would have expected from TEC.
I'm glad you had a good experience. A minority of troublemakers has given us a bad reputation in some quarters. I have been to parishes all across the country, and all of them have been composed of ordinary people with clergy who love what they do and genuinely want to do it well.
It’s the same experience I had when I was younger, before I was baptized in a Roman Catholic Church. that was awhile ago now s as of I think I must have forgotten. It felt very “right,” though I don’t think the service had a general confession, so I was a little taken aback when the priest suddenly spoke words of abolition. Er, absolution.
It's customary to omit the general confession, from time to time. I think it's appropriate to do so during Eastertide, having just concluded Lent. But it's not the norm in general. Plus the confession is read at least once daily, if one keeps the Daily Office. People forget we do more than just the Eucharist.
That did occur to me as a possibility, so it’s good to see you also bringing it up. I credit the office with bringing me here. I started using the 1928 BCP several years ago for daily prayer because the modern Roman one so turned me off. The Ordinariate version has been my go-to version for maybe the last six months. It conveniently includes the readings… but like every Roman Catholic book, it’s a hefty beast. I still love my handy little BCP.
I use the Contemporary Office Book, which has the Readings and everything else one would need to do the complete Office, whether alone or in a group. The Daily Office is a great treasure and is unfortunately dramatically under-utilized. The Daily Office has been a casualty of the renewed emphasis on the Eucharist since the 1970s. IMO parishes should offer Morning and Evening Prayer daily, that being simply part of a priest's job, but that seems to be honored more in the breach than in the observance these days. I've been working to change that in my own parish, but it's a process. Nevertheless there are many, many laity who faithfully use it privately, and it remains a core feature of Anglican identity, one which I hope persists.
My Parish has a very bad habit of leaving out the confession/Absolution. Something I bring up quite a bit. I'm told it's the Rector's call. So I just say the confession silently at my pew and trust in God's forgiveness.
Is that really a thing in Episcopalian parishes? Very odd. I've never been Episcopalian, and was confirmed right into the ACNA, so I don't know how things are done over there, but this is surprising to me. First because, if a priest is doing that, uhh -- you're not offering people absolution, if you leave out such a critical portion. Secondly -- you feel like you can leave out portions of the actual Liturgy? Where do these people get these ways of thinking. I've never seen any ACNA priest ever be so brazen and rebellious as to actively omit portions of the liturgy that had been assigned for the service.
In my experience, whether it's omitted or not tends to be related to the season. In Lent, it's always used at my parish, but not during Eastertide. There's no such thing as liturgical purity. Including a general confession and absolution is a uniquely Western phenomenon, as far as I can tell. There is no counterpart to it in the Orthodox liturgy, for example. Ergo, it's not an essential feature of the Eucharistic liturgy. It's also the individual's responsibility to make amends for sins, and/or abstain from taking Communion if proper penitence hasn't been done.
It seems strange to me to ever omit a confession and absolution, even in Eastertide. Can one safely assume the congregation is somehow unblemished by sin at all? I sure need it once in a week, that’s for sure, whatever the season.