A question for Anglo Catholics (not in communion with Rome)

[Novocastrian]

Young people in their 20s are drawn to it precisely because of the combination of traditional worship, fairly solid, basic creedal orthodoxy, and social liberalism.

This is my experience of a large part of the Church of England.

 

[Yeoman]

It is dying very quickly and the statistics back that up you can read more about that on pew or other sources you’re personal experience is unique and doesn’t reflect the stark reality.

The problem with the liberal church model is that young people tend not to stay as liberal Christians, thats generally what older people are. Young socially liberal people tend to go all the way and become non practicing agnostic or very often atheist. This approach has been tried in places like Sweden, Denmark, and Epispocalians here. In all those places church numbers are abysmal and young people are nowhere to be seen. If you are going to stress a liberal doctrine then getting people to attend a boring social gathering with no incentives doesn’t attract young people.

Indeed, the statistics back you up, and an additional problem in this area, which the Catholic church also went through in the 1970s but has been pulling back from, is that once you become truly liberal in your doctrine, there’s always something else that’s even more liberal, to the point where it’s fairly easy to find some local Protestant church that probably basically has no “rules” at all. I note that there’s one such church where I live, with the pastor always in the news about what she is supporting.

 

[Yeoman]

Yes. More or less.

No offense taken, but you are kind to be concerned. It is very, very difficult to get me to take offense. Though I suspect, over the years, some have tried. Waste of time.

GKC

Thank you.

Let me ask one further question, as I’ve never quite understood it. For those in the Anglican community who hold very Catholic views, why don’t they all become either undoubted Catholics (which of course there is a now a vehicle to do) or, I suppose, if they have problems with the Papacy, Orthodox?

It would seem the logical path, as it would remove all doubts on the questions we’ve been addressing here.

 

[commenter]

Originally Posted by Contarini View Post
“Young people in their 20s are drawn to it precisely because of the combination of traditional worship, fairly solid, basic creedal orthodoxy, and social liberalism.” (end quote)

There are in the TEC individual congregations that are still orthodox in doctrine, though I believe there are few, if any dioceses, that are. Yes, people can still find traditional worship that meets their needs. But people are aware that the orthodoxy in this parish is very fragile, probably not typical of their diocese, and certainly not typical of the TEC. This pastor may support prolife, but the next pastor probably not. I can picture people continuing on, for awhile, because they like the traditional worship at this parish - it meets their personal tastes - but I don’t see them strongly motivated to evangelize others or raise children in Episcopalianism or Anglicanism, itself, even if they bring their children to services here.

Re: “social liberalism”, yes some people will agree with social liberalism expressed in a parish, or larger denominational structure. But in 2015 social liberalism is the dominant position in the secular culture. If a church says “Me too!” to every editorial in the NY Times, in the long run even liberals who agree with the NY Times will likely drop the church as redundant.

 

[GKC]

Thank you.

Let me ask one further question, as I’ve never quite understood it. For those in the Anglican community who hold very Catholic views, why don’t they all become either undoubted Catholics (which of course there is a now a vehicle to do) or, I suppose, if they have problems with the Papacy, Orthodox?

It would seem the logical path, as it would remove all doubts on the questions we’ve been addressing here.

You are very welcome.

The usual point of not becoming Roman Catholic/Orthodox now, for those who do not do so (and certainly some do, following the path you mention) would be the same as the reason for not becoming Roman Catholic/Orthodox before* Anglicanorum coetibus*, or before the Anglican community, generally, become what it has become, generally; inability to accept fully what the RCC/Orthodox requires one to accept. IOW, it is a matter of principles. Hence the existence of the Continuum, for some the solution. For others, remaining in situ, where that is possible.

GKC

 

[BernadetteM]

When speaking of Anglo Catholics, not Anglicans in general, also true Anglo Catholic at least when I belonged to TEC, many are actually high church, not really Anglo Catholics. I believe the bottom line to why Anglo Catholics don’t become Catholic is “authority”. There is a fear that individual parishes won’t be in control of how they celebrate the liturgy, etc. also that the priest will be under stricter control by the Bishop, which is true, although from what I have seen within TEC these past years the Presiding Bishop can do whatever she wants to parishes and priests. I know two priests that were removed from their parishes when she found out they sided with the Ordinariate, even if they were not joining it.

Within Anglicans in general as with most protestant denominations it seems that members think that the Pope runs their life. Nothing has really changed since I became Catholic, except the rule on attending Mass on Sundays and days of Obligation and going to confession when in mortal sin. Of course if you are Catholic you must accept certain beliefs, but this is also true of many churches that hold to specific doctrines.

All non Catholics have their own rules and some seem much more authoritative than what the Catholic Church teaches, no makeup, must have long hair, can’t play cards, dance and some can’t go to movies. I use to go with my friend as a youth and these were many of the rules that members followed.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[GKC]

When speaking of Anglo Catholics, not Anglicans in general, also true Anglo Catholic at least when I belonged to TEC, many are actually high church, not really Anglo Catholics. I believe the bottom line to why Anglo Catholics don’t become Catholic is “authority”. There is a fear that individual parishes won’t be in control of how they celebrate the liturgy, etc. also that the priest will be under stricter control by the Bishop, which is true, although from what I have seen within TEC these past years the Presiding Bishop can do whatever she wants to parishes and priests. I know two priests that were removed from their parishes when she found out they sided with the Ordinariate, even if they were not joining it.

Within Anglicans in general as with most protestant denominations it seems that members think that the Pope runs their life. Nothing has really changed since I became Catholic, except the rule on attending Mass on Sundays and days of Obligation and going to confession when in mortal sin. Of course if you are Catholic you must accept certain beliefs, but this is also true of many churches that hold to specific doctrines.

All non Catholics have their own rules and some seem much more authoritative than what the Catholic Church teaches, no makeup, must have long hair, can’t play cards, dance and some can’t go to movies. I use to go with my friend as a youth and these were many of the rules that members followed.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

The distinction you make between Anglo-Catholics, and high church, is one I make myself, as in this thread. It is a slightly pedantic one, and shouldn’t be stretched too far, but can be useful.

GKC

 

[Yeoman]

Within Anglicans in general as with most protestant denominations it seems that members think that the Pope runs their life.

That is indeed a common misconception. The extent to which local Bishops matter more to ordinary daily life in the Parish, rather than the Pope, is rarely appreciated. Not to diminish the role of the Pope, of course, but there’s sort of an odd common belief that the Pope is running everything.

An even bigger misconception is the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, of course, with a common protestant belief seemingly being that we Catholics believe everything the Pope says to infallible, which of course is far from true. That to have something declared to be infallible is extraordinarily rare is something that not too many people seem to be aware of.

 

[Picky_Picky]

That is indeed a common misconception. The extent to which local Bishops matter more to ordinary daily life in the Parish, rather than the Pope, is rarely appreciated. Not to diminish the role of the Pope, of course, but there’s sort of an odd common belief that the Pope is running everything.

An even bigger misconception is the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, of course, with a common protestant belief seemingly being that we Catholics believe everything the Pope says to infallible, which of course is far from true. That to have something declared to be infallible is extraordinarily rare is something that not too many people seem to be aware of.

“Protestants”, you say. Do you find these, as you describe them, misconceptions common among Anglicans? Is the universal jurisdiction of the Pope so very different from "the Pope running everything? Do you think Anglicans would find the infallibility of the Pope easier to accept if they realised it was exercised only vanishingly rarely?

 

[GKC]

“Protestants”, you say. Do you find these, as you describe them, misconceptions common among Anglicans? Is the universal jurisdiction of the Pope so very different from "the Pope running everything? Do you think Anglicans would find the infallibility of the Pope easier to accept if they realised it was exercised only vanishingly rarely?

Wouldn’t surprise me at all if you found the odd Anglican aware of these points.

GK

 

[Contarini]

It is dying very quickly and the statistics back that up you can read more about that on pew or other sources you’re personal experience is unique and doesn’t reflect the stark reality.

No. I know it isn’t unique because it is based on experiences in different dioceses in very different parts of the country, and because it is an experience shared by many people I know.

Actually I will take personal experience over statistics any time when it comes to a discussion of whether a church is “dying.” There’s a basic fallacy in the claims made based on statistics about shrinking membership. Just because a church goes from, say, 200 people to 100 people in ten years doesn’t mean it will go from 100 to 0 in the next ten. Maybe it will lose another 50 percent and have 50 people. Or maybe it is just shrinking until it reaches a size that matches its “niche” in the new cultural realities.

A couple of other points that triumphalist conservative narratives ignore or deny:

1.Church membership in general is shrinking right now, conservative as well as liberal. The churches that seem to be doing best are Pentecostals and non-denominational churches.

1. The much-hyped Rodney Stark thesis about “high-tension” churches growing is often interpreted (not least by Stark) as favoring conservative churches. But in fact liberal churches that are perceived to stand for something attract people. What is dying is the old “mainline”–socially progressive in a conformist, bourgeois way, vaguely liberal but not particularly radical doctrinally, liturgically traditional, closely linked with other “social pillar” institutions.

The problem with the liberal church model is that young people tend not to stay as liberal Christians, thats generally what older people are. Young socially liberal people tend to go all the way and become non practicing agnostic or very often atheist. This approach has been tried in places like Sweden, Denmark, and Epispocalians here. In all those places church numbers are abysmal and young people are nowhere to be seen. If you are going to stress a liberal doctrine then getting people to attend a boring social gathering with no incentives doesn’t attract young people.

Again, you are confusing doctrinal and social liberalism, and you are also lumping all forms of doctrinal liberalism together.

What causes real decline, as Stark and Finke found, is any form of church that is perceived to be no different from the surrounding society, for reasons you describe well.

But for instance, Union Church in Berea KY is a thriving congregation with a pretty high percentage of young people (to be fair, it’s right next to a famously liberal college). It is probably the most liberal church in the county–far more so than the Episcopal parish, for certain. (I know this congregation a bit because I played the organ for them for a month last year.) It’s certainly not dying, and even if you think it is abominably wicked (I don’t, although I do have a good many disagreements and areas of discomfort with them), as a matter of social reality it is clearly meeting some people’s spiritual needs in a rather powerful way.

Stop using statistics as a club to tell people that what they have seen and heard with their own eyes and ears isn’t true. My experience is not unique. Of course mainline churches are shrinking, but they are not dying. There’s a huge difference.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

No. I know it isn’t unique because it is based on experiences in different dioceses in very different parts of the country, and because it is an experience shared by many people I know.

Actually I will take personal experience over statistics any time when it comes to a discussion of whether a church is “dying.” There’s a basic fallacy in the claims made based on statistics about shrinking membership. Just because a church goes from, say, 200 people to 100 people in ten years doesn’t mean it will go from 100 to 0 in the next ten. Maybe it will lose another 50 percent and have 50 people. Or maybe it is just shrinking until it reaches a size that matches its “niche” in the new cultural realities.

A couple of other points that triumphalist conservative narratives ignore or deny:

1.Church membership in general is shrinking right now, conservative as well as liberal. The churches that seem to be doing best are Pentecostals and non-denominational churches.

1. The much-hyped Rodney Stark thesis about “high-tension” churches growing is often interpreted (not least by Stark) as favoring conservative churches. But in fact liberal churches that are perceived to stand for something attract people. What is dying is the old “mainline”–socially progressive in a conformist, bourgeois way, vaguely liberal but not particularly radical doctrinally, liturgically traditional, closely linked with other “social pillar” institutions.

Again, you are confusing doctrinal and social liberalism, and you are also lumping all forms of doctrinal liberalism together.

What causes real decline, as Stark and Finke found, is any form of church that is perceived to be no different from the surrounding society, for reasons you describe well.

But for instance, Union Church in Berea KY is a thriving congregation with a pretty high percentage of young people (to be fair, it’s right next to a famously liberal college). It is probably the most liberal church in the county–far more so than the Episcopal parish, for certain. (I know this congregation a bit because I played the organ for them for a month last year.) It’s certainly not dying, and even if you think it is abominably wicked (I don’t, although I do have a good many disagreements and areas of discomfort with them), as a matter of social reality it is clearly meeting some people’s spiritual needs in a rather powerful way.

Stop using statistics as a club to tell people that what they have seen and heard with their own eyes and ears isn’t true. My experience is not unique. Of course mainline churches are shrinking, but they are not dying. There’s a huge difference.

Edwin

Yep.

GKC

 

[boar2roar]

No. I know it isn’t unique because it is based on experiences in different dioceses in very different parts of the country, and because it is an experience shared by many people I know.

Actually I will take personal experience over statistics any time when it comes to a discussion of whether a church is “dying.” There’s a basic fallacy in the claims made based on statistics about shrinking membership. Just because a church goes from, say, 200 people to 100 people in ten years doesn’t mean it will go from 100 to 0 in the next ten. Maybe it will lose another 50 percent and have 50 people. Or maybe it is just shrinking until it reaches a size that matches its “niche” in the new cultural realities.

A couple of other points that triumphalist conservative narratives ignore or deny:

1.Church membership in general is shrinking right now, conservative as well as liberal. The churches that seem to be doing best are Pentecostals and non-denominational churches.

1. The much-hyped Rodney Stark thesis about “high-tension” churches growing is often interpreted (not least by Stark) as favoring conservative churches. But in fact liberal churches that are perceived to stand for something attract people. What is dying is the old “mainline”–socially progressive in a conformist, bourgeois way, vaguely liberal but not particularly radical doctrinally, liturgically traditional, closely linked with other “social pillar” institutions.

Again, you are confusing doctrinal and social liberalism, and you are also lumping all forms of doctrinal liberalism together.

What causes real decline, as Stark and Finke found, is any form of church that is perceived to be no different from the surrounding society, for reasons you describe well.

But for instance, Union Church in Berea KY is a thriving congregation with a pretty high percentage of young people (to be fair, it’s right next to a famously liberal college). It is probably the most liberal church in the county–far more so than the Episcopal parish, for certain. (I know this congregation a bit because I played the organ for them for a month last year.) It’s certainly not dying, and even if you think it is abominably wicked (I don’t, although I do have a good many disagreements and areas of discomfort with them), as a matter of social reality it is clearly meeting some people’s spiritual needs in a rather powerful way.

Stop using statistics as a club to tell people that what they have seen and heard with their own eyes and ears isn’t true. My experience is not unique. Of course mainline churches are shrinking, but they are not dying. There’s a huge difference.

Edwin

Okay by my personal experience Episcopalian churches are always empty and some are closed down in my area .So for my personal expierence case closed it is dying… The only fallacy here is that you think “In my experience” disproves general membership trends so I don’t get what you are trying to say. Membership and worship is down thats pretty measurable and not subjective no matter how its spun.

1. Yeah but where is it shrinking the most, the liberal denominations are drying up far quicker then conservative denominations who are usually treading water and not free falling like all the liberal churches, coincidence? Pentecostals by the way are mostly conservative (at least the growing ones).
2. Care to name those churches and what do you mean by liberal and stand for something. What far left church movement that makes Episcopalians look moderate have I missed that is attracting such a large amount of principled people. The Unitarians? they aren’t growing either?

Uhm I’m not beating it over the head but they are declining or dying really quickly. As to that uber liberal parish you mention, Okay I guess I mean you can find outliers everywhere but again socially liberal youth tend to abandon religion altogether far more then they become spiritually hungry liberals. Those young church going far left liberals don’t have the numbers to replace the older members of the church which also explains the decline.

 

[commenter]

The distinction you make between Anglo-Catholics, and high church, is one I make myself, as in this thread. It is a slightly pedantic one, and shouldn’t be stretched too far, but can be useful.

GKC

Our culture is so sloppy and blurring categories without any effort to understand distinctions, many wouldn’t recognize a distinction if it hit them in the face, it’s refreshing to be warned about the danger of being slightly pedantic.
To clarify:
Anglo Catholics maybe tend to emphasize, a little, one of these paths?

1. “High Church”, Anglicanism being one of the 3 “branches” successor to the ancient Church, ECF’s, Tradition, orthodox doctrine important across the board, bishop as successor to the apostles, Cardinal Newman ideas leading up to 1845, rector oversees the liturgy.
   or:
2. “Smells and Bells”, bishops are important but our celebration of the ancient rites supercedes church authority, dogma other than liturgy not as important, emphasis on intercession of Mary and saints in public and private devotions, rector the servant not supervisor of the (ancient) liturgy. Choir director makes more money than the director of Christian education.

I know these are just mild tendencies, not 2 separate religions, but did I capture it ok?

COMMENTER
Often accused of being judgmental, or better yet prejudgmental, obfuscating, taking-threads-off-track, blurring important distinctions, like the time I lumped Protestants with Buddhists and Sun worshipers, and occasionally downright vicious.
Never accused of being pedantic.

 

[GKC]

Our culture is so sloppy and blurring categories without any effort to understand distinctions, many wouldn’t recognize a distinction if it hit them in the face, it’s refreshing to be warned about the danger of being slightly pedantic.
To clarify:
Anglo Catholics maybe tend to emphasize, a little, one of these paths?

1. “High Church”, Anglicanism being one of the 3 “branches” successor to the ancient Church, ECF’s, Tradition, orthodox doctrine important across the board, bishop as successor to the apostles, Cardinal Newman ideas leading up to 1845, rector oversees the liturgy.
   or:
2. “Smells and Bells”, bishops are important but our celebration of the ancient rites supercedes church authority, dogma other than liturgy not as important, emphasis on intercession of Mary and saints in public and private devotions, rector the servant not supervisor of the (ancient) liturgy. Choir director makes more money than the director of Christian education.

I know these are just mild tendencies, not 2 separate religions, but did I capture it ok?

COMMENTER
Often accused of being judgmental, or better yet prejudgmental, obfuscating, taking-threads-off-track, blurring important distinctions, like the time I lumped Protestants with Buddhists and Sun worshipers, and occasionally downright vicious.
Never accused of being pedantic.

 

[GKC]

Our culture is so sloppy and blurring categories without any effort to understand distinctions, many wouldn’t recognize a distinction if it hit them in the face, it’s refreshing to be warned about the danger of being slightly pedantic.
To clarify:
Anglo Catholics maybe tend to emphasize, a little, one of these paths?

1. “High Church”, Anglicanism being one of the 3 “branches” successor to the ancient Church, ECF’s, Tradition, orthodox doctrine important across the board, bishop as successor to the apostles, Cardinal Newman ideas leading up to 1845, rector oversees the liturgy.
   or:
2. “Smells and Bells”, bishops are important but our celebration of the ancient rites supercedes church authority, dogma other than liturgy not as important, emphasis on intercession of Mary and saints in public and private devotions, rector the servant not supervisor of the (ancient) liturgy. Choir director makes more money than the director of Christian education.

I know these are just mild tendencies, not 2 separate religions, but did I capture it ok?

COMMENTER
Often accused of being judgmental, or better yet prejudgmental, obfuscating, taking-threads-off-track, blurring important distinctions, like the time I lumped Protestants with Buddhists and Sun worshipers, and occasionally downright vicious.
Never accused of being pedantic.

I thought I could perhaps edit the post above and actually make a comment (no idea how that empty post got submitted) before time expired. I couldn’t. Trying again

I’d disconnect the Lego pieces and reassemble them, making basically the same thing. The point (in my mind, and also in that of at least one scholar I read once, and have forgotten), is to divide the 1st and 2nd waves of Anglo-Catholicism to emphasize what each wave did emphasize. The first grew from the Tractarians/Oxford movement, circa 1830. This was an emphasis on doctrinal continuity, if only by careful interpretation, with Anglicanism and the undivided Church. It would be here that you’d place your para 1. But I assign these the cognomen of (proto) Anglo-Catholic. They talk, but do not look, differently from Anglicans of the week before.

The second group is rightly called Smells and Bells and Yells, though I tend to call them high church. The emphasis is on liturgical actions, and how one worships. How many candles and where. How much lace. How much smoke. Elevation. Kneeling. Genuflecting. It is not to say that the second wave differed from the first doctrinally, rather that they take the attitude of the first wave as given, and changed not how they talked, but how they looked and acted. These two waves taken together molded what one knows as classic Anglo-Catholicism. The distinction is not a hard line, nor absolute. It is useful primarily as an overview of what the 20th century knew as Anglo-Catholicism, and how it grew, in the 19th. To suggest, as I did, that certain types of contemporary Anglo-Catholics might today be expressing more the form of classical Anglo-Catholicism, than the content, is to stress the liturgical Ritualists as remaining, in such, as the doctrinal content taken from the Tractarian/Oxford group is … adjusted as chronological necessity may dictate.

Thus I think, anyway. No one need agree, except whoever that was I once read, as saying the same thing.

GKC,

 

[Picky_Picky]

I thought I could perhaps edit the post above and actually make a comment (no idea how that empty post got submitted) before time expired. I couldn’t. Trying again

I’d disconnect the Lego pieces and reassemble them, making basically the same thing. The point (in my mind, and also in that of at least one scholar I read once, and have forgotten), is to divide the 1st and 2nd waves of Anglo-Catholicism to emphasize what each wave did emphasize. The first grew from the Tractarians/Oxford movement, circa 1830. This was an emphasis on doctrinal continuity, if only by careful interpretation, with Anglicanism and the undivided Church. It would be here that you’d place your para 1. But I assign these the cognomen of (proto) Anglo-Catholic. They talk, but do not look, differently from Anglicans of the week before.

The second group is rightly called Smells and Bells and Yells, though I tend to call them high church. The emphasis is on liturgical actions, and how one worships. How many candles and where. How much lace. How much smoke. Elevation. Kneeling. Genuflecting. It is not to say that the second wave differed from the first doctrinally, rather that they take the attitude of the first wave as given, and changed not how they talked, but how they looked and acted. These two waves taken together molded what one knows as classic Anglo-Catholicism. The distinction is not a hard line, nor absolute. It is useful primarily as an overview of what the 20th century knew as Anglo-Catholicism, and how it grew, in the 19th. To suggest, as I did, that certain types of contemporary Anglo-Catholics might today be expressing more the form of classical Anglo-Catholicism, than the content, is to stress the liturgical Ritualists as remaining, in such, as the doctrinal content taken from the Tractarian/Oxford group is … adjusted as chronological necessity may dictate.

Thus I think, anyway. No one need agree, except whoever that was I once read, as saying the same thing.

GKC,

I wonder, taking Barchester Towers to be the definitive exposition of Anglican churchmanship, and given that we know where to place Mr Slope, Bishop and Mrs Proudie, and the Archdeacon on the landscape, whether we might in the light of your distinctions decide where Precentor Harding and Dean Arabin should be placed?

 

[GKC]

I wonder, taking Barchester Towers to be the definitive exposition of Anglican churchmanship, and given that we know where to place Mr Slope, Bishop and Mrs Proudie, and the Archdeacon on the landscape, whether we might in the light of your distinctions decide where Precentor Harding and Dean Arabin should be placed?

Since it’s been decades and eons since I read any Trollope, I’ll watch.

GKC

 

[commenter]

I thought I could perhaps edit the post above and actually make a comment (no idea how that empty post got submitted) before time expired. I couldn’t. Trying again

I’d disconnect the Lego pieces and reassemble them, making basically the same thing. The point (in my mind, and also in that of at least one scholar I read once, and have forgotten), is to divide the 1st and 2nd waves of Anglo-Catholicism to emphasize what each wave did emphasize. The first grew from the Tractarians/Oxford movement, circa 1830. This was an emphasis on doctrinal continuity, if only by careful interpretation, with Anglicanism and the undivided Church. It would be here that you’d place your para 1. But I assign these the cognomen of (proto) Anglo-Catholic. They talk, but do not look, differently from Anglicans of the week before.

The second group is rightly called Smells and Bells and Yells, though I tend to call them high church. The emphasis is on liturgical actions, and how one worships. How many candles and where. How much lace. How much smoke. Elevation. Kneeling. Genuflecting. It is not to say that the second wave differed from the first doctrinally, rather that they take the attitude of the first wave as given, and changed not how they talked, but how they looked and acted. These two waves taken together molded what one knows as classic Anglo-Catholicism. The distinction is not a hard line, nor absolute. It is useful primarily as an overview of what the 20th century knew as Anglo-Catholicism, and how it grew, in the 19th. To suggest, as I did, that certain types of contemporary Anglo-Catholics might today be expressing more the form of classical Anglo-Catholicism, than the content, is to stress the liturgical Ritualists as remaining, in such, as the doctrinal content taken from the Tractarian/Oxford group is … adjusted as chronological necessity may dictate.

Thus I think, anyway. No one need agree, except whoever that was I once read, as saying the same thing.

GKC,

Thank you for this explanation. Besides clarifying some things I have noticed in TEC churches in my local area, it also sheds light on a possible parallel in Catholicism. (Don’t worry, I won’t wander off topic again, already killed a couple threads in 2015). I realize this reflects not 2 religions but different, related tendencies within the Anglo Catholic movement, which is part of, not separate from, Anglicanism as a whole.

 

[GKC]

Thank you for this explanation. Besides clarifying some things I have noticed in TEC churches in my local area, it also sheds light on a possible parallel in Catholicism. (Don’t worry, I won’t wander off topic again, already killed a couple threads in 2015). I realize this reflects not 2 religions but different, related tendencies within the Anglo Catholic movement, which is part of, not separate from, Anglicanism as a whole.

Bless you for understanding. That last sentence is something I’ve oft had to try to explain, over the years.

GKC