Is there a Christian denom that believes this?

[AimeeM]

This confuses me. Given, I'm only JUST re-learning much of this... however, from what I understand, while many Episcopalian churches consider themselves "relaxed Catholic", or any number of things relating themselves to The Church, the Catholic church does NOT consider the Episcopal church to be in communion with the Catholic faith/Church.

A good example would be this past weekend. Our daughter attended service at her best friend's Episcopal church. Our daughter was told that she was allowed to receive communion at this church (not by us; but by the church), and did so. We told her that our church (the RC church) considers it "not-so-okay" (trying to keep it as light as possible for her) and that her friend would not be allowed to receive communion in our Catholic church. We explained why on a very basic level. No big.

 

I guess I'm not understanding why a priest/pastor/rector would admit to subscribing as a Catholic, but that he wanted to marry so he became Episcopalian? Is that really *it*? There are very important doctrinal differences between the two faiths. Although I admittedly am not the most well versed on the subject; so perhaps my confusion is solo and in my head, only made worse by pregnancy fatigue :lol:

It also depends on the individual church. Our local Episcopal church is an self-described "Anglo Catholic" parish. I was talking with the Priest/ Rector the other day and he was joking a little about how his services (he was raised Roman Catholic but wanted to marry and be a Priest) were more "Catholic" in feeling than some masses using post-Vatican II Novus Ordo rites. It is liturgical and quite "High Church" for being a small parish. I think most Roman Catholics would feel right at home.

 

But it varies greatly within the diocese.

 

Bill

[8circles]

(2) Uses the Bible but doesn't worship it or equate it with Jesus. In other words, doesn't call it God's Word-capital-W (which, IMO, belongs only to Jesus, according to Scripture). God's word(s)-lower-case-w is fine. This may be a picky thing, but it bugs me.

 

 

This view goes against the OP's #2 however.

 

 

Yes, well we are blessed that we have found a small home church that is following the Bible, so not only are we learning ourselves but with others who have a similar belief. It is great, God has really been opening our eyes.

 

I'm not Molly, but I'm not sure she was recommending her path, just commiserating & sharing her experience.

 

 

I'm also not sure how "following the Bible" equates to worshipping it.

[FiveOaksAcademy]

I'm not Molly, but I'm not sure she was recommending her path, just commiserating & sharing her experience.

 

 

I'm also not sure how "following the Bible" equates to worshipping it.

 

:iagree:

[8circles]

Yes, well we are blessed that we have found a small home church that is following the Bible, so not only are we learning ourselves but with others who have a similar belief. It is great, God has really been opening our eyes.

 

Molly, I'm glad that you're in a place where you are hearing God speak to you. :grouphug:

[Rockhopper]

One needs to note that this is an extremely conservative movement that is not in part of the Anglican communion and one that is hostile to the progressive social stands of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. Lest anyone be confused by the "name."

 

This is a whole 'nuther kettle of fish ;)

 

Bill

 

Well, not in communion with TEC, that's true;) -- but as a province-in-formation, ACNA is part of the global Anglican Communion, with dioceses under the jurisdiction of Anglican Provinces and bishops and archbishops of approved apostolic succession.

[milovany]

Yes, well we are blessed that we have found a small home church that is following the Bible, so not only are we learning ourselves but with others who have a similar belief. It is great, God has really been opening our eyes.

 

I understand! I really do. We have been part of a home church group similar to what you describe, too. I hope you find His complete fullness in it! I don't think my meaning was understood, but that's not the point of this thread, so that's fine. May God bless your journey!

Edited November 21, 2011 by milovaný

[Avila]

I'm not Molly, but I'm not sure she was recommending her path, just commiserating & sharing her experience.

 

 

I'm also not sure how "following the Bible" equates to worshipping it.

 

I think it is very easy to set the Bible up in an artificial way that ignores where it came from, who wrote it, its historical context, and what the authors intended to convey. When the Bible is your only authority, it is very easy to be led astray.

 

The Bible is not just words. It has to be interpreted for those ancient words to have meaning to us. Someone has to do the interpreting. People interpret the Bible through whatever filters they have, whether it be their denominational lenses, their own personal experiences, their history, etc. That is why we have so many people with so many different doctrines, practices and prophecies, all claiming the Bible as their authority.

 

Reading and understanding the Bible outside of its historical context and the context of the Church is a problem that many of us who have chosen to convert to historical, liturgical Christianity could no longer overlook.

 

Scripture is important, but Jesus is the Word of God. Scripture alone is just words without someone to interpret it.

 

People who claim the Bible as their only authority seem not to acknowledge that they are setting themselves up as the authority. They don't want to submit to an authority, so they look only to themselves for that function. That can end up a very lonely, isolated place.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Asenik

[8circles]

I think it is very easy to set the Bible up in an artificial way that ignores where it came from, who wrote it, its historical context, and what the authors intended to convey. When the Bible is your only authority, it is very easy to be led astray.

 

The Bible is not just words. It has to be interpreted for those ancient words to have meaning to us. Someone has to do the interpreting. People interpret the Bible through whatever filters they have, whether it be their denominational lenses, their own personal experiences, their history, etc. That is why we have so many people with so many different doctrines, practices and prophecies, all claiming the Bible as their authority.

 

Reading and understanding the Bible outside of its historical context and the context of the Church is a problem that many of us who have chosen to convert to historical, liturgical Christianity could no longer overlook.

 

Scripture is important, but Jesus is the Word of God. Scripture alone is just words without someone to interpret it.

 

People who claim the Bible as their only authority seem not to acknowledge that they are setting themselves up as the authority.

 

Are these the assumptions made from the phrase "following the Bible"?

[Doran5]

When it comes to churches, I've had my experience with 3. My first, catholic. My perspective(now I was a kid) snotty, stuck-up people who relied on someone else to tell them what God meant.

Southern Baptist(teen) backwoods, racist, h&$) fire and ****ation.

Southern Baptist(adult, mother of 3) at a different church than above, still all about H&D, but encouraged small groups to study the Bible together and discuss scripture.

Now, we attend a contemporary church under the Church of God denomination, we have communion, but once a month, and our band rocks it out. My son loves the middle/high school program. We are involved in the community and worldwide missions. Our "motto" is Love God, Love People, Serve the World. We have Life groups that meet and do bible studies, or dinner, whatever helps build our relationship with each other. It took at a while to find a church that fit our family.

No church is going to be perfect. They are run by people, and no person is perfect. I watched a few services online, liked what I saw and we went to check it out. There are days when the service is not great but, we love the people.

 

I read my Bible and try to live out what I feel is God's plan for my life. I do not follow it, nor do I worship it. I follow Jesus and worship Him. I read the message bible on my YouVersion app on my iPhone. It is a paraphrasing translation that words it for today's society. I am totally reliant on technology. When I run into questions about a verse or chapter or book, I ask the people at my church who have spent years studying Greek and Hebrew and latin. They give me each translation and we discuss them.

I believe in traditional values that not many follow. I did not follow them and regret the mistakes that I made. I was not brought up in any faith, and whole heartedly feel that it gave me a strong desire to make sure that my children are raised to believe Jesus teachings. No one person is greater than any other. If you have more and someone has none, than you should give to them and it will be given back in other ways.

So, I say google search your area, check out their websites, and try out the ones that have a mission that touches your heart. True knowledge is never ending for we learn something new everyday

Edited November 21, 2011 by Doran5

[Spy Car]

This confuses me. Given, I'm only JUST re-learning much of this... however, from what I understand, while many Episcopalian churches consider themselves "relaxed Catholic", or any number of things relating themselves to The Church, the Catholic church does NOT consider the Episcopal church to be in communion with the Catholic faith/Church.

A good example would be this past weekend. Our daughter attended service at her best friend's Episcopal church. Our daughter was told that she was allowed to receive communion at this church (not by us; but by the church), and did so. We told her that our church (the RC church) considers it "not-so-okay" (trying to keep it as light as possible for her) and that her friend would not be allowed to receive communion in our Catholic church. We explained why on a very basic level. No big.

 

I guess I'm not understanding why a priest/pastor/rector would admit to subscribing as a Catholic, but that he wanted to marry so he became Episcopalian? Is that really *it*? There are very important doctrinal differences between the two faiths. Although I admittedly am not the most well versed on the subject; so perhaps my confusion is solo and in my head, only made worse by pregnancy fatigue :lol:

 

I think it can be all over the map. The Priest at our local Church is an unabashed Anglo-Catholic. I also have relatives who are old-line Anglican/ Episcopals, who—while enjoying the High Church liturgy—would (I strongly suspect) bristle at the thought that they are "Catholics." They have their own strong Anglican/Episcopal identity that is quite apart from a Roman Catholic one.

 

Bill

 

ETA: If memory serves (and it may not) you are right about Communion. I believe (but an not certain) that Episcopal Churches have no issue with Roman Catholic taking Communion in there churches, but the reverse is not true. I could be wrong about that.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Spy Car

[Avila]

Are these the assumptions made from the phrase "following the Bible"?

 

When someone says they are following the Bible, I don't know what else to make of it. They are reading the Bible, interpreting it, and using their own judgment and analysis to apply it to their lives. Many of them may be using the guidance of their pastors, a concordance, teachers, etc. to assist them. But isn't the point of sola scriptura to read the Bible and decide for yourself what it all means?

 

Are you meaning something else when you talk about it?

 

ETA

I will give a personal example of what I find personally problematic with the approach. Before I was Catholic, I read the whole Bible, studying it and trying to apply it to my life. Left to my own devices, I would almost certainly not be Trinitarian. I never saw the Trinity explicity discussed in a way that I understood it in the Bible. Why am I Trinitarian? Well, because the people around me pointed out the more subtle references to the doctrine, explained it in historical context and guided me to an orthodox understanding of it. But on my own, I would not have understood it.

 

We all have those moments. We all have filters, some of which are good and some of which are faulty. I refuse to rely on only my understanding and only my interpretations in matters of faith.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Asenik

[FaithManor]

One needs to note that this is an extremely conservative movement that is not in part of the Anglican communion and one that is hostile to the progressive social stands of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. Lest anyone be confused by the "name."

 

This is a whole 'nuther kettle of fish ;)

 

Bill

 

 

:D Not fish! It's the big blue whale!

 

As to the OP, I really think you will feel the most at home with churches that have a beautiful, meaningful, liturgy and a historical tradition beyond Sola Scriptura. I think the Episcopal church would be a good fit, but Eastern Orthodox may be even better for you.

 

We've looked at EO because we are searching for something deeper and feel drawn to the church in that tradition. However, the nearest church to our home is a 4 hr. commute. It would be nearly impossible for us to complete the education process, much less participate in the life of the church, so at present, we are making due and finding that we still worship God and feel His presence in a traditional Methodist church.

 

Blessings to you on your journey.

Faith

[Ellie]

When I run into questions about a verse or chapter or book, I ask the people at my church who have spent years studying Greek and Hebrew and latin. They give me each translation and we discuss them.

Well, there you go. The Catholic Church has 2000 years' worth of people who spent years studying and discussing and praying, and they all trace their spiritual roots back to the 12 men who spent time face-to-face with Jesus. :-)

[Mama2Many4]

Your Top 3 Faith Match Profiles Are:

1. Eastern Orthodox (100%)

2. Roman Catholic (100%)

3. Orthodox Quaker (96%)

 

I've been Catholic since birth so......

[Spy Car]

:D Not fish! It's the big blue whale!

 

As to the OP, I really think you will feel the most at home with churches that have a beautiful, meaningful, liturgy and a historical tradition beyond Sola Scriptura. I think the Episcopal church would be a good fit, but Eastern Orthodox may be even better for you.

 

We've looked at EO because we are searching for something deeper and feel drawn to the church in that tradition. However, the nearest church to our home is a 4 hr. commute. It would be nearly impossible for us to complete the education process, much less participate in the life of the church, so at present, we are making due and finding that we still worship God and feel His presence in a traditional Methodist church.

 

Blessings to you on your journey.

Faith

 

It would be hard to top the Eastern Orthodox Church for liturgy and tradition, but wouldn't you have to subtract as many bonus point on the "authoritarian" issue?

 

I think there is a whole lot more room in the Episcopal Church for having personal positions than is my understanding of the culture in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Bill

[8circles]

When someone says they are following the Bible, I don't know what else to make of it. They are reading the Bible, interpreting it, and using their own judgment and analysis to apply it to their lives. Many of them may be using the guidance of their pastors, a concordance, teachers, etc. to assist them. But isn't the point of sola scriptura to read the Bible and decide for yourself what it all means?

 

Are you meaning something else when you talk about it?

 

ETA

I will give a personal example of what I find personally problematic with the approach. Before I was Catholic, I read the whole Bible, studying it and trying to apply it to my life. Left to my own devices, I would almost certainly not be Trinitarian. I never saw the Trinity explicity discussed in a way that I understood it in the Bible. Why am I Trinitarian? Well, because the people around me pointed out the more subtle references to the doctrine, explained it in historical context and guided me to an orthodox understanding of it. But on my own, I would not have understood it.

 

We all have those moments. We all have filters, some of which are good and some of which are faulty. I refuse to rely on only my understanding and only my interpretations in matters of faith.

 

No, it is not. I've explained it many times here, you can search if you are interested. I've got a raging headache & dinner to make.

[unsinkable]

Sorry the Catholic Church fails requirements 3,4,and 5.

 

But the Episcopal Church, on the other hand, meets them all.

 

Why do I think you're not really sorry?

 

:rolleyes:

 

:tongue_smilie:

[Myeightkiddies]

Hey, there's an app (err, quiz) for that!

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Quizzes/BeliefOMatic.aspx

 

Even my mother took it (she's Catholic) and she scored Catholic....

 

I scored 100 percent Conservative Christian/Protestant, 95 percent Eastern Orthodox, and 95 percent Catholic.

[Carol in Cal.]

I used to think that, too. Full blown homechurcher. But, as said by Bl. Newman, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." When I went back to read Justin Martyr's letters to Marcus Aureliuis, I recognized a Catholic Mass. And, there's the doctrine of the Real Presence-that Christ is actually present in the Eucharist which is the belief that the first (and many more) martyrs died for. Where Christ himself says we eat of his flesh, and then, when he has the moment to clarify, He uses the word trogain, which means to gnaw.

 

Confessional Lutherans believe this as well. I am not sure about Anglicans, which is what I suggested before to the OP as the best fit.

 

Confessional Lutheranism is not ahistorical by any means. Rather, it is predenominational.

 

But although I think it's the best way, and it is what I believe, teach, and confess to be true and truth, it is not the best fit that I know of for the OP.

[Parrothead]

No, it is not. I've explained it many times here, you can search if you are interested. I've got a raging headache & dinner to make.

Sorry your head hurts. Feel better soon. :grouphug:

[Carol in Cal.]

One needs to note that this is an extremely conservative movement that is not in part of the Anglican communion and one that is hostile to the progressive social stands of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. Lest anyone be confused by the "name."

 

 

No, it's not EXTREMELY conservative. And it is part of the Anglican communion. It is MORE conservative than the Episcopal church, and less varied from diocese to discese.

[Avila]

No, it is not. I've explained it many times here, you can search if you are interested. I've got a raging headache & dinner to make.

 

The concept is that the Bible contains everything you need. All matters of faith are contained in it, and anything not explicitly contained in it is suspect. Well, how will you be accessing that? By reading the Bible. And when you read it, you will be de-coding or interpreting it (because that is what reading entails, the process of applying meaning to written words). So you read it, try to understand it, so you can then apply it. What part of that am I missing then?

 

SS rejects everything not in the Bible. The problem is that just by reading the Bible, you are adding to it. You have words. You interpret their meaning. Somebody has to have the authority to decide that meaning. Whether you are that authority, your church is that authority, your pastor is that authority, I can assure you that there is one. There is a final place you go to when you don't understand what a verse means. And whatever that is, that is your authority. Not the Bible. And we go round and round.

 

Whatever we read goes through filters to be understood. You access your own personal dictionary to apply meaning to the words. This is complicated further still with the Bible because we are reading the translation of a translation in many cases by the time we even get a crack at it. All I am saying is that this is a VERY complicated thing we do, reading an ancient text and applying meaning to it for modern times.

 

I am sorry you have a headache. Eat you dinner and feel better. :grouphug:

[Carol in Cal.]

We once attended a church where they only sang hymns. But the 4th one, DH leaned over and whispered, "I suppose you know THIS one too!" :D YUP!

 

Dawn

 

They do grow on you, don't they?

 

Signed, Carol in Cal., a serious hymn addict

[Doran5]

I rated 100% orthodox Quaker, 92% Islam, and 92%orthodox Judaism. So, I don't hold much faith in that test. :lol:

I scored 100 percent Conservative Christian/Protestant, 95 percent Eastern Orthodox, and 95 percent Catholic.

[Spy Car]

No, it's not EXTREMELY conservative. And it is part of the Anglican communion. It is MORE conservative than the Episcopal church, and less varied from diocese to discese.

 

I'm sorry but I believe you are mistaken. The Anglican Church in North America is not part of the Anglican Communion, and is very (extremely) conservative.

 

They are in communion with churches in Uganda and Nigeria that hold very conservative positions.

 

Bill

[MamaSheep]

It also depends on the individual church. Our local Episcopal church is an self-described "Anglo Catholic" parish. I was talking with the Priest/ Rector the other day and he was joking a little about how his services (he was raised Roman Catholic but wanted to marry and be a Priest) were more "Catholic" in feeling than some masses using post-Vatican II Novus Ordo rites. It is liturgical and quite "High Church" for being a small parish. I think most Roman Catholics would feel right at home.

 

But it varies greatly within the diocese.

 

Bill

 

I get the impression that it varies rather a lot from one parish to another, not just by diocese--though there are other levels of variation there too. Dh was raised Episcopalian, and the times I visited that parish it seemed, at least externally, very like the Catholic masses I've attended (though I do realize that under the surface there are definitely doctrinal differences). It was slightly less formal than the high church we visited for his cousin's baby's baptism (which was a rather formal high church Episcopal service), but still very liturgical and scripted. On the other hand, the Episcopal priest that conducted his mother's funeral service (his brother's priest, as his parents had stopped going to church when their parish hired a lesbian rector) was much less formal, conducted a fairly casual, customized service, and incorporated a Hebrew blessing (in Hebrew) from his days being raised Jewish. But it was at a funeral home, not in church, so maybe that was part of the difference.

 

Dh says that after his "great church search", during which he decided that denominations were just different "franchises" in the business of "selling" God, he remained Episcopalian primarily because he definitely believed in Christ and in the Bible, and wanted some kind of connection with other believers, but held some somewhat unorthodox views and the Episcopal church was the only one he found that didn't tell him he would burn in hell for believing as he did, and/or for daring to question the things he did.

 

Of course, years later he looked into Mormonism, mostly on a sort of dare, and was rather surprised to find a church that actually taught some of his more radical ideas as doctrine--some of which were closely related to the OP's #4. It evidently intrigued him enough to look deeper. And I must say I'm glad, as I would never have married the man otherwise, and I kinda like being married to him...lol.

[Carol in Cal.]

The concept is that the Bible contains everything you need. All matters of faith are contained in it, and anything not explicitly contained in it is suspect. Well, how will you be accessing that? By reading the Bible. And when you read it, you will be de-coding or interpreting it (because that is what reading entails, the process of applying meaning to written words). So you read it, try to understand it, so you can then apply it. What part of that am I missing then?

:

 

Nope, that's not Sola Scriptura.

Those who initiated sola Scriptura still accept the Creeds, and hold to many of the traditions of the historical church. We don't consider tradition to be normative if and when it contradicts Scripture, but we appreciate it when it does not. We take early Councils of the church very seriously, unless they contradict Scripture's plain meaning. We are led by pastors who are extremely well-educated, learning about the history of the Church going back to the Bible days, and knowing all about the councils and heresies and creedal statements of the early years; and we consider that to be essential to a right understanding of the Bible. We believe that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. We believe that God serves us in worship, via the Means of Grace--Word and Sacrament.

 

What you are talking about is a caricature. How about you talk about your faith, which no doubt you understand, and leave descriptions of others to the others who hold them? The fact that others don't debate your claims does not imply consent with them. It merely implies that they don't want to create an unseemly argument in public.

 

I stand by my earlier recommendation to the OP to look into the ACNA, based on HER views, even though it's not my own personal view. There are many saving faiths, and that is one of them.

[simka2]

But this is a different thing: you found a church that you agree with. Milovany has found a trustworthy teacher. It's a subtle but profound difference, and it has a big impact on how one's faith and soul is formed.

 

I am not "dissing" (Does anyone still use that word? Am I showing my age?) you or your experience--just pointing out the difference in approach.

Ultimately, this is why we left the church we agreed with and loved and started the process of becoming EO.

 

We had a church that fit us in every way. It was liturgical, majored on majors, minored on minors, beautiful praise and worship, balanced teaching and a myriad of other wonderful things. In many ways it was the perfect church for us.

 

The problem...what happened when this Pastor died or moved elsewhere? What about when our kids grew up? Was I equipping them with the tools and abilities to find a safe healthy spiritual home if they so chose? What if we moved away? Although, I loved that church I wanted something more enduring for my kids.

 

Now I know that should I not be here to guide them they will still have the ability to walk into an Orthodox (or RC, Anglican, and Confessional Lutheran) church with some degree of familiarity.

 

I guess it was the difference of finding ONE church we agreed with vs. an entire branch of Christianity (and a few long lost cousins..the other Liturgical traditions)

[FaithManor]

It would be hard to top the Eastern Orthodox Church for liturgy and tradition, but wouldn't you have to subtract as many bonus point on the "authoritarian" issue?

 

I think there is a whole lot more room in the Episcopal Church for having personal positions than is my understanding of the culture in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Bill

 

 

Bill, I think that on the surface you are absolutely correct about that. However, in practice, it can seem very different. I've experienced tremendous MORE grace, mercy, encouragement, and uplifting from EO priests and members on this journey...they just aren't upset, phased, etc....do not seem to have a dog in the fight that I MUST accept this or that on such and such timetable, than I have from any other faith tradition within Christiandom. I think it's that humble love and their ability to let go and allow the person to draw their own conclusions and either get there when they get there, or not, that I think the OP would benefit from...so, so many faith traditions have no room for those that struggle, seek to understand, etc. Many seem more interested in "blind" faith which in practice, is a lot more authoritarian feeling than the hierachy of the EO or at least, as I've experienced it. Pressure, there is just so much pressure within many churches.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I've never, ever felt the hierachy of the EO church, in the same way I've felt it in any other church and that says a lot given that we currently attend a non-denominational church with Methodist leanings and no major hierarchy at all. It seems the evangelical tradition, in attempting to shed itself of that hierarchy, has a tendency to place into being it's own authoritarian system of guilt, brimstone, judgmentality, etc. in an attempt to force conformity.

 

Again, that is just how I've experienced. Yes, traditionally, there is a LOT more hierarchy of authority within the EO. I just don't believe that it expresses itself with any of the heavy-handedness that has been prevalent within other groups.

 

Faith

[mommaduck]

It would be hard to top the Eastern Orthodox Church for liturgy and tradition, but wouldn't you have to subtract as many bonus point on the "authoritarian" issue?

 

I think there is a whole lot more room in the Episcopal Church for having personal positions than is my understanding of the culture in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Bill

No. The EO is VERY gracious on spirituality being a journey and one does not have to agree to all tenets before Chrismation and participation. No one brings down a hammer on your head for having a disagreement either.

[Parker Martin]

LOL I wouldn't put any faith in the Beliefnet test. It's just not exact enough when you come down to denominations because it's trying to address all religions. Also, too many of the questions are poorly worded.

 

I, for example, came out

 

1. Eastern Orthodox (100%)

2. Roman Catholic (100%)

3. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (93%)

 

Number three encompasses a HUGE spectrum of Christian belief. As for one and two, that's definitely inaccurate. In fact, I recently left the Catholic Church due to doctrinal differences. So it goes.

 

If only figuring out this sort of thing were as easy an an online test!

[justamouse]

Nope, that's not Sola Scriptura.

Those who initiated sola Scriptura still accept the Creeds, and hold to many of the traditions of the historical church. We don't consider tradition to be normative if and when it contradicts Scripture, but we appreciate it when it does not. We take early Councils of the church very seriously, unless they contradict Scripture's plain meaning. We are led by pastors who are extremely well-educated, learning about the history of the Church going back to the Bible days, and knowing all about the councils and heresies and creedal statements of the early years; and we consider that to be essential to a right understanding of the Bible. We believe that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. We believe that God serves us in worship, via the Means of Grace--Word and Sacrament.

 

You understand Sola as you know it. I understand Sola as I know it. The churches I went to before I became Catholic preached Sola, with a different meaning than you understand it to be.

 

So, my understanding of it and yours are not wrong, but different. So you can't really say, NO, that's not Sola. It may not be as you understand it, but that doesn't mean other denominations don't preach it as such.

[Carol in Cal.]

Spycar and others, presented in their own words, without endorsement, here is some ACNA background:

 

 

From the website of St. James Anglican Church, San Jose, CA

 

 

 

An Anglican is a member of the Anglican Church, or more properly the Anglican Communion. The word “Anglican” derives from the word “Angles” meaning English, and indeed the Anglican Church began in England. Today, many centuries later, The Anglican Communion is made up of 38 Provinces that include 77 million members in 164 countries. Some Provinces, such as the Anglican Church of Canada, are national churches, while others cover several countries. The Worldwide Anglican Communion is the world’s third largest Christian Denomination and the largest and most unified Protestant denomination.

 

In the summer of 2006 the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams very helpfully identified three things that when held together make Anglicanism distinct from other Christian denominations and contribute to the essential character of our church. Other denominations share one or two of these things. What makes Anglicanism unique is the balanced presence of all three. They are:

 

1.A reformed commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine.

2.A catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons,

3.A habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly.

 

These three points clearly linked to our reformation heritage, our catholic heritage, and our intellectual heritage nicely capture the core strength of the Anglican way of living out our Christian Faith.

 

So there we have it: a commitment, a loyalty, and a habit; three marks of Anglicanism. When these three elements are in balance we have Anglicanism. Problems within Anglicanism occur when they get out of balance.

 

 

1. A reformed commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine.

 

The word “Doctrine” means a belief or set of beliefs that is taught. For Example, the Doctrine of the Trinity is taught by all Christians. In Anglicanism all Doctrine is based on the Holy Bible. We approach the Bible as the word of God given to us for our instruction and formation. We believe it is easily understood in its plain language. Like the reformers of the 16th century we also believe that the disciplined application of our best intellectual ability will lead us to deeper and richer understandings of God’s Holy Word and so God’s Will. This results in the reworking of our doctrine, as it did in the abolition of the English Slave Trade and in allowing the remarriage of divorced persons. Our buzzword for the fearless application of our best intellectual ability is “Reason”. In addition to Scripture and reason, we also take very seriously the opinion of Christians who have gone before us. Particularly the teachings of the very first Christians. We call these teaching “Tradition”. Our approach to Doctrine is commonly summarized by the phrase “Scripture, Reason, and Tradition”. Scripture is the basis for our doctrinal reflection, to which we apply our Reason –that is our best intellectual ability – in light of what those who have gone before us have taught: “Tradition”.

 

We are cautious about changing doctrine that has been taught for hundreds of years. We will do so and have, but only when we are convinced that a deeper understanding of God’s unchanging Word requires such a change.

 

By basing our teachings on the Bible, we are freed from the temptation to dress God’s will in culture of the moment. The spirit of every age is a siren call that is hard to resist and the temptation to say that every new thing is acceptable to God is very great indeed. However, even the most cursory reading of the Bible reveals that God’s will for the world and the ways of the world are always in conflict on some level. Upholding the authority of Scripture in determining doctrine provides us with a solid foundation from which we may invite the culture to conversion. Our use of Reason frees us from a simplistic or fundamentalist use of Scripture. Our appeal to tradition forces us to remember the genius of those who have gone before us and helps keep us humble as we reconsider our teachings.

 

Our approach to Doctrine invites us into a constant cycle of improvement of our understanding of God’s Will, and into a process of personal and corporate transformation as our attitudes, beliefs and behaviors increasingly reflect God’s own. Let me put that very simply “our approach to doctrine challenges us to become more Christ like.”

 

 

2. A catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, (Sorry, it got clipped here. I will add the rest in a later post.)

Edited November 21, 2011 by Carol in Cal.

[zaichiki]

I think Catholic fits on 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6.

 

On 5, we do have the catechism, the bishops and the Pope. But you are allowed the time and grace to wrestle with the big ideas and there are plenty of resources out there to help with that. It isn't a blind faith, and you don't have to accept things without thinking them through.

 

On 7, I think that depends on exactly which issues you are thinking of. We give a wide berth on lots of things, but there are non-negotiables too.

 

If you are at all interested, we have the Crossing the Tiber social group where you can ask some questions and look at some of the issues. Becoming Catholic involves classes locally at your parish, and that is usually a 9-month long process where you also work through things with people doing the same thing, with no pressure. Many people start the process, and for whatever reason, don't "finish" it by joining the Church that year.

 

May God bless your in your journey.

 

:iagree:

[Avila]

Nope, that's not Sola Scriptura.

Those who initiated sola Scriptura still accept the Creeds, and hold to many of the traditions of the historical church. We don't consider tradition to be normative if and when it contradicts Scripture, but we appreciate it when it does not. We take early Councils of the church very seriously, unless they contradict Scripture's plain meaning. We are led by pastors who are extremely well-educated, learning about the history of the Church going back to the Bible days, and knowing all about the councils and heresies and creedal statements of the early years; and we consider that to be essential to a right understanding of the Bible. We believe that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. We believe that God serves us in worship, via the Means of Grace--Word and Sacrament.

 

What you are talking about is a caricature. How about you talk about your faith, which no doubt you understand, and leave descriptions of others to the others who hold them? The fact that others don't debate your claims does not imply consent with them. It merely implies that they don't want to create an unseemly argument in public.

 

I stand by my earlier recommendation to the OP to look into the ACNA, based on HER views, even though it's not my own personal view. There are many saving faiths, and that is one of them.

 

I think you have made this pretty personal. I neither require nor expect your consent to have a message board conversation, but you seem to have assumed some personal attack where there truly is none.

 

Your denomination may very well be led by people who are well-educated and look to history and context. Many no longer do. That is not a caricature. That is personal experience on more than one denomination I have personally been involved with. Whatever you use to interpret the Bible is now something plus the Bible, whether that is the Catholic Church or something else.

 

Scripture isn't speaking for itself. All of us use something else to understand it. You made that point for me. I am not arguing your faith tradition, pro or con. Just that the original poster (not the one who started the thread) who said that she needs only the Bible is not looking at the whole picture. Even people with no church and no faith tradition use something to understand and interpret scripture.

 

Again, I never implied anything specific to your faith tradition or started an argument with you over it. Really.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Asenik

[Carol in Cal.]

You understand Sola as you know it. I understand Sola as I know it. The churches I went to before I became Catholic preached Sola, with a different meaning than you understand it to be.

 

So, my understanding of it and yours are not wrong, but different. So you can't really say, NO, that's not Sola. It may not be as you understand it, but that doesn't mean other denominations don't preach it as such.

 

Sure I can, actually, as I am Confessional Lutheran. We are the ones who coined the term. It was distorted to something more like "Solo Scriptura" by others later on, but those like we WTMers who examine historicity should not fall for that.

[simka2]

Confessional Lutherans believe this as well. I am not sure about Anglicans, which is what I suggested before to the OP as the best fit.

 

Confessional Lutheranism is not ahistorical by any means. Rather, it is predenominational.

 

But although I think it's the best way, and it is what I believe, teach, and confess to be true and truth, it is not the best fit that I know of for the OP.

 

Carol, I apologize if I have asked you this before. As my understanding develops on who is who, I realize I knew very little about Confessional Lutherans. I am gathering that this is basically, Lutheranism straight from Luther, but before additives and losses. Kinda like raw milk? ;) (No offense intended)

 

Do confessional Lutherans believe in Predestination/election? I am not exactly sure when predestination came on the scene, although I know it was soon after the split with the RC.

[Spy Car]

I get the impression that it varies rather a lot from one parish to another, not just by diocese--though there are other levels of variation there too.

 

Correct. That is why said there was variation within the diocese. Some parishes are "known" as being Anglo Catholic, others are not.

 

Dh was raised Episcopalian, and the times I visited that parish it seemed, at least externally, very like the Catholic masses I've attended (though I do realize that under the surface there are definitely doctrinal differences). It was slightly less formal than the high church we visited for his cousin's baby's baptism (which was a rather formal high church Episcopal service), but still very liturgical and scripted. On the other hand, the Episcopal priest that conducted his mother's funeral service (his brother's priest, as his parents had stopped going to church when their parish hired a lesbian rector) was much less formal, conducted a fairly casual, customized service, and incorporated a Hebrew blessing (in Hebrew) from his days being raised Jewish. But it was at a funeral home, not in church, so maybe that was part of the difference.

 

We recently had a memorial mass for my late mother-in-law at the "Anglo-Catholic" Episcopal Church I have mentioned. The Roman Catholic friends in attendance knew "right where to come in" during the service, where some Evangelical cousins were lost when it came to participating in the liturgy.

 

Dh says that after his "great church search", during which he decided that denominations were just different "franchises" in the business of "selling" God, he remained Episcopalian primarily because he definitely believed in Christ and in the Bible, and wanted some kind of connection with other believers, but held some somewhat unorthodox views and the Episcopal church was the only one he found that didn't tell him he would burn in hell for believing as he did, and/or for daring to question the things he did.

 

The Episcopal Church Can have a "big tent" feel to it. Not everyone approves, even some traditionalist/conservative Episcopalians (some of whom have left) but for the most part the church is very progressive on social issues and accepting of differences on many of the "minor points," which was one of the conditions listed by the OP.

 

Bill

[Carol in Cal.]

Your denomination may very well be led by people who are well-educated and look to history and context. Many no longer do. That is not a caricature. That is personal experience on more than one denomination I have personally been involved with. Whatever you use to interpret the Bible is now something plus the Bible, whether that is the Catholic Church or something else.

 

You are tarring a great deal of variety with the same brush of a caricature that is not historically accurate and does not apply to my faith, which is frustrating, and you are stating those erroneous opinions as fact, rather than opinion, which does feel a bit personal to me. I am merely correcting that.

[milovany]

[Already addressed while I typed slowly. Carry on!] :-)

Edited November 21, 2011 by milovaný

[Spy Car]

No. The EO is VERY gracious on spirituality being a journey and one does not have to agree to all tenets before Chrismation and participation. No one brings down a hammer on your head for having a disagreement either.

 

I did not say anything about hammers on heads, but you would have to admit Orthodoxy is not a "make it up for yourself" kind of church. The very name of the church embodies the idea that there is a "right way", yes?

 

Bill

[Carol in Cal.]

Spycar and others, presented in their own words, without endorsement, here is some ACNA background:

 

 

From the website of St. James Anglican Church, San Jose, CA

 

And here is the rest, hopefully:

 

 

 

2. A catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons,

 

The second distinctive of Anglicanism has two parts: a catholic loyalty to the Sacraments and the threefold order of ministry. I’d like to explain sacraments by first explaining a word that is very important to all Christians: Grace.

 

The Meriam Webster Online Dictionary offers this definition of Grace “unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification.†Grace is the power to change lives. God gives it to us. We cannot earn it and we do not deserve it. God gives it to us so that we can become holy people.

 

We receive Grace in an encounter with God. A sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward invisible grace. Sacraments are means of receiving grace. Sacraments are encounters with God. Because God created everything, everything is potentially sacramental. Some people are drawn closer to God as they stand atop mountains and marvel at the awesomeness of God’s creation. As they open their hearts to God they receive a gift of grace. While all things are potentially sacramental, we Anglicans talk about two major sacraments and some of us talk also of five minor sacraments. The two major are Sacraments that Jesus gave us and which are available to all believers: Holy Baptism and Holy Communion. The five minor are called minor only because not everyone experiences them. These include Ordination, Marriage, Confession, Last Rites, and Confirmation.

 

Baptism is a sacrament for the beginning of our faith journey and Holy Communion is a Sacrament for the journey. In Baptism and Holy Communion we receive grace and our faith is strengthened. We receive the power that equips us to live transformed lives. Everyone who comes to Holy Communion with open hands and a hungry heart will receive the Grace of God. Sometimes the experience is profoundly moving and othertimes it feels more like a dutiful participation. What we feel isn’t as important as knowing that the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ is working in us as we participate.

 

Very early in the church’s history it became necessary to get organized and decide who would do what. The church was growing rapidly and some order was necessary to manage things. This need for order resulted in the ordination of Bishop’s, Priests, and Deacons. This traditional division of roles has proven helpful over the centuries. In the very early church there were different patterns of ministry developed, but over time the threefold pattern emerged. Other churches have other patterns of ministry and other titles, but Anglicans continue, along with the Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church, with this traditional pattern. This chain of bishops ordaining bishops, priests, and deacons ties us to the very early church and is a living reminder of our tradition. We call this chain of ordination the “Apostolic Succession†and believe that the chain began with the first apostles.

 

 

3. A habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly.

 

Anglicanism is a Reformation Church, and reformers like change. An openness to change has been a habit of Anglicanism from the beginning. This is expressed in two main ways. The first is an openness to local responses to local challenges. The church in Asia worships God a little differently than the Church in Africa or the Church in North America. Anglicanism places a high value on finding local solutions to local challenges and opportunities. Anglicanism has also always found much good to celebrate in society even as it calls culture to a wholeness of life in Jesus Christ. The first two marks of Anglicanism that I described – a commitment to the absolute priority of the bible for deciding doctrine and a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the three fold order of ministry- safeguard Anglicanism from becoming too reflective of local culture.

 

Intellectual flexibility is a companion to cultural sensitivity, and results in a church that is open to unexpected questions that can result in a change in doctrine. Anglicanism has never been afraid of critical examination of its core teachings, and indeed welcomes unexpected questions as an opportunity to critically reflect upon and reexamine our faith and doctrine.

 

So there we have it. Three marks of Anglicanism. There remains the question of Balance. Each of the three marks of Anglicanism are shared with many other churches. Held together they give Anglicanism its unique flavor. Holding the three in a balance is how the character of Anglicanism is maintained. When one mark is emphasized at the cost of others, the church becomes less Anglican and more like another denomination that stresses that particular mark.

 

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams explained what happens to Anglicanism when one of the three marks is emphasized above the others when he wrote “The reformed concern may lead towards a looser form of ministerial order and a stronger emphasis on the sole, unmediated authority of the Bible. The catholic concern may lead to a high doctrine of visible and structural unification of the ordained ministry around a focal point. The cultural and intellectual concern may lead to a style of Christian life aimed at giving spiritual depth to the general shape of the culture around and de-emphasising revelation and history. Pursued far enough in isolation, each of these would lead to a different place – to strict evangelical Protestantism, to Roman Catholicism, to religious liberalism.â€

 

The Anglican Way of being a Christian has much to commend it. It encourages thoughtful reflection while remaining faithful to God’s word. It maintains a strong link to historic Christianity that helps keep us humble about our contemporary views and opinions. And it encourages local innovation in response to local needs and opportunities. It is a grace filled way of living out a Christian faith.

[Avila]

You are tarring a great deal of variety with the same brush of a caricature that is not historically accurate and does not apply to my faith, which is frustrating, and you are stating those erroneous opinions as fact, rather than opinion, which does feel a bit personal to me. I am merely correcting that.

 

You know, we have had this conversation before. I understand that your understanding of Sola Scriptura is not the one I am referring to and does not apply to your church.

 

I am not tarring you or your church. I don't think I was tarring anyone. My explanation of SS may not be yours, but I assure you that it does apply to many faith traditions and it was my experience while in them. They no longer look to Lutheranism to define their faith just as Lutheranism no longer looks to Catholicism to do so. The differences evolved and expanded.

 

It may not be the definition as you or momoflaw understand it, but the wording used by the other poster and her rejection of church in any historical context suggests that it is the definition that applies to her theology. My apologies if it is not. As we were talking about her post and her understanding, I was using definitions and theology that apply to it.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Asenik

[Carol in Cal.]

It sounds like this may surprise you, but it really isn't a caricature. I am very familiar with many, many people who hold to this exactly as Shelly described it. In my experience, the way she described it is very true of churches with a history of less than 100-200 years (and most "non-denominational" churches). I lived this life for 20+ years. What she described is exactly what is meant by this section of Christianity (whether or not it's the historical meaning). Sola scripture (Bible only) means the Bible is the only authority in the Christian faith, and how you read/interpret it (i.e., your "personal conviction") is what it means. It is common in this sphere to hear the phrase "the clear meaning of Scripture" or "we follow only the Bible".

 

I had virtually NO experience with churches that had a longer history than this before converting to Orthodoxy, so it surprised me the first time I saw you or momoflaw or someone on this board describe sola scriptura differently.

 

It is not a caricature of those newer churches, but it is not the original meaning of Sola Scriptura by any means. It's ahistorical, and to hear it asserted as accurate and applying to everyone who is not Catholic or Orthodox over and over really feels quite oppressive after a while to those of us who do hold to the historic meaning of the term--and there are a LOT of us here, throughout the country, and world wide--it's not a little fringe element in some tiny hamlet in Antarctica or something equally obscure, LOL.

[Carol in Cal.]

You know, we have had this conversation before. I understand that your understanding of Sola Scriptura is not the one I am referring to and does not apply to your church.

 

I am not tarring you or your church. I don't think I was tarring anyone. tarring would be explaining their faith in a derisive way, meant to discredit them. My explanation of SS may not be yours, but I assure you that it does apply to many faith traditions and it was my experience while in them. They no longer look to Lutheranism to define their faith just as Lutheranism no longer looks to Catholicism to do so. The differences evolved and expanded.

 

Being as how we coined the term and defined it, why don't you stop using it to mean something else? Criticize some group's understanding of Scripture if you must, but don't do it by misusing a term that is misdefined and ahistorical. We are WTMers; we can do better than that. Furthermore, you do sound derisive in your posts, and it's wearing.

[justamouse]

Sure I can, actually, as I am Confessional Lutheran. We are the ones who coined the term. It was distorted to something more like "Solo Scriptura" by others later on, but those like we WTMers who examine historicity should not fall for that.

 

Well then you have a lot of correcting to do. Perhaps about 22 thousand denominations worth (there are 35k in total, so I'm giving some the benefit of the doubt).

[mommaduck]

I did not say anything about hammers on heads, but you would have to admit Orthodoxy is not a "make it up for yourself" kind of church. The very name of the church embodies the idea that there is a "right way", yes?

 

Bill

Yes, but it is not authoritarian in the sense that many have experienced (the manner that can lead to spiritual abuse).

[Jana]

Look at the Anglican Church in North America.

 

 

 

Actually.... From the 39 Articles (which express "the fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief"):

Article VI – Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.

HOLY Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

 

And also from the 39 Articles:

Article XI Of the Justification of Man: We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

 

I really hate to be tedious here, but these aren't from the Church to which I belong. Bill's already articulated my thoughts on the Anglican Church in North America, so enough's been said on that.

 

I really (really!) hate this kind of discussion, but somehow I've put myself into the fray (which I know I will regret). With that caveat, scripture described as "all things necessary for salvation" is not the same as sola scriptura. You may disagree, but the Church (yours and mine) does not.

 

It's not the best example, (or even the most interesting) but it will do. This is from your Church's website:

 

We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship.

 

Scripture doesn't "stand alone" to inform doctrine, discipline and worship.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Jana

[Carol in Cal.]

Carol, I apologize if I have asked you this before. As my understanding develops on who is who, I realize I knew very little about Confessional Lutherans. I am gathering that this is basically, Lutheranism straight from Luther, but before additives and losses. Kinda like raw milk? ;) (No offense intended)

 

Do confessional Lutherans believe in Predestination/election? I am not exactly sure when predestination came on the scene, although I know it was soon after the split with the RC.

 

More or less, Simka. We hold to the Lutheran Confessions as a true and accurate exposition of God's Word--and some of them postdate Luther. One of the most quintessential books by a confessional Lutheran that really gives a flavor for the church teachings is Walther's "Law and Gospel". Probably the best English book to summarize all the teachings would be Koehler's "Summary of Christian Doctrine."

 

Predestination--we don't believe in that in the way that the Reformed do. I have to think about this for a while to explain it properly as it is pretty paradoxical. Let me get back to you on it--I don't have time to do it justice today.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Carol in Cal.

[Avila]

Being as how we coined the term and defined it, why don't you stop using it to mean something else? Criticize some group's understanding of Scripture if you must, but don't do it by misusing a term that is misdefined and ahistorical. We are WTMers; we can do better than that. Furthermore, you do sound derisive in your posts, and it's wearing.

 

Carol, I am sorry if my understanding of it offends you. I have said over and over that I get that it doesn't apply to you. But Lutheranism doesn't own the word or the theology. If we all get to keep what we define, then you may want to rethink your usage of Trinity, the Eucharist, tradition, and so on.

 

You have chosen to take offense. You have chosen to read my posts in a way that I am not intending them. I can only tell you so many times that I get that you don't agree and I am sorry you have taken offense.

 

I am honestly not sure what else to call it when that is the term they use. What would you suggest that would be less offensive? How can we talk about it in a way that you know we are not referring to your definition of it? I am open to corrections here.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Asenik