Mark+

I guess I'm not sure I see ECUSA as either bad A/C or bad Evangelical or
much of anything else other than simply confused and off the rails.

And as to your post about the REC and APA being somewhat like oil and water
(that's my blanket statement, not yours), if the REC is the same as it was
back in 1875 then you're probably right.  But then, as a 5 pt Calvinist, do
you think that you yourself would have fit in very well?  If Guelzo's book
is any indication, the "Reformed" in Reformed Episcopal Church meant
anything but 5 point Calvinist.  This is especially evident in the 35
Articles (whether officially adopted or not).


MLW+

-----Original Message-----
From: mark.mary@... [mailto:mark.mary@...] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 1:58 PM
To: faithandlife@...
Subject: RE: [FaithandLife] Anglo Catholics and Evangelicals in the new
Church RSVP 2

Fr Mike:

I'm not claiming that ECUSA is conservative-AC-friendly.  It seems to me
that a conservative AC would be kicked out of ECUSA not because he is AC
(altars, sacerdotal priesthood, justification by faith and works, etc), but
because he is conservative (rejects women in the priesthood).  You seem to
acknowledge this when you qualified your AC by saying that he is a
consistant AC.  My claim is simply that most of ECUSA is AC, albiet liberal
(or inconsistant) AC.  It certainly is not Evangelical, either conservative
or liberal.

Consider Bishop Cummins, the founder of the REC.  He specifically left PECUS
(what is now called ECUSA) not because it was too libreral, but bec it was
too AC.  I don't know anyone who would claim that in the last 132 years
ECUSA has become more Evangelical; thus it would seem that ECUSA is
AC-friendly, just not conservative AC-friendly.

Am I still missing something?

mw


> If I proved your point, then I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
I
> thought you said that the present day ECUSA is A/C friendly.  In my
> experience it's just the opposite.  Most consistent A/Cs object to women's
> ordination.  To make that plain is to be run-out of most ECUSA parishes.
> 
> MLW+
> 
> 
> I'm confused because you seem to be proving my point, not yours.  EG, both
> you and most of ECUSA call the table an altar, while we Evangelicals are
> much more apt to call it, along w/Cranmer, a table.  We eat the sacrifice
> meal, but it's not something we offer to the Father.  It is being offered
to
> us.  While ECUSA may buck tradition and install women priests, that seems
to
> me to simply prove that they are disobedient Anglo-Catholics, not
> non-Anglo-Catholics.  They certainly are in no way Evangelicals, and they
> seem to share many points of doctine w/my more conservative Anglo-Catholic
> friends: sacerdotal priesthood, justification by faith and works,
Tradition
> and Scripture are equally authoritive, 39 Articles not binding upon
> Anglicans, etc.  Yes, they differ on a few points, such as women in the
> priesthood, but that just makes them bad Anglo-Catholics, not
> non-Anglo-Catholics.  Ritually and doctinally they appear very close.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
faithandlife-unsubscribe@...
> 

--
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: faithandlife-unsubscribe@...