Traditional Anglicans Welcome Vatican Announcement With Joy

The problem is claims that are made out of hand in such a manner are never achieving anything for anyone. Both claims above are personal and not convincing at all.

(a) if the veneration of saints is as old as Christianity, how come we do not find them in the Christianity of the Bible? How come none of the apostles are seen to ever have been involved in such a practice?

(b) Praying to saints as Catholics do is not the same thing as asking pastors to pray for anyone. I don't know if Episcopalians are to be included in your claim above where we know that such is clearly not the case.

Em, sorry. . . but did I do or say something so hot as to warrant the shouting?
Both points you made are still hanging on the laundry lines - the prayers of God's people in Revelation does not teach that people on earth were praying to dead saints for help anywhere. Appearances in Maccabees also do not teach your assertion in context of our enquiries. Sorry, but there.

Pardon me, but using Catholicism to argue your point over the convictions of others is another waste of time. Whatever you may claim from your interpretations, they still do not hold for the vast number of Anglicans who know the difference between praying to a departed person and praying straight to God. If one wants to get specific, we could consider some of the things that Catholicism believes about their Marian theology and see how many people would agree that such a thing is indeed what Christians in the Bible practised.


That's okay. That people make these claims does not establish such as doctrine for Christians in the Bible, nor for Anglicans who do not see them in the sacred pages. I don't know how many people prayed to Elijah or Elisha after their deaths for them to intercede for anyone. Who ever prayed to Moses after his death? I'm not aware that anyone prayed to David after his death - are you aware of such? What about Noah? And Abraham? Joshua? Are we missing something here?


Yeah, I don't forget that. But do you remember anyone praying to Elisha after his death?


That's because I'm not gullible.


Are you suggesting Arik Air now operates on that service? Thou sayest it - not viaro!

you are reading your bible upside down, assuming you read it at all.

I'd stick to liturgy if I were you.

@dgreatrock


My friend, like many have been saying on this post, e.g., Pastor AIO, chukwudi44, and me, what you described as a major difference between your version/sect/group of Anglicanism and Catholicism doesn't prove this other group, i.e., Traditional Anglicans, are not Anglican.  There are Anglicans that do practice veneration of saints and believe in many catholic doctrines, such as the Eucharist being the body, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, i.e., transubstantiation.  And, there are other Anglican groups that believe in gay bishops, women priesthood, and no communion of saints, etc.  But, they all are indeed Anglican.

To better move this topic forward, can you list the beliefs of Anglicanism?  In other words, since you insist that the Anglican group that are joining the Catholic Church are 'not Anglican', please, by all means, list the belief system and theology of Anglicanism.  In addition, point us to a legit website where we can evaluate why they (aka your Anglican group) is more Anglican than the traditional Anglican group that is joining the Catholic Church. 

So, then the question becomes, what makes an Anglican an Anglican?  Well, Pastor AIO has adequately answered it below.   

@Pastor AIO


Pardon my ignorance. . . .but, what were the doctrinal difference between Peter and Paul?  I am of the understanding that they had no doctrinal differences, they were part of the Church of Christ.  Maybe they had different administrative styles of governing/leading and/or cultural differences, but doctrinal differences?!

you people should stop looking at Anglicans through a Catholic lens.

jeez. This is so exasperating.

you obviously have extremely limited knowledge of the Anglican faith, or else you wouldnt be typing all this monnshine.

its not that serious.

bottom line: Anglicans are not Catholic unless they convert.

though these days anything goes.

Well well well, guys what we are telling is that though we might be Christians, when you speak of individual group, there exist different belief patterns. What Pastor AIO quoted as an Anglican Marian theology, does not exist in the Book of Common Prayer used even England.

understand that Anglicans have diverse theologies, that does not make it binding on all Anglicans nor exclude them from the Anglican communion. Hence we have this acronym Unity in diversity.

today there are some Anglicans who have approved of same sex marriage- this does not in anyway make all Anglicans as accepting that error.

So you will understand when i say those so called Traditional Anglicans does not represent the majority of all Anglicans.

That is where you are getting it wrong!
Anglicans do not pray to saints for help as the RCC church does.

A key point to note.

It is important to understand that the appellation of 'Anglican' suggests a diversity of faith and tradition within Anglicanism. This diversity points out that not every church with the name 'Anglican' should be regarded as being connected with the 'Anglican Communion'. To this end, there are indeed churches bearing the name 'Anglican' who venerate images, icons, and saints (even though they are in the USA but not part of the ECUSA). An example is the Holy Catholic Church Anglican Rite (HCC-AR).

The HCC-AR's position is subtle and may confuse many unsuspecting visitors/observers. About who they are, they state on their website that -

   *  they are 'Catholic' but not 'Roman Catholic';

   *  they are Anglican but not a Protestant church;

   *  they share only a historical connection to the Church of England,
      but they are not associated with Canterbury

   *  they are part of present-day Anglican bodies collectively and commonly known as the ‘Continuing Church’

Another example of churches known as "Continuing" is the "Church of England (Continuing)" - who on their website state that they are "a group of Anglican congregations outside the Church of England".

Indeed, the HCC-AR is one of those examples of churches with an 'Anglican' appellation that venerates and/or honours icons/images and saints; but such an example should not be confused for a vast majority of Anglicans (like the ECUSA) who do not hold such beliefs and practices. Indeed, when you check the website of Anglicans Online, you will find that the HCC-AR is one of the churches among several with either names of either 'Anglican', 'Episcopal' or 'Catholic' that are not in the 'Anglican Communion'.

In summary, therefore, I think that on either sides, we can have a balance of views:

(a) yes, there are some Anglicans that 'venerate' saints one way or another; this is especially true of such 'Anglican' churches with a Catholic (not Roman Catholic) leaning - an example is the Holy Catholic Church Anglican Rite (HCC-AR), which is not to be confused for the ECUSA (the Episcopalian Church - which is the Province of the Anglican Communion in the USA and several other countries);

(b) but there are also a majority of Anglicans who confess that they do not 'venerate' saints or icons as do the Catholics. This is true of the ECUSA (defined above);

(c) drawing from (a) and (b) above, it would be quite inappropriate to assert that there are "no differences" between the Anglican and Catholic churches, for there evidently are such many differences.

Thanks Viaro, you have put up the best post, nay scholastic work on this topic.

@ Abu,
Yaya aiki?

That is okay, chukwudi. I feel you on that one; although I may find some of those statements hard to contain. But your context and observations are well noted.

---

@dgreatrock,

Lol, thank you. I forgot to leave one more thing: when I showed my friend that post, he shook his head vigorously and argued that I had misrepresented "Anglicans"! I thought I was helping both myself and some of our Anglican friends to understand this issue. . but I can't even begin to type what he argued in his defence. All I can say for now is. . . hmmm, I've learnt some lessons.

However, if that post helped you and some others, that's a great relief to me. Thanks.

I'm assuming you wrote this in jest. . . .as such, I think it funny.