The Continuum

The Continuum blog is a self-avowed orthodox Anglican blog, started by Albion Land (who converted to actual Orthodoxy) and is largely run by Fr Robert Hart, a polemical and fiesty self-proclaimed apologist for "true" Anglicanism. He is a member of the purest form of religion, the Anglican Catholic Church (if you haven't heard of it yet, your soul might be in danger).

This post comes courtesy of Father Robert Hart. In a comment on the thread, "Still I say Swim the Tiber without me," Fr Hart wrote here:
__________

Frankly whether or not some Anglo-Catholics like Cranmer's Eucharistic theology (as repeated and somewhat expanded by Hooker), it simply cannot be called heresy by any true standard. heresy it was not-not at all. And, frankly, I strongly affirm their emphasis on the saving grace of the sacrament when it is received with faith as the only truly Catholic doctrine of the Sacrament, and that concerning which we may be certain.

Stand Firm | Certified HETERODOX by a number of people qualified to do so

Stand Firm claims to be a voice of orthodoxy among Anglicans, however their blog is on record for openly allowing many heresies [just so long as its not gay sex]. Let's face it, there's much more to orthodoxy than simply opposing immoral behavior--that's simply called homophobia. From Sarah Hey's comments denying the sacrifice of the Mass, to David Ould's open support of Zwinglianism and so-called "Lay Presidency", Stand Firm is hardly the bastion of orthodoxy it claims, particularly by Anglicanism's own standards.

This post is one attempt to collect in writing some of the more outlandish statements found by Stand Firm's "orthodox" Anglican blogmasters (or accounts of being banned for discussing "second tier" issues like women's ordination). This particular post comes courtesy of Ms. Hey.

__________

Originally posted here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/24619/#396162

TX Thurifer,
You seem to be under a misapprehension.
RE: “Rome and Constantinople might recognize us or take steps towards recognizing us as part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church if we’d stop monkeying around with ordination matter.”
I have no desire to be “recognized” by Rome or Constantinople. I—nor much of Protestantdom—cannot recognize them.

Rome would need to repent of a number of heresies before I would want to share communion with them, including 1) papal infallibility, 2) the justifying nature of the sacraments, 3) the ridiculous notion that the Mass is a sacrifice, and various others both large and small. The main one would be Rome’s silly appropriation of “The Church” for itself when it is of course . . . not.
The above list is, naturally, not an AngloCatholic list. And there we are.
There are two rather interesting parts of Anglicanism [other than the foaming non-Christians who are in our midst and attempting to “lead” us]. Those who think Rome is the bees knees [why they don’t go to Rome I don’t know] and accept Rome’s claims about itself [obviously I don’t] and those who do no such thing.

I—and scads of others all over Anglicandom—am in that latter group.
As I’ve said a hundred times before, it’s not going to be WO that divides ACNA. WO is, in fact, a settled issue in ACNA despite the grousings that will apparently take place every single time that a woman is purported to be ordained in ACNA.

There are far far far deeper issues that will divide ACNA [if ACNA is divided and we’ll see about that].

[Note: all of the above said with the utmost respect for the many Roman Christians who read StandFirm—I utterly repudiate that church’s mistaken ideas, but not the Christians.]
[262] Posted by Sarah on 09-06-2009 at 08:52 AM

__________

Fr. Al Kimel left a comment (which was of course deleted for being a "rabbit trail":

#262: How refreshing to find a comment to which I may respond with passion and directness. Sarah identifies three issues (from a considerably longer list, I'm sure) that divide Anglicanism and Catholicism: "papal infallibility, 2) the justifying nature of the sacraments, 3) the ridiculous notion that the Mass is a sacrifice." The Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility--and I would expand this to include ecclesial infallibility, as Catholics understand the exercise of papal infallibility as simply an instantiation of the infallibility of the Church--does divide Catholicism and Protestantism, and so I am not surprised to see it cited first in the list. But what about the other two? "The justifying nature of the sacraments"--if this is a doctrine that separates Catholics and Anglicans, it is also a doctrine that separates Anglicans and Anglicans. As an Anglican I always believed in the justifying nature of the sacraments. Precisely because sacraments are actions of the risen Christ, they justify, sanctify, regenerate, glorify, etc., etc. We do not make them effective *by* our faith; rather, we receive them *in* faith. I am reminded of the old Prayer Book Catechism. The catechist asks the person, "Who gave you this name?" Response: "My Sponsors in Baptism; wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." All one needs to do is to read the old Anglican rite of Holy Baptism, in which, I strongly suggest, the justifying nature of the sacraments is boldly embodied and asserted. The prayers and words of the rite make no sense apart from an understanding that Christ Jesus is himself the actor in and administrator of the sacrament. I might also point out that Martin Luther also believed in the justifying nature of the sacraments. It is precisely sacrament as divine word external to the believer that saves us from the inherent sinful desire to justify ourselves by our faith and works. If Sarah is truly denying the justifying nature of the sacraments, then she, and all others who agree with her, is guilty of material heresy. I say this with all respect. "The ridiculous notion that the Mass is a sacrifice"--I will give Sarah the benefit of the doubt of actually knowing what the Catholic Church teaches on the sacrifice of the Mass. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice in addition to the sacrifice of Calvary; she teaches that it is a re-presentation of Calvary and in the most profound sense identical to it. I must assume that it is this construal of eucharistic sacrifice that Sarah believes to be ridiculous and heterodox. Curiously, I learned this ridiculous doctrine not from the Catholic Church but from Anglicanism, historic and contemporary. No doubt the Anglicans who taught this to me must be considered as having been corrupted by Catholic teaching. And somehow this corrupt understanding found its way into the 1979 Catechism: "Why is the Eucharist called a sacrifice? Because the Eucharist, the Church's sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself." There is nothing novel or even particularly "Roman" about this doctrine of the eucharistic sacrifice. It is easily found throughout the Church Fathers and ancient liturgies. It is taught and confessed by the Orthodox Church and its theologians. And it has been taught by many Anglicans in the past and is reflected in the ARCIC agreement on the Eucharist. If this is the doctrine that Sarah is repudiating, then Sarah must be deemed guilty of material heresy. Again, I say this with all respect. I am not rejecting Sarah and those who agree with her as persons, but charity compels me to speak clearly and directly. Does the majority of ACNA agree with Sarah on this? Is this what the bishops and priests of ACNA are teaching and preaching? If yes, how can Anglo-Catholics in conscience unite themselves to such a body? Respectfully, Fr Alvin Kimel

__________
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/24619/#396173

When deleting Fr. Kimel's rebuttal, she wrote this:

"RE: “If this is the doctrine that Sarah is repudiating, then Sarah must
be deemed guilty of material heresy. Again, I say this with all
respect.”

No offense taken—that is, of course, the reason why the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants represent such a chasm. You also missed a key difference—there were four that I mentioned, and that fourth was the “silly” one that I mentioned earlier.

However, this post is not about the chasm between Roman Catholics and Protestants.

I’ll give you time to copy your comment above and post it to your own blog before I delete it, and then direct future responses to it over to your blog as well, so that this post remains on topic."

About

This is a blog to keep a record of heterodoxy (typically accompanied by censuring of orthodox criticism) on self-proclaimed orthodox Christian blogs and websites. The sites highlighted here are those who have egregious records by the blog authors/webmasters themselves (i.e., more than the occasional accidental slide into heresy or deletion of a valid critique made by a commenter).

What is the minimum standard of orthodox Christian belief you ask? It is, at minimum, for all self-professed orthodox Christians: the dogmas of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and their resulting doctrines (e.g., the Real Presence of the Eucharist, the all-male priesthood, the Dormition/Assumption of Mary, etc.). For further reference, see the Orthodoxwiki.

Suggestions of blogs and websites are ALWAYS WELCOME, but to be added to our list it must be accompanied by a strong example of openly denying an orthodox doctrine or its accompanying moral practice by a self-professed orthodox Christian blog author/webmaster. Copying & pasting of the example from those websites are required along with a link citation, and in the (likely) eventuality of thread/comment deletion (likely deleted without notice or flagged as "off topic"), please direct the citation you send us to the Way Back Machine or Google Cache.

Please send all suggestions to: heterodoxcitings [at] gmail.com