quick question about episcapalians

Albion · Sep 6, 2005

Inge87 said:
The things I've noticed that seem to bother ordinary "Christians" the most are veneration of the saints, confession, and other such traditions.

Yes...they bother me too, and I am an Episcopalian! That's because the Church's Articles of Religion take pains to renounce all of those. But as you say, you can find some Episcopalians somewhere who believe just about anything concievable--which fact probably won't help our inquirer one bit.

IgnatiusOfAntioch · Sep 16, 2005

museltof said:
Here in the UK, the Episcopalians (Anglicans) are split down the middle between evangelicals and liberals

Those are both low church Anglicans aren't they? Sorry for my lack of knowledge.

Albion · Sep 16, 2005

IgnatiusOfAntioch said:
Those are both low church Anglicans aren't they? Sorry for my lack of knowledge.

High-low refers to ceremony. Most evangelicals are low, while most liberals tend high. But the difference that was referred to (evangelical-liberal), was not centered upon that so much as beliefs.

IgnatiusOfAntioch · Sep 17, 2005

Albion said:
High-low refers to ceremony. Most evangelicals are low, while most liberals tend high. But the difference that was referred to (evangelical-liberal), was not centered upon that so much as beliefs.

Thanks for enlightening me on that.

Your brother in Christ.

FivePointCalvinist · Sep 20, 2005

StAnselm said:
Episcopalians are what they're called in North America. Elsewhere they are called Anglicans, while in England the church is called the Church of England.

The thing is, they do vary - in North America they are usually very liberal, (e.g. wanting to ordain homosexuals) while in Africa and Sydney they are quite conservative and evangelical.

That's not true. In Canada, we're Anglicans.

I should point out that PaladinValer is not speaking for the Evangelical wing of the Anglican Church, and I would strongly disagree with Paladin's remarks. Our Articles of Religion explicitly deny any sort of purgatory.

XXII. Of Purgatory.
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

Click to expand...

PaladinValer said:
We reject the idea of papacy. We do not reject the notion that the Bishop of Rome is first-among-equals. However, while we recognize Benedict XVI as a true and valid bishop, he is not In Communion with us, so he is not our bishop. Our first-among-equals is the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams.

Actually, Paladin, the Pope of Rome, in my view, and in the view of the historic Reformed faith, the Pope is against Christ ('antichrist', in the words of the Westminster Confession), who exalteth himself above God. In the words of the Litany in Cranmer's 1549 prayerbook:

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]From all sedicion and privye conspiracie, from the tyrannye of the bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities, from al false doctrine and herisy, from hardnes of heart, and contempte of thy word and commaundemente:[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Good lorde deliver us.[/font]

Organizations like ARCIC would seek to put us back under the tyranny of the Roman Bishop and his detestable enormities. Good Lord deliver us indeed!

Paladin said:
1. We venerate, or give due honor, to those saints who lived truly amazing lives worthy of imitation and great respect.
2. We believe that confession to a priest who is an instrument of God is a valid Sacrament and means of Grace.

No, we don't. Anglo-Catholics do, but they have betrayed Anglicanism and have rejected our subordinate standards.

We venerate the memory of the Saints, yes, but no true Anglican bows down before an image of the Saints. Again I draw your attention to Article 12.

XXII. Of Purgatory.
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

Click to expand...

Confession to a priest, according to our subordinate standards, is not a sacrament, but has arisen out of a corrupt following of the Apostles.

XXV. Of the Sacraments.
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.
[/font]

3. By traditions, I mean Holy Tradition, which includes the dogma of the Blessed Trinity, the Ecumenical Councils, believe in the Real Presence, etc.

What exactly do you mean by 'real presence', Paladin? Our Articles explicitly deny any Romish understanding of the sacraments - in fact, we affirm a Calvinist view of the Lord's Supper.

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

XXIX. Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper.
The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

XXX. Of both Kinds.
The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.
The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

Also, Anglicans do not believe that Councils have any authority except that their findings be explicitly proven by Holy Scripture.

<B>XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils.
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture."[/font]

It's telling that you referred to Pentecost as "30 CE" rather than "30 AD" (Common Era rather than Anno Domini, "Year of our Lord")</B>

PaladinValer · Sep 20, 2005

FivePointCalvinist said:
That's not true. In Canada, we're Anglicans.

In most areas in North America, we are called Episcopalians. Although you are correct that in Canada, we are called Anglicans. Either way, the point was that Episcopalian=Anglican.

I should point out that PaladinValer is not speaking for the Evangelical wing of the Anglican Church, and I would strongly disagree with Paladin's remarks. Our Articles of Religion explicitly deny any sort of purgatory.

Let's actually reread what I said first:

"2. We believe that we do not go immediately to heaven or hell upon death, for that is a rejection of the Nicene Creed. We believe that nothing imperfect can go to heaven, and that basically every soul is going to have some sin or blemish still on it even upon death. Thus, there must be a place where souls go to wait for the Resurrection, where they will be purged of sin.

Now this isn't necessarily the Vatican Catholic idea of "Purgatory," although it is an interesting finalized idea of this place. We tend to agree with the EOs, which say little about it except that it exists."

Next time, take more care to actually read what people say.

Actually, Paladin, the Pope of Rome is antichrist, who exalteth himself above God. In the words of the Litany in Cranmer's 1549 prayerbook:

Folks, just for you all to know, comments like this are not Anglican, nor are they really Christian. He does not speak for us; not one bit.

Whoopie-doo what Cranmer thought about the pope. He isn't my pope like he seems to be to you, judging by your post's content. And quite frankly, that isn't what the pope is in practice, in history, or in authority according to the Vatican Church. You disgrace the name "Anglican" by using it as a cover to spread a load of lies and misinformation.

From all sedicion and privye conspiracie, from the tyrannye of the bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities, from al false doctrine and herisy, from hardnes of heart, and contempte of thy word and commaundemente:

Let's put this into context, why don't we?

1. Detestable enormities were the hypocricies of the papacy at the time, not including, but chiefly, the corruption.
2. "False doctrine and herisy" were the decisions of post Nicaea II councils and synods which were no longer Ecumenical. In addition, it was a backlash against recent "Renaissance" rediscoveries of anicnet Classical learning, which were largely the basis of new ideas in the Western Church.
3. "Hardness of heart and contempte" is the abuse of papal bulls to grant exceptions that were completely against canon law at the time in order to increase the power and wealth of the Church or pope. The idea of hierarchy and the institution of the Church were not the true objects of contempt or worry.

Organizations like ARCIC would seek to put us back under the tyranny of the Roman Bishop and his detestable enormities. Good Lord deliver us indeed!

Perhaps you haven't realized this, but the Vatican Church has "reformed" itself of its abuses. No abuse of papal bulls. No expansion of the church's coffers at the expense of the people, etc. True, they still live by the idea of the papacy, though to be fair, papacy needn't be corrupt if a good pope reigns.

No, we don't. Anglo-Catholics do, but they have betrayed Anglicanism and have rejected our subordinate standards.

History, friend, shows otherwise.

We venerate the memory of the Saints, yes, but no true Anglican bows down before an image of the Saints. Again I draw your attention to Article 12.

Historically incorrect. Henry VIII venerated the Saints, and so did Anglicans before him, or did you forget that Anglicanism has always been seperate from Rome?

Confession to a priest, according to our subordinate standards, is not a sacrament, but has arisen out of a corrupt following of the Apostles.

Again, history shows otherwise.

What exactly do you mean by 'real presence', Paladin? Our Articles explicitly deny any Romish understanding of the sacraments - in fact, we affirm a Calvinist view of the Lord's Supper.

The same Article held by Elizabeth I? Who believed in a physical presence as well as the spiritual presence of Christ in Holy Communion? Whose view is original? And what of Henry VIII? Or perhaps of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York before Cranmer?

Also, Anglicans do not believe that Councils have any authority except that their findings be explicitly proven by Holy Scripture.

Then shall we throw out the Trinity. Nothing explicit in the Bible for or against it, unless you want to rely on corrupt manuscripts and forgeries that made even Erasmus' stomach churn with disgust.

It's telling that you referred to Pentecost as "30 CE" rather than "30 AD" (Common Era rather than Anno Domini, "Year of our Lord")

Oh yes, because I do not use a "Christian" dating system that I am somehow lesser?

FivePointCalvinist · Sep 20, 2005

PaladinValer said:
In most areas in North America, we are called Episcopalians. Although you are correct that in Canada, we are called Anglicans. Either way, the point was that Episcopalian=Anglican.

[/i]

Let's actually reread what I said first:

"2. We believe that we do not go immediately to heaven or hell upon death, for that is a rejection of the Nicene Creed. We believe that nothing imperfect can go to heaven, and that basically every soul is going to have some sin or blemish still on it even upon death. Thus, there must be a place where souls go to wait for the Resurrection, where they will be purged of sin.

Now this isn't necessarily the Vatican Catholic idea of "Purgatory," although it is an interesting finalized idea of this place. We tend to agree with the EOs, which say little about it except that it exists."

Next time, take more care to actually read what people say.

You're still positing some form of purgatory, which the Articles deny.

Whoopie-doo what Cranmer thought about the pope. He isn't my pope like he seems to be to you, judging by your post's content. And quite frankly, that isn't what the pope is in practice, in history, or in authority according to the Vatican Church. You disgrace the name "Anglican" by using it as a cover to spread a load of lies and misinformation.

Cranmer isn't my 'pope', I just happen to think he was right about the Pope and his office.

Let's put this into context, why don't we?
1. Detestable enormities were the hypocricies of the papacy at the time, not including, but chiefly, the corruption.

And Eucharistic adoration. And indulgences (which still exist). And superstition. All of which lead mens souls to Hell.

2. "False doctrine and herisy" were the decisions of post Nicaea II councils and synods which were no longer Ecumenical. In addition, it was a backlash against recent "Renaissance" rediscoveries of anicnet Classical learning, which were largely the basis of new ideas in the Western Church.

And, for the most part, the Ante-Nicene councils do not deviate significantly from Scripture. Also, Scholasticism was mixing the pure doctrine of Christ with pagan philosophy, as you noted.

3. "Hardness of heart and contempte" is the abuse of papal bulls to grant exceptions that were completely against canon law at the time in order to increase the power and wealth of the Church or pope. The idea of hierarchy and the institution of the Church were not the true objects of contempt or worry.

Huh? Where are you getting this from?

Perhaps you haven't realized this, but the Vatican Church has "reformed" itself of its abuses. No abuse of papal bulls. No expansion of the church's coffers at the expense of the people, etc. True, they still live by the idea of the papacy, though to be fair, papacy needn't be corrupt if a good pope reigns.

History, friend, shows otherwise.

No, but Popery still believes that man is justified by meriting his own salvation in a state of grace. The Popish mass still re-offers Christ to the Father. Papists still pray to Mary and the Saints, and ill-educated Papists today regularly mix their own already corrupt religion with animism and the like, so that we have abominations like Santeria and Voodoo.

Historically incorrect. Henry VIII venerated the Saints, and so did Anglicans before him, or did you forget that Anglicanism has always been seperate from Rome?

I don't care what Henry VIII did if Scripture doesn't agree with him.

Again, history shows otherwise.

The same Article held by Elizabeth I? Who believed in a physical presence as well as the spiritual presence of Christ in Holy Communion? Whose view is original? And what of Henry VIII? Or perhaps of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York before Cranmer?

At best, Elizabeth's view is Lutheran

Then shall we throw out the Trinity. Nothing explicit in the Bible for or against it, unless you want to rely on corrupt manuscripts and forgeries that made even Erasmus' stomach churn with disgust.

I defy you to argue the Modalist position from Scripture without reducing God to utter nonsense.

Philip · Sep 20, 2005

FivePointCalvinist said:
And, for the most part, the Ante-Nicene councils do not deviate significantly from Scripture. Also, Scholasticism was mixing the pure doctrine of Christ with pagan philosophy, as you noted.

If you don't mind, could you please enumerate these 'Ante-Nicene councils'? I am only aware of one, the Council of Jerusalem.

PaladinValer · Sep 20, 2005

FivePointCalvinist said:
You're still positing some form of purgatory, which the Articles deny.

No, the Articles decried the "Romish" idea of purgatory. It decried a specific belief on the immediate afterlife. The EO belief is definitely different, and the Article says nothing about it.

Again, please read more carefully.

Cranmer isn't my 'pope', I just happen to think he was right about the Pope and his office.

Which is highly out of context, as I showed.
Please, do us a favor and read what people said. I said "seemed" because of a quite obvious unquestionable heeding to Archbishop Cranmer's views and opinions.

And Eucharistic adoration. And indulgences (which still exist). And superstition.

Indulgences historically (and currently once again) are exceptions from doing penance out of extraordinary circumstance, usually due to health issues (sick, disabled, in labor, etc). It had nothing to do with money.
Eucharistic Adoration was promoted by many of the Fathers whose writings were lost and had only recently been rediscovered at the time. The unfortunate level of anti-liberal arts at the time kept many religious conservatives like Archbishop Cranmer seething of such ideas, not to mention a lack of acknowledgement of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. To ignore these facts is simply dishonest.

All of which lead mens souls to Hell.

And you presume to know the mind, Will, and Being of God?

And, for the most part, the Ante-Nicene councils do not deviate significantly from Scripture.

Correction: They never deviated from Scripture.

Also, Scholasticism was mixing the pure doctrine of Christ with pagan philosophy, as you noted.

Sorry, but you have then no idea what "scholarsticism" (more actually termed "liberal arts" or "humanism") is. It is the studying of the ancient Classics that had been "lost" but now "rediscovered." Those Classics included not only religious writings of Church Fathers and synod canons but also writings of Aristotle and other (mainly) Greek and also some famous Latin authors.

Desiderus Erasmus and Sir Thomas More were big advocates of studying such materials, and even King Henry VIII showed keen interest and knowledge, to the point that even Sir Thomas More thought of him as a pretty good theologian because of his use.

These liberal arts were not about "Paganism" but, rather, the taking of what was useful. Even Martin Luther, who absolutely detested the lot of it (out of ignorance), found Aristotle's works on logic to be of great value. It isn't the "mixing" of Paganism with Christianity, but taking what is valuable out of these Classics and incorporating them into a Christian setting and context. To paraphrase Desiderus Erasmus, the only real Ciceronian was a Christian Ciceronian.

Please learn the facts before you assume them.

Huh? Where are you getting this from?

A rather keen knowledge of history.

No, but Popery still believes that man is justified by meriting his own salvation in a state of grace.

Once again, to all the readers, this individual does not speak for the Anglican Church and definitely not for me. I for one disdain, am appauled by, and have nothing to do with such insulting and unChristian comments.

Faith is a work. Do you not "work" on your faith? The two are largely indestinguishable in the eyes of the Vatican Church. And when they are not, they are seen as means of Grace, to which is the only way to be Judged as worthy by their Catechism.

They are The Popish mass still re-offers Christ to the Father.

It is not a "re-Sacrifice" out of need but Christ's out of selfless love. Let's try to put this into context, please?

Papists still pray to Mary and the Saints,

You mean petition, right? Even the Koine Greek used in the Bible uses two entirely different words for "worship," and only one of them is to God only. The other is best translated as "revere," as it is of lesser than the other, which is defined in the Greek as a true worship.

And even if you don't, the Catechism of their noble church declares such a practice as to worship anything other than God to be worthy of excommunication. That's the actual teaching belief and practice. So you are actually going to cite a wrong of their church by the incorrect practices of its constituents? That's not only low, but purely illogical and devoid of any reasonable merit whatsoever.

and ill-educated Papists today regularly mix their own already corrupt religion with animism and the like, so that we have abominations like Santeria and Voodoo.

Time for reeducation:

Faiths like Santeria and Vudoun were not born out of the colonizers but of the colonized, who secretly practiced their own original beliefs. Or, they encorporated elements from their own religious beliefs in a form that would seem as insignificant or "un-worshiping" to the colonizers, particularly in the form of dance and music.

Now that the context has been applied, these folks were never even Vatican Catholics to begin with. So that rediculous accusation against their church is now blown sky high

I don't care what Henry VIII did if Scripture doesn't agree with him.

Since he was less Anglican than Archbishop Cranmer? Or perhaps the Church Fathers, even those who were the generation after the Apostles themselves, were lied to?

And whose Scripture? Scripture itself? Or one's interpretation of it? That's the real issue: not Scripture itself but of its interpretation.

At best, Elizabeth's view is Lutheran

And what did Luther believe?

Game, Set, Match.

I defy you to argue the Modalist position from Scripture without reducing God to utter nonsense.

The fact that Sabellians did is enough to support the importance of the Ecumenical Councils.

PaladinValer · Sep 20, 2005

Philip said:
If you don't mind, could you please enumerate these 'Ante-Nicene councils'? I am only aware of one, the Council of Jerusalem.

I think there is a very, very slim chance he is referring to various synods too, but I agree with you there

Naomi4Christ · Sep 29, 2005

IloveJesusMyFather3:16 said:
Do episcapalians have any conteversial beliefs to someone who is just a "christian"? Thanks.

The faith of the Church of England (mother church of the Anglican Communion to which episcopalians belong) is the faith of the original and undivided church. The doctrines are not particularly controversial - Jesus came in love an died to save us. IIRC, the only non-biblical doctrine is the doctrine of the Trinity, something that most Christians believe in (if fact, it's a test of Christian faith).

Naomi4Christ · Sep 29, 2005

Inge87 said:
The things I've noticed that seem to bother ordinary "Christians" the most are veneration of the saints, confession, and other such traditions.

However, they are both optional. I know of plenty of Anglicans (myself included) who do not go to confession, and I went almost seventeen years in the church before discovering that we venerated saints like Catholics and Orthodox. So, really it is not as big of a deal as they make it out to be.

I only learnt about this behaviour by visiting the Anglican forum here at CF. They certainly don't do any such thing on the evangelical wing of the church.

Albion · Sep 29, 2005

Dogsbody said:
I only learnt about this behaviour by visiting the Anglican forum here at CF. They certainly don't do any such thing on the evangelical wing of the church.

That's correct. Perhaps it would be better for everyone asking about this to say that "some Anglicans do this or that even though the church's statement of beliefs opposes that." We can't deny that Anglicans come in all varieties; it's only when someone starts talking as though all are equally correct or Anglican that the misunderstanding enters in.

For instance, there ARE Roman Catholics who believe that women should be ordained as priests. They are, in fact, organized, well-publicized, and have a following. But do those realities make it correct to say that "Some Catholics believe this way and some the opposite" in answer to a question about the Catholic church? No. Obviously no. But when it comes to Anglicanism, that is just what is done too often.

Naomi4Christ · Sep 29, 2005

Indeed, Anglicanism is a very broad faith, but we agree on the most important parts of Christianity - that Christ came in love and died to redeem us of our sins. Many of the differences are purely cosmetic. I always feel that when people get ultra-defensive about their specific worship practices, somehow they are missing the whole point of why and who they are worshipping in the first place.

cathromang · Oct 8, 2005

FivePointCalvinist said:
Anglo-Catholics do, but they have betrayed Anglicanism...

heh, heh, heh...and then a duck walks into the bar....

Thank you PaladinValer for all the explanations.
and Albion, in my neck of the woods the high churches are the traditional/conservative...

Using the word Anglican or Episcopal to describe all the churchs is like using the word Baptist to describe southern, missionary, general, free-will, etc...

Albion · Oct 9, 2005

cathromang said:
Albion, in my neck of the woods the high churches are the traditional/conservative...

I suppose there are a lot of people who think "traditional/conservative" means heaping up as much drama, vestments, and posturing as possible.

Actually, it means to retain the church's authorized, established faith and practices.

What happens in "your neck of the woods" I can't say, but if those churches reflect the rebellion we know as the Oxford Movement, by definition they cannot be traditionalists or conservative. Reactionary, perhaps, but not conservative.

PaladinValer · Oct 9, 2005

Rebellion? Please...that's historical hogwash.

cathromang · Oct 9, 2005

Albion said:
I suppose there are a lot of people who think "traditional/conservative" means heaping up as much drama, vestments, and posturing as possible.

Actually, it means to retain the church's authorized, established faith and practices.

What happens in "your neck of the woods" I can't say, but if those churches reflect the rebellion we know as the Oxford Movement, by definition they cannot be traditionalists or conservative. Reactionary, perhaps, but not conservative.

thanks, but the "drama" queens would be found in another church...

And I think everyone believes their church contains the authorized, established faith and practices, so that statement means very little...

And PaladinValer...don't know who you are, but you rock

PaladinValer · Oct 9, 2005

I?

I am a High-Church, Orthodox Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian who adheres to the Truth as it always has been according to the dogmas and doctrines of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

cathromang · Oct 10, 2005

PaladinValer said:
I am a High-Church, Orthodox Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian who adheres to the Truth as it always has been according to the dogmas and doctrines of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Salute!!

right there with you

Stand STRONG!!!

quick question about episcapalians

Facilitator

Contributor

Facilitator

Contributor

Active Member

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Active Member

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

not a nutter

not a nutter

Facilitator

not a nutter

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Well-Known Member

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency