"About As Relevant As a Mormon"

"About As Relevant As a Mormon"

A delegation of bishops of the Orthodox Anglican Communion, including our Metropolitan Thomas E. Gordon, are greeted by Pope Francis, who expressed his desire for Christian unity and asked for their prayers.

Paging Fr. Robert Hart and Sarah Ann Wagner-Wassen.

Comments

[Stephen]

I think your church is more relevant than the Mormon church, but I don't think this is the way to show it. Nothing would surprise me less than for Francis to meet with a delegation of Mormons and say exactly the same thing.

Anglicans don't need the pope for legitimacy, frankly, much as we may wish his church well.

[Embryo Parson]

Point taken, Stephen.

On the other hand, this meeting was momentous for the Orthodox Anglican Church, not because we depend on the Pope's audience for legitimacy, but because it shows we're on the move in Latin America and Europe, not to mention Africa. We have therefore earned the right not only to be called Continuing Anglicans, though some Continuing Anglicans disavow us, but the right to be seen as an Anglican jurisdiction through which the Lord is reaching many for the Gospel and the Anglican Way. Now even Rome has taken notice.

[APAPriest]

Father - you do realize that a general audience attendance is basically open to all? And surely you don’t use this as your means to show legitimacy. You chide Fr Jason Hess continually for being part of the CEEC, the same CEEC where ALL their bishops not only met Pope Francis but was invited into a more intimate setting and had much more robust conversations. I suppose that means they are more relevant than Mormons and can be considered Continuing?

Is this the same Pope that your bishops and priests continually talk about being liberal or heretical? Now you fawn over his “recognition”?

[Embryo Parson]

Before I answer your question, I must tell you that I have reason to believe that you're actually not an APA priest, but a priest in another jurisdiction. Am I right?

But assuming I am wrong, and you are an APA priest, what prevents you from doing the manly Christian thing by stating your name?

Will you state your name, or will it be either evasion or crickets?

If it's the case you aren't an APA priest, why don't you state your name and explain why you're pretending to be one, or will it be either evasion or crickets?

I expect either evasion or crickets.

[Embryo Parson]

Well, as I predicted, "APAPriest" seems to have gone mum in response to my challenge regarding his true identity, so I will leave that as it is and address the points of his comment.

He asks, "Father - you do realize that a general audience attendance is basically open to all?"

Yes, "APAPriest", I am aware of that. In my various online postings I have represented this event as nothing other than an general audience. Our bishops were seated in a place of honor, but they were still a part of that general audience.

"And surely you don’t use this as your means to show legitimacy."

As I explained to Stephen above, surely we don't. I guessed you missed it.

"You chide Fr Jason Hess continually for being part of the CEEC, the same CEEC where ALL their bishops not only met Pope Francis but was invited into a more intimate setting and had much more robust conversations. I suppose that means they are more relevant than Mormons and can be considered Continuing?"

The same CEEC, it seems, that helped arrange a meeting with the Holy Father and the heretical likes of James Robinson, Kenneth Copeland and John Arnott. But I digress.

You must understand that my sole intent in making this blog post was to chide a couple of folks in a certain G3 jurisdiction who stated publicly that the OAC is about as relevant as Mormonism. Furthermore, as I explained to Stephen, the meeting highlights that the OAC is on the move in Latin America and Europe, not to mention Africa. To be so utterly dismissive of us is to disregard the fruit that the Holy Spirit is producing in our corner of the Lord's vineyard.

And forget about the fact that we were continuing Anglicanism before Continuing Anglicanism was cool. :>)

As to your point about the CEEC, no, its papal audience does nothing to establish its credibility as a Continuing Anglican jurisdiction. Those credentials are established by other criteria. For the very same reason, our bishops' meeting with Pope Francis did nothing to establish OUR credibility as Continuing Anglicans. As I said, the meeting simply shows that we are more relevant than Mormons.

If you make the claim that you are merely continuing historical Anglicanism, you need actually be continuing, well, historical Anglicanism. The "three-streams" nonsense is a modern innovation that perverts the Anglican Way. It's really just charismaticism with an Anglican gloss. When AMiA and certain three-streams parishes in the ACNA constantly turn to the Vineyard churches for ideas and, gasp, even leadership, it only demonstrates the truth of that analysis. Same when the CEEC arranges a meeting with the Pope and the three aforementioned Prosperity Gospel preachers. One of my Anglican friends once commented wryly, "Oh yes, the 'three streams' - you know, the charismatic, the charismatic and the charismatic." :>)

"Is this the same Pope that your bishops and priests continually talk about being liberal or heretical? Now you fawn over his 'recognition'?"

The one and the same, but as argued, we don't fawn over his recognition. Many faithful Roman Catholics believe he's a liberal or a heretic as well. Was it good ecumenical optics for both sides? Sure, but at the end of the day Bergoglio is a Jesuit, and certain things almost always follow from that.