Wednesday, February 17, 2010

The Anglican exodus begins…


Forward in Faith Australia has voted to join the Ordinariate. To read the full article, click here.

9 comments:

Jim said...

Robin, we are 137 years after REC, a century after Cardinal Newman, 40 some years after the Deceleration of St. Louis, years after the founding of AMiA and your headline is, "The Anglican exodus begins?" I do not mind a bit of hyperbole, in fact I have been known to engage in some: this is extreme!

FWIW
jimB

Robin G. Jordan said...

Jim,

I did not write the headline. I took it from the Telegraph. I was considering noting in my post something like, "Shouldn't that be "The Anglo-Catholic exodus begins...?"

Robin_G_Jordan said...

Jim,

The exodus was for the Israelites to the Promised Land. The Australian Anglo-Catholics in question may see the Ordinariate as their Promised Land. To my mind the Church of Rome is not a land flowing with milk and honey but I am not an Anglo-Catholic who feels drawn to Rome. Last week I read a paper writen by an English Anglo-Catholic professor in which she attacked Lancelot Andrews and Jeremy Taylor, two benchmark Caroline divines, as heretics because they rejected papal supremacy and transubstantiation. These folks are not really happy in the Church of England or any Anglican body. I personally do not believe that many of them will be happy in the Roman Catholic Church but they will have to discover that for themselves. I do not think that they are going to listen to me or anyone else.

Joe Mahler said...

Robin,
I hope all the anglo-catholics leave the Church of England and all of Anglicanism. Swim the Tiber, cross the bridge and burn it behind them. They have been a vexation to Reformed Christianity these past centuries. The showed the liberals how to dissimulate. Look at their history in respects to the 39 Articles. They have behaved shamelessly. At least in Rome, they will be more honest.

kmfrye said...

Once again, I agree with Joe, especially regarding their dissembling.

Let not the gate hit them hindwise.

Jim said...

Robin, I sit corrected on the headline. I agree that many of those who are looking at the RC "ordinate" will never be happy. Whatever it is they think they want, neither the Roman nor Anglican communities have it.

With your permission, personal to Joe and kmfrye: funny that is how some of us feel about you'l. Maybe we should all grow up and learn to live together.

FWIW
jimB

Joe Mahler said...

Jim,
I accept the 39 Articles of Religion as being in agreement with Holy Scriptures. I don't have to pretend that they say something that they most certainly do not. If one says that he accepts the 39 Articles but does not do anything but violate them and then claim that they teach what they do not but what Rome teaches, isn't this dissimulation? Isn't that dishonest, of the nature of a lie? Doesn't that come from Satan and not God? I'm a bit blunt on this and many other points, but Jesus didn't mince words when he called the Pharisees hypocrites and whited sepulchers. Read the "black rubric" of the 1662 BVP and tell me, do you believe it. Read the 39 Articles and tell me whether you or you minister breaks their instructions. Tell me then if you accept the 39 Articles without dissimulation.
Waiting,
Joe

Joe Mahler said...

Jim,
How much do you trust those who dissimulate? How much do you trust the hypocrite? How much do you trust the liar? How long will you go before you rebuke such? How much do you love the idolater, the dissimulator, the hypocrite, the liar? So much that you would keep quiet and let him go to hell? or enough to rebuke him for his disobedience to God? Holy Writ is in the truest sense Catholic. Man's traditions are transient and often sinful. When tradition contradicts Scriptures, which do would you accept? Which would you obey?

The honest anglo-catholic belongs with Rome. He may be in no better standing before God, yet he is at least honest about it. So much that the anglo-catholics do in their "sacrifice of the mass" is contrary to the Scriptures. The sacrifice of Jesus was as a "full, sufficient, and perfect sacrifice for the sins of the whole worls." The only other sacrifice that the Christian was required to make was that of himself as a "living sacrifice." He was to serve God by keeping His commandments. The Scriptures lay enough on us that we don't need to make up more. When by our traditions we require something more than the Scriptures, is is not adding to Scriptures. When we eliminate a requirement of the Scriptures of the Law, which is righteousness, do we not take away from the Scripture?

Jim, think about it. The good news is that Christ did it all. Our salvation is completely of God from the beginning to the end. We are all priests, we all go directly to God the Father through Jesus Christ, our ONLY ADVOCATE AND MEDIATOR. There is no man between us and Christ, no priest. Jesus Christ is our High Priest. If not all the blood of beast can remove our sins but that of Christ. Why would anyone think that bread and wine could? Why would anyone bow before bread and wine? Where in all of Scriptures do such a practice find its warrant? Why would a Christian want his child taught such a thing.

How can the Christian live in the same house with such. "A house divided against itself cannot stand. So Anglicanism is proving Christ's words true. It is not standing. The cancer must be removed or the whole body will die.

Joe

DomWalk said...

Great comments, Joe. Dead on!