LONG POST WARNING
Yes it’s one of those threads, but bear with me:
The Anglican Ordinerate (I’m just going to say AO for the rest of this post) and Western Orthodoxy might seem good on paper, a way for high church Prots to finalize their apostolic faith. Believe me, I was once one of the few (and still am in many respects) who wanted to join Western Orthodoxy, since I feel like I should be in touch with my historical roots and be able to tap into the West’s spiritual treasures like the Rosary, the Rule of St Benedict and the Gregorian Mass without surrendering myself to the ever growing liberalism that plagues the Roman church. I assume this is the same sort of idea behind the AO, for either Catholics who desire to have their own distinctly English identity, or for Anglicans switching over to function like Uniates and retain their heritage while being Roman Catholic.
But then I read this article: catholicherald.co.uk
Now this wouldn’t normally get to me that much. After all, it’s a few years old, and that’s across the sea for me, right? But then I remember, back before I took the commitment to being orthodox, attending the same denomination mentions in their post. It was small, and the service felt more like something the parishioners did out of obligation then something people enjoyed doing. And that’s my main concern (and why I created a new thread specifically for this): Anglicanism and arguably tradtional Western spirituality as a whole is dying. The Episcopalians loose more and more people every week as their services get more and more liberal, the Catholic Church has become a completely different beast than it was 70 years ago, the Continuing Anglicans, AO and Western Orthodox are so small as to be mere curiosities for the most part. Outside of Apostolic Christianity, the churches are all either going the route of parroting the hip megachurches, becoming personality cults for their fundamentalist (and often shifting to the poles of ultra-Zionist or Anti-Semitic) pastors, or becoming puppets for degenerate left wing politics. The reason for this, I think, is simply that most people are comfortable with the denomination they’re in, and if not, either grit and bear it or find something different entirely. Most Western Orthodox and AO are, like we said before, a rare set of former Anglicans who desire the familiar form and the prestige of Apostolic communion, which is something most people would either never want, never think of or never even have a chance to think of, since the catch 22 is that small churches don’t attract big crowds, so the demand is low and thus the churches remain small and few in number.
In addition to this, I’ve come to realize something else: the East shouldn’t try to copy the west, but rather integrate western devotions in her own understanding. Seraphim of Serov’s Rule of the Theotokos is the Rosary, the Komboskini the Pater Noster Rope, the Sorrows of Mary brought to the East by St. Demitri of Restov: (web.archive.org
Why Western Orthodoxy and the Anglican Ordinarite won’t work
Other urls found in this thread:
ccel.org
faithfulwordbaptist.org
twitter.com
BEgoMe BaPtIST
i'd rather not. My vitamin K intake is fine.
Why should I?
Amen Amen Amen!
Anglos have one of two choices:
Stay the course and let Islam take over your country
Or come back to Christ's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and drive the invaders and the globalists out!
It's the most consistent practice with the Bible
*easiest practiced
But is it consistent with history at all? And how exactly is it more biblically consistent than catholicism?
Consistent with history how?
That takes a very long answer
What's your background? Do you have any experience with Baptists and with Catholics?
A Baptist summary from gotquestions.com, if you're interested
I never understood why Baptists identify with Albegenses and other gnostic movements. Also Novatinianism was literally the OPPOSITE of the OSAS doctrine, since they wouldn’t allow lapsed christians to take communion despite them being bapstised. Instead of following propaganda from the 30’s, how about you research church history for yourself?
You can be a non OSAS Baptist you know, there's a prominent group of them in the US called free will Baptists
What?
The trail of blood, a famous baptist book about their supposed lineage, is from 1930. Also yes there are free will Baptists and the like, but even they fall short of the so called holy and unbroken doctrine of the Donatists, who claimed a pastor must be sinless in order to be valid, which no church on earth would agree with.
I know the trail of blood, I'm physically in the building in which it was written at this moment
It's not propaganda but you don't have to agree with it
Well I’m just telling you, the Baptist’s are nothing more than another form of Protestantism, and you all find your roots in Luther and Jan Huss. Admit that, and you will start to see things in a different way.
Or don’t. As long as we both agree on the content of at least the Apostles creed, i will call you a Christian.
Yes Baptists are a result of the Reformation
The Trail of Blood asserts that the Church's "real" doctrine has changed into many contradicting forms over the millenia.
It is propaganda and invented dogma based solely on resenting Roman Catholics. Even the most basic Christian doctrine precludes the validity of the Paulicians, Cathars and other gnostic sects because they are overtly luciferian and diametrically opposed to Christ. Hell most of the groups listed in the trail of blood are precluded from each other because their core doctrine is entirely different from each other. Even the listed non-Gnostic sects have doctrine incompatible with trail of blood Baptist doctrine. The only similarity between them is that they had either disagreed with or fought Catholics at various points. It is made up nonsense.
It's not "made up nonsense", it's a church history study.
The book identifies Christians who practiced believers baptism throughout the ages, to demonstrate that there has always been a remnant of them despite oppression. It is not to say that all the identified groups hold doctrine identical to Texan Baptists in the 1930s.
Have you even read it?
If by "the church" you mean roman catholicism, yes as do all denominations in the protestant realm.
That was the point of the term "Reformation".
I'm catholic, and know just a little bit about baptists, I've been to one baptist service before.
The most important difference is the message of salvation. Baptists believe in the protestant model that you are saved by faith alone, not of works. We believe this because of what we read from the Bible
If you believe, you are saved
Catholicism teaches in contrast that sacraments are needed for salvation, and even then you don't know you're saved until afterlife.
The way Catholicism justifies this is by claiming exclusive divine interpretive power based on apostolic succession, which then allows them
to supercede what the Bible says.
Baptists take a regulative principle on scriptural teaching. We do not think any more special revelation has come and we believe that the Bible is sufficient for all of Christian doctrine.
I agree.
Now let's see some early Baptists described by Irenaeus and compare them with what Steven Anderson says
Irenaeus contra Gnostic
3. For this purpose, then, he had come that he might win her first, and free her from slavery, while he conferred salvation upon men, by making himself known to them. For since the angels ruled the world ill because each one of them coveted the principal power for himself, he had come to amend matters, and had descended, transfigured and assimilated to powers and principalities and angels, so that he might appear among men to be a man, while yet he was not a man; and that thus he was thought to have suffered in Judæa, when he had not suffered. Moreover, the prophets uttered their predictions under the inspiration of those angels who formed the world; for which reason those who place their trust in him and Helena no longer regarded them, but, as being free, live as they please; for men are saved through his grace, and not on account of their own righteous actions. For such deeds are not righteous in the nature of things, but by mere accident, just as those angels who made the world, have thought fit to constitute them, seeking, by means of such precepts, to bring men into bondage. On this account, he pledged himself that the world should be dissolved, and that those who are his should be freed from the rule of them who made the world.ccel.org
Anderson Pro Gnostic
The title of my sermon tonight is Once saved always saved. It’s about the eternal security of the believer, the fact that once we get saved there is nothing we can ever do to lose our salvation
What's your point?
You want your ancient Baptists, here are some of them from the mouth of Irenaeus.
OP here…
I’m ashamed that I allowed this thread to completely off topic by indulging the Baptist shitpotsers. My point was that Anglicans and Episcopalians shouldn’t jump ship but rather try to bring back their church to the Apostolic faith (preferably as an autocephalous Orthodox church), and that Orthodoxy doesn’t need to be “western” to be relevant to the west. As for Catholics, the same sort of thing applies: get rid of the communist Boomers, get back in touch with the power that was over even earthly kings, and eventually come to understand the pope must stand as the first AMOUNG EQUALS. Call me a doomsayer, but I firmly believe that unless Rome, Constantinople, Canterbury, Moscow and even the Lutherans can come together under a single oligarchy of Patriarchs, diverse in their liturgies but united in their doctrine and fight against the satanic Zeitgeist, many souls will be lost. One step above Fatima, let’s consecrate the entire world to the Trinity and the Mother of God.
Yeah it’s a lot to ask, and many pious people on all sides have said it’s a bad idea, but Jesus did not found over 33000 churches, but one single church. If our prayers can move mountains like the Lord said, prayer and a true commitment to unity in doctrine, spiritual and social, can restore us all to the Churh Millitant, the army of God.
Amen brother!
Fun fact: Anglicanism was the only religion to have an increase during the Soviet Union. A surplus of 1 (one) parish.
Is this an actual thing that happened, or is this a joke about the liberalizing of the Anglicans?
Any Anglican rite Catholic here? How's the Anglo rite? Is it better than the ordinary roman rite?
It's not a rite mate. It's a use. If it was a rite, it would be self-governing. It SHOULD be self-governing. But it ain't And if it were, it'd basically be Anglicanism.
The Anglican Use is stupendously good. Here's a sermon of what most of the Anglican Use priests think, even if they can't always say it because of the Catholic Hierarchy.
I should warn you though. They aren't free of interference by the Hierarchy.
The priest who preached that sermon had this happen to him:
I received a note this morning explaining yet another case of faithful clerics suppressed and silence for their Faith in this miserable era of Francis.
***
Frank:
Good morning.
I am writing to report something that hasn’t yet made its way to any publication, but hopefully someone will bring this to light.
In addition to my wife and I being parishioners at the FSSP apostolate here in Minneapolis, we also from time to time attend St. Bede the Venerable, which is a mission parish of The Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter. While neither my wife nor myself were ever associated with Anglicans or Episcopalians, the Ordinariate Form of the Roman Rite is much more palpable than Novus Ordo masses. We started attending there about 1.5 years ago. It is a very small parish; it doesn’t even have its own building and must rent time/space from another Catholic parish. I’ve been trying to get my Episcopalian friends to attend there in the hope that they will eventually convert. More particularly, St. Bede’s pastor, Fr. Vaughn Treco, speaks plainly and to the point; much better than most other priests I’ve heard or met.
Last night, my wife and I attended St. Bede’s for mass, but Fr. Treco was not presiding, nor anywhere to be seen. Instead, a diocesan priest was presiding. At the end of the mass, the priest made an announcement, indicating that as of yesterday, Fr. Treco had been relieved of his duties as pastor of St. Bede’s, with the diocesan priest being appointed the interim pastor. We were told that Fr. Treco had been removed because of the sermon he made on The Feast of Christ the King (ordinary time) on November 25 of last year. This sermon was published by The Remnant Video on YouTube, which can be found here: VATICAN REVOLUTION: Diocesan Priest’s Had Enough
VATICAN REVOLUTION: Diocesan Priest’s Had Enough
A Remnant TV ‘Guest Sermon’. In this comprehensive sermon, a diocesan priest–the former Anglican priest…
We were told that Fr. Treco was visited by Bp. Lopes, who essentially provided Fr Treco with the option of renouncing what he had said in the sermon (which Fr. Treco declined), or that he be removed as pastor, wherein he would have to take… wait for it…. further education classes so that he could better understand the post-conciliar church. We were also told, though, that Fr. Treco is free to continue as priest for St. Bede, even presiding over mass, just as long as he (a) does not deliver sermons or (b) has his sermons reviewed and signed off by the local diocesan priest prior to any such delievery.
To say the least, the entire parish is shocked. Suffice it to say, each and every one of them sides with Fr. Treco, and think that this treatment is very underhanded. Especially considering that this comes the same week that this story broke in Lifesitenews, about a parish not ten minutes away from St. Bedes’s, but one that preaches and shows just the opposite of what Fr. Treco preached about, which is clearly anti-Catholic, but the priest’s job at St. Joan of Arc is very safe indeed.
Thought I’d pass this on to you.
Thanks for all of your work.
Pax Christi,
/Dustin R. DuFault
I know why this guy got in shit for presenting this, although I'm glad he had the courage to do it.
I'm not an Episcopalian, but I read that a Bishop is being restricted for opposing the modern direction of the Episcopal Church. His critics say he should just leave. I'm curious if this is what you mean, that as a bishop, would it be best if he stayed or left?
This is what happens when you remove the autonomy of the local church
Conservative methodists are currently calling the bluffs of the UMC. Pastors will preach against homosexuality, the UMC will threaten to move him, and the congregation tells the UMC that they'll just leave the denomination if they try it.
If you're a Baptist or other autonomous local church, you're only accountable to God and your congregation
...