Fr Hart,

First of all, you seem to have forgotten that this started with the TAC bishops signing the Catechism and essentially throwing themselves on the mercy of the Vatican–they humbled themselves and agreed to accept what the Vatican would offer. That humility is probably the key to the Vatican’s acceptance of their request–there’s an enormous lesson for all of us in their humility. It should come as no surprise, then, that TAC in the UK have already accepted the Vatican’s offer because they did that at the outset–it was more of a reiteration than an acceptance.

Second, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Try substituting “the Continuum”–and especially your own “ACC”–for “Rome” in your last paragraph. It is indeed “laudable” that the Continuum has responded “to an emergency created by Canterburian [and TEc] heresy.... But, like everyone, [the Continuum has] a record. Their recent history [the past 30 years] has demonstrated that [the Continuum’s] reach exceeds their grasp, and [the Continuum] are incapable of performing even the best of what they offer. Nonetheless, the [Continuum, except for ACA/TAC] has demonstrated something worse than blind trust. With all of the facts that show [the Continuum’s] weaknesses, and with the obvious flaws already evident in [the Continuum’s rejection of] the October 20 [announcement], [without ever seeing] the Constitution, [those who choose to remain in the Continuum] are blind by choice.”

The crux of the issue is ecclesiology. We all need to answer the following question: “Is your Church {the Roman Catholic Church | the Orthodox Church | the Church of England | the Episcopal Church | ACNA | the Continuum | ...} part of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?” If you can definitively answer the question in the affirmative, there’s no need to leave where you are. But if you can’t, you need to find one that is. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches are clearly part of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. On the other hand, the Church of England and the Episcopal Church clearly aren’t because their Archbishops and Houses of Bishops are heretical (toleration of homosexuality and other issues). ACNA also clearly isn’t because their Archbishop promotes the ordination of women and their House of Bishops tolerates it (as well as other issues). Aside from the ACA/TAC, are the Churches in the Continuum part of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? Given their internal schisms and their attitude (including your own ACC) asserting that they are ‘the one true Church’ in opposition to both the Roman and Orthodox Churches, I don’t think the Churches in the Continuum are part of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Insisting on doctrinal purity before all other considerations leads to schism–that’s how we got a zillion Protestant denominations. And that’s not what our Lord wants: He wants unity (see Jn 17:20-23). There was a time when Anglicans were really seeking unity–when they could make an argument for being part of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church–but that day is long past. If we are scrupulously honest with ourselves, most of us will admit that the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church only clearly consists of the Roman and Orthodox Churches. So why don’t we just join one or the other? The answer is that we insist on doctrinal purity: we each want to insist on what we perceive as doctrinal purity. We can’t agree between ourselves on doctrine (that’s how we got so many Protestant denominations), but the real issue is that we don’t want to submit to the authority of a magisterium. That’s what this comes down to: will we surrender to ecclesiastical authority or are we going to continue doing our own ‘thing’ (and making a mess of it)? Since the Church is the Body of Christ, we could just as well ask ourselves: have we really surrendered our lives to Jesus Christ or are we reserving the right to continue doing as we wish in some areas of our lives? In other words, are we going to follow our Lord Jesus Christ and the Church He founded, or are we going to continue in rebellion against Him and His Church?

The decision is really that clear. The Roman Catholic Church will allow us to maintain our beautiful liturgical and musical culture in Personal Ordinariates. The Orthodox will allow us to do essentially the same in their Western Rite. They have some doctrinal differences, but they agree on most things (which is a good criteria for catholicity and apostolicity) and both are part of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, so pick one or the other. But don’t stay outside and continue to call yourself an Anglo-Catholic–be honest and admit that you’re a high-church Protestant.

Trust in the Lord with your whole heart and soul ... a leap of Faith!!

I will quote a reply I gave on The Continuum already:

Two years ago, when I saw what the TAC bishops, especially their Archbishop, were saying to the world, I became acutely aware of how much ignorance existed among modern Anglo-Catholics (unlike their well-read forebears), and the extent to which that inexcusable ignorance was being exploited. I could not believe what was coming out of the mouth of Archbishop John Hepworth, nor out of the mouth of other TAC bishops. Not trusting the media, I was willing to go meet Archbishop Hepworth myself, and give him his say right here on The Continuum. Then I saw another party actively promoting and exploiting that same ignorance, furthering the cause of misinformation in place of education just as disgracefully as the TAC Archbishop, and that party was the Anglo-Papalists, mostly of the UK, represented often by Fr. John Hunwicke. It is these Anglicans (?) and their anti-Anglican campaign that I oppose tooth and nail. I will not criticize people for going to Rome, but I will stand in the way of people throwing themselves overboard because they are ignorant, and because that ignorance is being exploited.

My criticism is not aimed at Rome for doing what it believes in. It is aimed at people who are betraying their Anglican heritage, either misrepresenting it on purpose, or because they ought never to have been teachers in the first place, not knowing what they are talking about. Lines about "500 years of mistakes" (Archbishop Hepworth) and a "450 year-old experiment" that has "failed" (Bishop Langberg); as well as Fr. John Hunwicke's anti-Anglican crusade, have deserved my energetic opposition. I have, quite apparently, struck a chord among those who needed someone to speak up for them.

Dear Chaps,

You have some good honest thoughts. Yet I need to ask you a question when it gets down to the details concerning what an individual laymen is to do when faced with all too common circumstances when faced with being properly nurished by the local church.

The local Roman Catholic parishes in the tri-county area where I live are all liberal and do not teach any meat that is even close to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. They no longer serve the Blood of Christ, the Cup of Salvation, which washes our sin away, for fear of swine flu or getting sick. Why would I dare to put my soul in the care of whimpy wishy washy bad priests when I can go to an Anglican Church whose priest is more "Roman Catholic" than at the Roman Churches.

Here's my question, should I submit myself to the teaching of a bad priest who was educated in liberal RC American Seminary ?; or put my soul in the care of a godly Anglican shepard who truly cares about his flock's eternal salvation and truly believes in the spiritual power of the Sacrament of Holy Communion?

I can agree with Fr. Hart in the point of principles. I don't believe in the Immaculate Conception,Assumption of Mary, "doing time" in Purgatory, forced celibacy, prayers to departed saints, the nonsense of annulment of marriages to skirt the divorce issue. I could go to a Roman parish if they would let me join with them at the Communion Table while still standing by my convictions and denying these innovations, but they won't let me come to the table. Thats where tha scandal is. Do I deny my son the right to come to my table unless he agrees with me on everything, 100% ?

There are only a couple of things that I have issue with in the Orthodox Church, but there are no Orthodox Churches in my third of the state because they have no evangelistic missionary zeal; so joining the Orthodox is not even an opinion even though I am somewhat friendly with them in my theology.

So what's a poor laymen to do ? I say stick to the Anglican Church where my soul is fed boldly with the Word of God written, read and preached by a gody enthusiastic priest, and my body and soul is fed with both the Body and Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Thanks both Fr. Hart and Chaps for your thoughtful words.

Artistree

"I can agree with Fr. Hart in the point of principles. I don't believe in the Immaculate Conception,Assumption of Mary, "doing time" in Purgatory, forced celibacy, prayers to departed saints, the nonsense of annulment of marriages to skirt the divorce issue. I could go to a Roman parish if they would let me join with them at the Communion Table while still standing by my convictions and denying these innovations, but they won't let me come to the table. Thats where tha scandal is. Do I deny my son the right to come to my table unless he agrees with me on everything, 100% ?"

Few that disbelieve the Immaculate Conception believe in the divinity of Christ. I'm always amazed by these yahoos who struggled with math in Jr. High and High School "figure out" their realities of faith. For 2,000 years much of mankind has struggled to understand the divine.

Thank you Father Hart.

I would appreciate a reposting of your interview with Apb Hepworth. If you cannot in good conscience do that, I fully understand.

PB1928

Are you saying that the Eastern Orthodox Church,all of the Ante-Nicene Christians, and Evangelical Protestants, all of whom reject the Immaculate Conception of Mary, rarely believe in the divinity of Christ ? Only Christ was Sinless, Christ Alone, just as the Scriptures say and the Apostolic Tradition. Only Christ is sinless; Jesus is the only Divine Human.

Artistree

Here is what I googled:

http://www.onearthasinheaven.com/beliefs.html

ctowles-

I am a fairly intelligent guy, but I am having difficulty understanding your responses to artistree. I must be one of those 'yahoos' you are fond of referring to...

I would like to know how you back up this statement of yours:
“Few that disbelieve the Immaculate Conception believe in the divinity of Christ.”

Perhaps you misspoke because you may be confusing the Virgin Birth of Jesus (which concerns His divinity) with the Roman Catholic belief in the ‘Immaculate Conception’ which is not about Jesus’ birth at all, but about Mary’s being born without sin. Of course, this latter assertion has no basis in scripture. If you meant the Virgin Birth of Jesus in your statement (instead of Immaculate Conception), then it makes some sense.

From the summary of Eastern Orthodox beliefs in the link that you provided, there is NO clear evidence that the EO believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, although they clearly venerate her above others as the Mother of God.

“3. That the Son is begotten from the Father, of the very same essence (omo'ousios) of the Father. He is God and also truly Man like us, because He assumed human nature from the Blessed Virgin Mary, except for sin.”

From this we see that the EO believe (like virtually all Christians) that Christ is divine, with God as Father. Christ is also human, being born of Mary— and note that there is no reason to add ‘except for sin'... unless Mary too, like all of the rest of us, was born with the tendency to sin ('original sin'). She was a virgin when she conceived Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit, but she was not sinless according to scripture— since “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. Only God can be sinless. Blessed indeed is Mary because she was chosen for this unique role by God— but not because she was without sin— that would have placed her as the fourth person of the Trinity. Clear heresy.

Sir, you might consider googling both 'Immaculate Conception' and 'ad hominem.'

Artistree,

Sorry for the delay in responding.

You certainly have a difficult decision. The area where you live is typical in not having a Western Rite Orthodox parish, but otherwise highly unusual–the Romans are usually the conservatives (although there are still some aging liberal priests). Nevertheless, I think the approach in my earlier post is still correct: start with ecclesiology.

You make it clear that you prefer your Anglican parish, so ask yourself: “Is my Anglican parish part of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?” If you can definitively answer that it is, then it makes sense to stay there. However, if you can’t, you have a problem. One option would be to talk with the priest of your Anglican parish about the parish becoming part of a Personal Ordinariate. That way, you would have the best of both worlds.

I strongly suggest that your parish have a 40-day period of prayer and fasting for discernment before deciding. But what are you going to do if your priest and/or the parish decide that they aren’t even willing to have a period of prayer and fasting? I think refusing to pray and fast for discernment–refusing to even give serious consideration, like Fr Hart and others, regardless of the excuse given–would be prima facie evidence that your parish isn’t part of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, for whom unity is a primary objective: maintaining separation and schism is antithetical to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. If the doctrine your priest teaches is really the holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith, why doesn’t he want to be part of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? If he isn’t teaching about the unity of the Church, he isn’t teaching the holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith, so in what way is what he teaches better than what the Romans teach–even the “bad” liberal priests?

I hope that your parish will decide to join a Personal Ordinariate, but what are you going to do if they don’t? One option might be for you to join another Anglican parish–one that has decided to join or form a Personal Ordinariate. But that might be too far to attend services on a regular basis. So you might end up attending your local Roman parish with a “bad” liberal priest. How to deal with that has to do with the difference between Protestants and Catholics.

Protestants and Catholics have different basic attitudes. Protestants who disagree with the doctrine being taught feel they have the right to leave and go to (or start) another church, but Catholics feel they have the right to stay and will fight to do so. Protestants feel they have the right to determine correct doctrine and are skeptical of what any institution teaches, but Catholics feel the Church determines correct doctrine and trust in what the Church teaches. So, that’s the answer to your question: “should I submit myself to the teaching of a bad priest who was educated in liberal RC American Seminary?” Don’t let a bad priest keep you out of Christ’s Church: write a complaint about him to his bishop and if that doesn’t work write a complaint to the archbishop and if that doesn’t work write to the Apostolic Nuncio. That’s how Catholics deal with “bad” liberal priests and other issues: instead of leaving, they stay and work the issue through the hierarchy.

Blessings,

chaps+

The interesting thing about the Vatican offer that is to be made is that swimming the Tiber is voluntary. In the TAC it is mandatory. No pastoral release is possible. It very much like Jonestown. Since I could not make the trip and could not get a release I resigned. I was one of the last to leave, and now that the TAC is purged. the journey to Rome should be easier. I wish them luck but it is a journey that I simply could not make
Paul+

Dear Chaps,

Thank you for your reply. I feel your thoughtful concern in the spirit of your words...thanks.
A few months ago the vestry at our parish voted 14-0 to leave the Episcopal Church. Today the congregation voted and although I don't know the final count, I had a sense that there was a unanimous voice to leave TEC. Our priest said that we will attempt to join the ACNA or the TAC.
A few years ago our former priest who is now retired, considered taking us to the Orthodox Church as a strong option.

Dear Paul+, I admire a man who stands strong in his convictions like you do. I will pray for God's blessing of your ministry.

John Carl,

I do not pick and choose which doctrine that I will believe in as if it were up to me.
I have to stand up for the Word of God, both the written word, which says that ALL have sinned, and the Word Incarnate. I have to stand up and honor my King who is the sinless Eternal Word of God Incarnate, the only sinless human. He shares that claim with no-one, not even the Blessed Mary whom I do honor; but I don't go along with innovations which contradict the Apostlic Faith was has handed down to us.

The Doctrine that Jesus is the only sinless human did not need to develope, it was held in the Apostolic Tradition since the earliest times.

Only Jesus is sinless. This is the testimony of the entire Early Church of the Ante-Nicene period.Below are just a few examples. No Father from this period ever said otherwise.

Clement of Alexandria,
"Christ alone is sinless. However, as far as we are able, let us try to sin as little as possible." (2.210)

Tertullian,
"To the Son of God alone was it reserved to perserver to the end without sin." ( 3.244)
"The Lord knew Himself to be the only guiltless one, and so He teaches us to beg 'to have our debts remitted us'". (3.684)
"God alone is without sin. And the only human without sin is Christ, since Christ is God."(3.221)

Origen
"Of those who are without sin from the beginning of their lives, there cannot possibly be any."(4.492)

Cyprian
" No one is without stain and without sin..."(5.547)

Methodius
"No one can boast of being free from sin as not even to have a sinful thought." (6.365)

Lactantius
"No one can be without defect as long as he is burdened with a covering of flesh. For the infirmmity of the flesh is subject to the dominion of sin in a threefold manner: in deeds, words, and thoughts."

Artistree

johncarl,
The Roman Church has a right to have rules.But does it have the sole right to excommunicate every Church including the Great Orthodox Church of the Patriachs who have been more faithful to the Apostolic Tradition than Rome ?

I am very happy with the Anglo-Catholic Church I attend and I do believe we are part of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. My priest is a great courageous leader. I love the parish I go to.
On the other hand, when I go to the Roman parish I always am disappointed
and always have a sense of wonder as to why they are so dead. I go about
once every couple of months, sometimes more in the summer with my sons God Parents.I'm sorry to talk negative about any priest, but when I listen to him for his short three
minute sermon I wonder why he doesn't put any time into sermon preparation and study. I feel sorry for him in a way; he has probably 3,000 people in his parish and only
a small handful of women are involved with worship.
I don't take Communion so as not to offend anyone, but even if I did it
would probably bother me even more that they do not serve the cup to the
lay, The Blood of Jesus that washes our sins away and through which we have
forgiveness of sins.

By the way, you should probably read up on why the Othodox Church rejects the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.I've noticed all the late dates on the quotes you site....this indicates developing innovation, don't you think ? Didn't you say it DEVELOPED over 500 years.hats a long time. That would imply that the Apostles did not hold to this view which you hold unto.

Blessings
Artistree

Brother John Carl,

Yes, I did read the quotes from the later fathers that you posted. I just give more weight to the Ante-Nicene Fathers, before Constantine who were closer to the Apostolic age. And, I do not deny that Mary could have been in a state of perfect Sanctification when she conceived and carried Christ in her womb. She is the Ark of the New Covenant.John Wesley may be correct, in " A Plain Account of Christian Perfection" that it is possible by God's grace to be in a state of entire Sanctification.

I go to Church to worship my Father. I gather with other members of His family, my brothers and sisters ( which is why I addressed you as brother because you are one of my brothers)to sing praises to Him and to have His love letters read to His Children. And formost, I go to Church to partake of the Blessed Saviors Body and Blood. To gather around the Family Table, the Altar of the Lord, for intimate union with Christ Jesus.

I do have many tapes by Fr. John Corapi and I have a bunch of his preaching DVD s, given to me by my good friend Dr. Brent Maundy. I love Fr. Corapi, hes great. I have also purchased at least 20 Bible Study series by Dr. Scott Hahn. Hes my favorite Bible teacher....I just don't agree with them on everything. But good stuff, I agree.My other favorite Bible teacher is also a Roman Catholic, a former monk, Luke Timothy Johnson. He's somewhat liberal but hes a fantastic teacher.

Just wishing we could all gather around the Family Table of the Lord's Altar in the Eucharist as one family.
I'm sorry. I don't like it if it sounds like I have a complaining spirit.I'll try to do better.

Blessings,
Artistree

"Developing innovation?"

" The belief in the immaculate conception did not surface until the twelfth century, when it was introduced as a feast in France....great doctors of the Western Church, led by St. Bernard of Clairvaux,'strongly objected, occasioning a controversy that divided Catholic scholars for about four centuries. The majority, including St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Albert and St. Bonaventure, opposed the doctrine implied in the feast, arguing that since Christ was the redeemer of all, and hence of Mary, all must have previously sinned'(Encyclopaedia Britannica , 1972, Vol 11 p.1105) thus declaring that' in every natural conception the stain of original sin is transmitted and that, as Mary was concieved in a natural way, she was not exempt from this law ( The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd edition 1997,p 821) In this way they were confessing the traditional teaching of the Church, which they shared with their Orthodox brethern. Various local bishops forbade the celebration of this feast." (Popes and Patriarchs, Conciliar Press, page 162)

It is interesting that on this blog for conservative Anglicans that we have so many Romanists trolling for converts and trying to fight the Reformation all over again. I guess we must respond, if for no other reason, to clarify our own thinking and build our own faith in the Word of God.

Artistree-
Excellent points, to which I agree wholeheartedly.
I would also add from the 39 Articles: IX, XV, XVIII, XIX, and XXII. If one is very much against the 39 Articles, then that person should not be an Anglican. And perhaps should not be posting here.

What if one feels that Rome, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and indeed all other human expressions of Christianity are ALL flawed in some way, or in other words perhaps they all express our human brokenness and original sin in the human flaws that seem worked into their origins and their foundations?

Certainly if one looks at their leaders it is easy to find flaws, but even in their bases it seems that there are innaccuracies.

Certainly Benedict's offer (if one might call it so) assumes sacrifices, and acceptance of dogma and perhaps magisteria which a loyal Anglican Christian might find unacceptable.

For now I am thinking seriously, and praying, and I don't expect to be acting anytime soon, but I think we ought to consider the possibility that ALL the choices are flawed, and that we are trying to perfect something which will require Christ's sacrifice and Godly love to truly mend.

esniii-
I cannot argue against your point. I too am flawed. So my only reasonable choice is to submit totally to the mercy and grace of God. And I must agree: only Jesus Christ will bring us to true healing and unity. In the meantime, we have a lot of work to do (through the power of the Holy Spirit) to facilitate whatever degree of reconciliation may be possible among believers.