Anglican Branch Theory?

[Denise1957]

A topic I’ve posted on often here. Derrick’s thesis is based largely on Tolkien’s opinions. Pearce’s C.S.LEWIS AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH covers it in detail.

IMO, it is poisoning the well. Lewis did not become RC. He stated, in several places, why (though he was studiedly not a sectarian.

GKC

Obviously there are going to be different opinions on the subject. And since Tolkien knew Lewis better than any of us, his views may have merit. I read Pearce’s book quite a while ago, before I converted, and I don’t remember much about it. I’ll have to pick it up and read it again.

It’s interesting that Chesterton converted, though. But since he was very practical as well as analytical, he may have been more open to conversion than Lewis. I could be wrong.

 

[GKC]

I too find Lewis’ non-Conversion to Catholicism an interesting topic, in a way. I wonder how many of his fans, when they met him, opened conversation with "I’ve heard that you’re thinking about not converting to Catholicism … "

I once spent a frustrating series of posts here, with a very poorly informed protestant, who insisted that Lewis had done just that.

In fact, he gradually moved toward the Anglo-Catholic side of the Anglican spectrum (though he was never a party man).

GKC

 

[GKC]

Obviously there are going to be different opinions on the subject. And since Tolkien knew Lewis better than any of us, his views may have merit. I read Pearce’s book quite a while ago, before I converted, and I don’t remember much about it. I’ll have to pick it up and read it again.

It’s interesting that Chesterton converted, though. But since he was very practical as well as analytical, he may have been more open to conversion than Lewis. I could be wrong.

I find it better than Derrick or Willis’ similar books. But condescending, in parts. No doubt JRRT know Jack better than any here. I still consider the idea as poisoning the well.

GKC

 

[BrethrenBoy]

Are there any Anglicans here that can tell me why they believe their church is true?

 

[Peter_J]

I once spent a frustrating series of posts here, with a very poorly informed protestant, who insisted that Lewis had done just that.

In fact, he gradually moved toward the Anglo-Catholic side of the Anglican spectrum (though he was never a party man).

GKC

Interesting.

I tend to think of his self-description “not particularly high, not particularly low, not particularly broad” (or something like that), but perhaps that was earlier than what you’re talking about.

 

[GKC]

Interesting.

I tend to think of his self-description “not particularly high, not particularly low, not particularly broad” (or something like that), but perhaps that was earlier than what you’re talking about.

It was. Over the years, he moved. He was a regular practitioner of auricular confession, accepted the concept of purgatory (as a process of purgation) and of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and a number of other points consistent with the RCC and with Anglo-Catholicism, though he himself did not consciously identify with any particular part of Anglicanism. No party man, he.

GKC

 

[GKC]

It was. Over the years, he moved. He was a regular practitioner of auricular confession, accepted the concept of purgatory (as a process of purgation) and of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and a number of other points consistent with the RCC and with Anglo-Catholicism, though he himself did not consciously identify with any particular part of Anglicanism. No party man, he.

GKC

Commenting on myself, since the edit function has expired.

It is inaccurate to say, as I did, that the neither high nor low phrase was earlier than Lewis’ movement to the Anglo-Catholic side. It’s from MERE CHRISTIANITY, and dates from 1952, so, with respect to a couple of points, Lewis was moving already. But, as noted, he was studiously not a party man, on these issues in the Church of England. He didn’t want to be labelled anything.

GKC

 

[FireDragon76]

Not every Anglo-Catholic subscribes to the Branch Theory, though its one common view, it’s not without its critics. Much of Anglicanism is like a very generous version of Eastern Orthodoxy. Some are more like presbyterians with guys who happen to be called bishops, but most are not. Most Anglicans view anybody that accepts Jesus as Lord and baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity as in the Church. There are a range of views about this ,but most also believe bishops are good or essential for the Church, and the Eucharist is the central act or sign of the Church. But its accepted that every region or people will have its own church as well and that this is part of being the One, Holy, Catholic Church - no single person has universal jurisdiction in Anglicanism as such, though Anglicans can and do hold councils, the Lambeth Conference and so on, these are not understood as infallible.

So most Anglicans are just fine with most Germans or Scandinavians being Lutheran, or Russians being Orthodox. Each one is a local expression of being the One, Holy, Catholic Church

Are there any Anglicans here that can tell me why they believe their church is true?

I’m not an Anglican (but I play one on TV … actually, I just go to church there, I was baptized Methodist, explored Orthodoxy and decided it was too insular and then…). I believe Jesus is present in the Eucharist when the priest or pastor (male or female) says “This is my body” and “this is my blood”. But do Anglicans get all the doctrines right? I doubt it, and Anglicans seldom pretend to have a list of infallible dogmas to believe- Anglicanism is more about a common tradition of prayer and belief, than trying to actually define those beliefs dogmaticly. But I really doubt Roman Catholics get it right, either. And I’m very OK with this bit of Anglican fudge., because I don’t believe that uncertainty prevents people from responding to the working of the Holy Spirit in their lives or Anglicans being Jesus hands and feet in the world.

 

[andrewstx]

I don’t really have a problem with Anglicanism (Ever since I disconvered C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien I’ve had a strange obsession with anything British). It just seems to me that The Church of England can not claim to be part if the one true church, if there is such a thing, when it’s origins seem to be mainly political on the part of the British monarchs.

Anglicans. members of the C of E would see this quite differently. They would point out that the King sought an annulment and not a divorce.

They would also point out that Henry VII did not start a new church, but cleansed the existing church.

I think it depends greatly on one’s POV.

 

[Malleorum_Deus]

O.K. I understand that. But how can an Anglican claim that their church is part of this, if they only exist because of a king wanting to day say he wasn’t really married.

That’s really, really, really summarizing this event into the narrowest of understanding.
The divorce played a part. What it did was highlight the struggle between temporal and spiritual governance.
Henry VIII of England is quite the interesting character going from “Fidei Defensor” with his writing of “Assertio Septem Sacramentorum” to separating the church.
Henry was no fan of Luther and did not see what he was doing as Reformation. Reformationists saw this as a huge opportunity.
The idea that they are a branch would stem from the original desire to be catholic (with a small “c”).

 

[manualman]

Not every Anglo-Catholic subscribes to the Branch Theory, though its one common view, it’s not without its critics. Much of Anglicanism is like a very generous version of Eastern Orthodoxy.

Some Anglicans may view themselves that way, but I pretty much guarantee you that most EO you meet will look at you like you grew four heads if you propose that in their presence.

IMO, branch theory is not much more than a handy way of explaining how divisions in the church are allegedly compatible with Christ’s instructions for his followers to be unified. They recognized the obvious absurdity in claiming the faith of England to be the last holdout of the one, true faith and so needed a way to explain how their identity as church could be reconciled with the obviously fractured communion of christianity without admitting to having broken with apostolic succession. Branch theory is just what it sounds like: picture a tree with but one trunk, but splitting into many branches as you proceed upward through the centuries. Although it is largely PR, it’s been a useful metaphor for them to use in trying to create a new paradigm somewhere between the protestant idea of an invisible church and the catholic idea of Christ intending a church with both visible and invisible unity. Cleverness, however, is a poor substitute for correctness as the global Anglican communion is starting to learn the hard way…

 

[Indifferently]

In a simple explanation, Anglicans hold this to be three branches of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. Mostly agreed, The Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans place themselves in that list. Some also include the Oriental Orthodox Churches. This is a view of Anglo-Catholics. Some Anglicans do not see the need for this, as they do not feel the need to be viewed as Catholic. These would be low-church Anglicans most likely. Some Anglicans saw problems with this, such as Bl. John Henry Newman, who converted to Catholicism soon after discovering the error of this thought.

New man converted because he was a homosecual, as we’re many other Anglo Catholic priests and monastics. The Church of England in th Victorian era didn’t like this sort of thing, so many of them went over to Rome before the evangelicals blew the lid on the whole thing.

 

[GKC]

New man converted because he was a homosecual, as we’re many other Anglo Catholic priests and monastics. The Church of England in th Victorian era didn’t like this sort of thing, so many of them went over to Rome before the evangelicals blew the lid on the whole thing.

I have my doubts as to that being the motivation to convert, for Newman. His mental path is well laid out, particularly in the Apologia.

GKC

 

[Indifferently]

It’s not a branch theory - it’s a branch fact. The Catholic Church has been politically divided for centuries. With the Great Schism we have two communions both claiming to be the One True Church. Anglicans just taught the fact that the Church was the mystical Body of Christ, that is, the blessed company of all faithful people. Yes, we loathe the divisions in Christ’s body, but they are internal not external.

There are four marks to the Church - One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Anglicans are unique in that the English Reformation preserved all four despite the odds against it. Women’s ordination, a devil’s doctrine, is sabotating this, however, but the fight back is well underway.

The Roman Catholic Church partially acknowledges the Branch theory when it removes “eat” and replaces it with “subsistit in”.

 

[GKC]

It’s not a branch theory - it’s a branch fact. The Catholic Church has been politically divided for centuries. With the Great Schism we have two communions both claiming to be the One True Church. Anglicans just taught the fact that the Church was the mystical Body of Christ, that is, the blessed company of all faithful people. Yes, we loathe the divisions in Christ’s body, but they are internal not external.

There are four marks to the Church - One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Anglicans are unique in that the English Reformation preserved all four despite the odds against it. Women’s ordination, a devil’s doctrine, is sabotating this, however, but the fight back is well underway.

The Roman Catholic Church partially acknowledges the Branch theory when it removes “eat” and replaces it with “subsistit in”.

Could you expand a little on your last sentence?

GKC

 

[Indifferently]

Could you expand a little on your last sentence?

GKC

By claiming that the RCC uniquely contains the fulness of Catholic truth, it subtly seems to suggest that Rome now views her self as the One Truest Church, rather than the One True Church. Presumably, branch theorists make the same claim about the communion they belong to (or else they’d be in another).

 

[Indifferently]

I have my doubts as to that being the motivation to convert, for Newman. His mental path is well laid out, particularly in the Apologia.

GKC/QUOTE

New man was also a very superstitious man. I gather that he used to cross himself every time he turned a corner.

 

[GKC]

By claiming that the RCC uniquely contains the fulness of Catholic truth, it subtly seems to suggest that Rome now views her self as the One Truest Church, rather than the One True Church. Presumably, branch theorists make the same claim about the communion they belong to (or else they’d be in another).

That’s not how I’ve seen Branch theory explicated. But what did the term “eat” as replaced by “subsist in” refer to?

I think that the RCC would say One True Church, and ecclesiastical communities, as outside Her.

GKC

 

[GKC]

GKC;10856085:

I have my doubts as to that being the motivation to convert, for Newman. His mental path is well laid out, particularly in the Apologia

.

GKC

Possibly there is a joke here?

GKC

 

[manualman]

New man converted because he was a homosecual, as we’re many other Anglo Catholic priests and monastics. The Church of England in th Victorian era didn’t like this sort of thing, so many of them went over to Rome before the evangelicals blew the lid on the whole thing.

Thanks for that one. I’ll file it in between the “Jesuit conspiracy resulted in Abraham Lincoln’s murder” story and the Maria Monk chronicles.


For the record, acknowledgement of the existence of schism within the church is not the same thing as “Branch Theory.” Catholicism has never denied that the Eastern Orthodox remain members of the church, though formally in schism (and so imperfectly in communion). That’s a little different than Branch Theory in which one can no longer differentiate among the “branches” which is the one Christ established and which ones broke away and rebelled.