Fr Mike: Not taking you as contentious. This is the kind of conversation that needs to occur between the APA and REC, rather than some bland plattitudes. As far as my high churchmanship goes, I'm quite flexible. I can live in a low or high chuch environment, even tho I prefer high (given the right doctrine). I was in a smells and bells CEC parish (nose-bleed high. Left bec of doctinal differences.) and now am in a quite lower REC parish. We have no smells or bells. No one genuflects; few cross themselves. However, when I attend Synod, I get to do all those things. mw > Mark+ > > By the way; please don't think I'm trying to be contentious with you. I'm > not. You yourself -- as a "high church evangelical" -- probably would have > been told to put out your censor, take some candles off the table, and ditch > the bells way back in 1875. The fact that you yourself haven't been run out > seems to imply that the REC has moved a bit. I'm not saying y'all have > become radical A/Cs, but the REC certainly has moved. > > > 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@... > > > -- > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: faithandlife-unsubscribe@... >