Why is there no apologetic section for Anglicanism?

Liberasit · Apr 15, 2015

GoingByzantine said:
How does your church minister to those with a "conservative" outlook, when your church is in the process of becoming more "progressive"?

Thank you.

You need to define conservative and progressive before I can attempt to answer.

Liberasit · Apr 15, 2015

FireDragon76 said:
In your opinion... there seem to be a lot of Anglicans that accept Memorialism as the only appropriate interpretation:

Jews re-enact the Exodus from Egypt every year; I see no problem with re-enacting Jesus sacrifice every Sunday. One can acknowledge and remember what Jesus did without eating or drinking anything. If the point were just recollection, there would be no point in using bread and wine and consuming them.

Jews are still waiting, but we are not.

We share the Lord's Supper because Jesus commanded us to. That is the point. It's a good enough point.

Cappadocious · Apr 15, 2015

Liberasit said:
We share the Lord's Supper because Jesus commanded us to. That is the point. It's a good enough point.

Tell that to those who do it for evil.

FireDragon76 · Apr 15, 2015

ebia said:
Begs the question that the CofE is becoming more progressive.

If anything the CoE is much more conservative and protestant than it was during the time of someone like C.S. Lewis.

MarkRohfrietsch · Apr 15, 2015

Admin Hat...

I'm going to try and change the tone of this thread a bit; to bring it back in line with the standards of this forum.

Before we go any further I'm going to post an excerpt of our statement of purpose which can be found at the top of Traditional Theology's front page in the stickied threads; please note especially the part in red:

Do not get sidetracked into debating whether or not another poster's beliefs are right or wrong according to your traditional theological background or viewpoint.

When discussing and debating some topics, please be aware that your personal beliefs may at times be challenged, criticized or questioned. Don't become defensive or personally offended. Posters themselves, however, are never to be personally flamed. Flaming is defined as an attack on another person's character, as opposed to their arguments or beliefs.

Likewise, do not "tell" others what their own Church teaches and believes. It is encouraged to ask questions about those teachings and beliefs and as well be prepared to answer questions about your own.

I'm going to reopen the thread but be mindful that if we can't stick to these guidelines this thread will be closed for good, and some could very well get a ban.

The rules above explain themselves.

Let's try this again.

Mark
CF Admin

PaladinValer · Apr 15, 2015

With the above being said, I'm going to ask again: where is the proof in official primary sources of authority, such as the Eucharistic liturgies or in the Articles, where Memorialism is allowed in Anglicanism?

If people want to make claims, especially here in TT, they must be backed up. If that cannot be done, then it is safe to assume there is no proof, and the claim is wrong.

And to preempt, that is not the Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance since the chance to be refuted was given but not accepted. The refusal of proof is, in itself, proof of a claim without backing.

FireDragon76 · Apr 15, 2015

PaladinValer said:
With the above being said, I'm going to ask again: where is the proof in official primary sources of authority, such as the Eucharistic liturgies or in the Articles, where Memorialism is allowed in Anglicanism?

This is the real dividing line, I believe, between the Eastern and Western mentality. The West has authority issues, it always has ever since the Pope declared supremacy over all the other bishops. And that sickness has never gone out of western Christianity.

I don't see it as an issue of authority. I see it as in issue of simple observation of the facts on the ground and how the Anglican church operates. It tolerates a great deal of variance in practice and doctrine, even tolerating mutually incompatible viewpoints. This is obvious even to outsiders. Again, this points back to ecclesiology. You do understand what that word means, don't you? The branch of theology concerned with the Church and its nature?

Do Anglicans even have any ecclesiology, or is it all about the Bible or church councils for you? (and please don't talk about the branch theory, since nobody outside of Anglicanism accepts it. And that includes a great many Anglicans). Is there no appreciation that the Church itself could potentially be seen as a sacramental sign? Or maybe I am just the only one that thinks of these things west of the Bosphorus

PaladinValer · Apr 15, 2015

FireDragon76 said:
This is the real dividing line, I believe, between the Eastern and Western mentality. The West has authority issues, it always has ever since the Pope declared supremacy over all the other bishops. And that sickness has never gone out of western Christianity.

That is a dodge, not to mention that even the East has an official stance on the subject, and they point to various proofs for it.

I don't see it as an issue of authority. I see it as in issue of simple observation of the facts on the ground and how the Anglican church operates. It tolerates a great deal of variance in practice and doctrine, even tolerating mutually incompatible viewpoints. This is obvious even to outsiders. Again, this points back to ecclesiology. You do understand what that word means, don't you? The branch of theology concerned with the Church and its nature?

<snip>

In short, there is no proof that can be offered?

If a claim cannot be backed up when challenged, it is not allowed here. In TT, posters are required to back up claims. It goes along with especially the Third of the Six Principles: "We decry ad hominem arguments; we will strive to never use them nor flame in return when attacked. We will debate fairly and respectfully at all times when others engage in them." There is no fairness or honesty in logical fallacies or making pot shots or wild claims about things and not baking them up. And I personally know that part of the intent of that particular Principal because I am a part of the group that instigated the creation of this subforum and helped to write the Principles. We all came from diverse Christian groups but we all agreed to never make claims without backing them up, because we were all tired of it happening elsewhere. And when we made such a mistake, we would immediately retract. That's honorable.

So along with answering my challenge, please answer this as well: if this is how apologetics is going to be replied to, which should STR truly have such a thread? It is very poor apologetics to make a claim and not back it up.

Do Anglicans even have any ecclesiology, or is it all about the Bible or church councils for you? (and please don't talk about the branch theory, since nobody outside of Anglicanism accepts it. And that includes a great many Anglicans). Is there no appreciation that the Church itself could potentially be seen as a sacramental sign? Or maybe I am just the only one that thinks of these things west of the Bosphorus

There is no reason why to answers questions when mine was offered and still not respected with a direct reply. There is no reason to even continue this thread at all if the very basics of apologetics aren't going to be adhered to.

FireDragon76 · Apr 15, 2015

What good would it be to quote an "official" document when your own hierarchs do not recognize the documents as binding on their conscience? The 39 Articles are not confessional, one does not have to believe them to be an Anglican priest, much less an Anglican layman. This was settled in the CoE back in the 60's. Quoting them is irrelevant because they have no juridical power.

Your view of Eastern Orthodoxy is naïve. I've actually spent several years as a catechumen, absorbing the church life, and extensively talking to laity and clergy. It is not so easy to get an "official" position on many subjects and have it sound exactly the same from someone else, and short of the Creed and Councils, there are few hard sources of authority in the sense you are referring to. There's the Bible, the liturgy, the icons, the lives of saints, and so forth, but these are not seen as external authorities.

PaladinValer · Apr 15, 2015

FireDragon76 said:
What good would it be to quote an "official" document when your own hierarchs do not recognize the documents as binding on their conscience? The 39 Articles are not confessional, one does not have to believe them to be an Anglican priest, much less an Anglican layman. This was settled in the CoE back in the 60's. Quoting them is irrelevant because they have no juridical power.

This once again ignores the challenge and dodges the question and one of my other posts which previously answered and nullified this. As such, it is safe to assume to claim has no basis and is absolutely false or otherwise.

In TT, we aren't allowed to make unsubstantiated claims.

This debate is concluded.

FireDragon76 · Apr 16, 2015

Here's a whole article about Archbishop Peter Jensen's Eucharistic theology : Anglican eucharistic theology ?

Note well, he is an obvious memorialist. And an archbishop in good standing in Australia. He teaches in an official capacity, that's what the office of bishop is understood as by most Christians. And he denies that the EUcharist is the body and blood of Christ in any real way. He says that Holy Communion is like a "wake" (for the dead). He says its about remembering the "stature of Christ". Nowhere does he says its about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Paladin, it is you who misunderstand Anglicanism. Anglicanism is not Roman Catholicism minus the pope. If it wants to become that, it actually has to have some kind of magisterium that enforces doctrine.

Personally, I cannot stand this man or his theology, and I don't understand how anyone claiming to be catholic could want to be in the same communion as him, as he partakes of the Lord's Supper without discerning the Body. That's why I don't just become Episcopalian... because the Anglican Communion is made of so many "characters" like Jensen with "official" teaching capacity who reject the apostolic faith in obvious ways.

Kaonashi · Apr 16, 2015

That's one of the things I love about the Episcopal/Anglican Communion. We meant it when we said EVERYONE IS WELCOME! Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals and everyone in between. We don't need a Big Babysitter to force feed us theology because we aren't required to discard our brains at the church door.

FireDragon76 · Apr 16, 2015

Kaonashi said:
That's one of the things I love about the Episcopal/Anglican Communion. We meant it when we said EVERYONE IS WELCOME! Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals and everyone in between. We don't need a Big Babysitter to force feed us theology because we aren't required to discard our brains at the church door.

I just want somebody to explain the theology of that to me? Why is inclusion of so many wacky and crazy and historically unrecognizeable beliefs a good thing?

You should be no fan of Jensen, he's a horrible human being. He's only a few steps away from one of those Westboro types in his beliefs about gays, and he's misogynistic in a way that a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox traditionalist would never think of being. He's basically a Pharisee that hides behind his religious certainties. And he's a former Metropolitan!

Kaonashi · Apr 16, 2015

Why are you condemning the entire Communion based on a Australian RETIRED Bishop that none of us Americans would have heard of? I personally would disagree with his politics but that gives me or anybody else the right condemn as not being Anglican

Liberasit · Apr 16, 2015

FireDragon76 said:
You should be no fan of Jensen, he's a horrible human being.

Jesus loves him!

Since when do we refer to other Christians as horrible human beings? Imagine the outrage if someone here referred to the Pope in these terms.

Tigger45 · Apr 16, 2015

FireDragon76 said:
I just want somebody to explain the theology of that to me? Why is inclusion of so many wacky and crazy and historically unrecognizeable beliefs a good thing?

Since Anglicanism is so broad why not narrow your questions to specific groups within it?

ebia · Apr 16, 2015

Kaonashi said:
Why are you condemning the entire Communion based on a Australian RETIRED Bishop that none of us Americans would have heard of? I personally would disagree with his politics but that gives me or anybody else the right condemn as not being Anglican

In fairness he is pretty well know, if only because he and his diocese symbolise one extreme of Anglican theology.

Kaonashi · Apr 16, 2015

You have to realize that Anglicism isn't like the Orthodox Church where if one American bishop posted some mundane thing about being relevant to his culture, the entire Communion wouldn't erupt in UTTER OUTRAGE and condemn the entire church in America for the opinion of one bishop

FireDragon76 · Apr 17, 2015

Kaonashi said:
You have to realize that Anglicism isn't like the Orthodox Church where if one American bishop posted some mundane thing about being relevant to his culture, the entire Communion wouldn't erupt in UTTER OUTRAGE and condemn the entire church in America for the opinion of one bishop

Do bishops not represent the apostles?

I'd say he's a pretty extreme end, but one that is vocal and influential. Sydney Anglicans don't even have crosses because they are afraid of "idolatry". Their church life is more like fundamentalist Presbyterians than some kind of broad, tolerant "middle way".

Liberasit said:
Jesus loves him!

Since when do we refer to other Christians as horrible human beings? Imagine the outrage if someone here referred to the Pope in these terms.

One can be a Christian and still a terrible person. He strikes me as callous, patriarchal, and authoritarian. Pope Francis, on the other hand, doesn't seem like he goes out of his way to alienate people in the name of his religion.

~Anastasia~ · Apr 17, 2015

There are a LOT of things being said in the name of contrasting beliefs here that are borderline on attacking various Churches. We are not headed in a good direction, and this kind of talk doesn't belong in this forum. Please think of what you are implying, if not outright stating, in some cases.

Thank you.

Why is there no apologetic section for Anglicanism?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Unapologetic Apologist

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Well-Known Member

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Well-Known Member

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Well-Known Member

If God is thy father, man is thy brother.

Well-Known Member

If God is thy father, man is thy brother.

Well-Known Member

Pray like your life depends on it!

Senior Contributor

If God is thy father, man is thy brother.

Well-Known Member

† Handmaid of God †

Similar threads