Anglican Churches

[Esdra]

Hi all,

I’ve learned here that in the Anglican Churches there are High and Low Churches.

I have some questions to that:
So, if I lived, let’s say, in Great Britain and I would belong to the Church of England, then I could choose whether I wanted to attend a High Church mass or a Low Church service, right?
But do I have to submit to one of these forms or can I change? Let’s say, “This Sunday I go to a High Church (or Anglican Catholic) mass and next Sunday I’ll attend a Low Church service.”

I mean, from a youtube video I know how a Anglican Catholic mass looks like, pretty much (Roman) Catholic.
But what should I expect if I attended a Low Church Anglican Service? Does this look like in a Presbyterian or Reformed service then? Or is it more Lutheran in style?
Does a Low Church also have Liturgical Clothes?
Would I need to believe in the Real Presence if I wanted to recieve communion in an Anglican Catholic mass?
Do Low Church Anglicans believe in the Real Presence?

Is there i.e. a Low Anglican Church and a Anglican Catholic Church in one town?
Or are there towns which are more Anglican Catholic and others which are more Low Church Anglicans?

Many questions!

Hoping to get good answers,

 

[Contarini]

Hi all,

I’ve learned here that in the Anglican Churches there are High and Low Churches.

I have some questions to that:
So, if I lived, let’s say, in Great Britain and I would belong to the Church of England, then I could choose whether I wanted to attend a High Church mass or a Low Church service, right?
But do I have to submit to one of these forms or can I change? Let’s say, “This Sunday I go to a High Church (or Anglican Catholic) mass and next Sunday I’ll attend a Low Church service.”

I mean, from a youtube video I know how a Anglican Catholic mass looks like, pretty much (Roman) Catholic.
But what should I expect if I attended a Low Church Anglican Service? Does this look like in a Presbyterian or Reformed service then? Or is it more Lutheran in style?
Does a Low Church also have Liturgical Clothes?
Would I need to believe in the Real Presence if I wanted to recieve communion in an Anglican Catholic mass?
Do Low Church Anglicans believe in the Real Presence?

Is there i.e. a Low Anglican Church and a Anglican Catholic Church in one town?
Or are there towns which are more Anglican Catholic and others which are more Low Church Anglicans?

Many questions!

Hoping to get good answers,

I have relatively little personal experience with the C of E (I lived in England as a child but was not Anglican then). It has a geographical parish system, but of course people don’t always attend their parish church. Especially in towns, you are quite likely to find a wide variety of “churchmanship.” In England, there are very Low Church parishes where the liturgy is basically disregarded, clergy dress in suits, etc. Generally the “low church” folks hold to a “spiritual presence” view, I believe, though probably there are some who hold to a purely symbolic view. Some Anglo–Catholic parishes might expect you to believe in the Real Presence. But I don’t think most would ask.

Edwin

 

[Esdra]

I have relatively little personal experience with the C of E (I lived in England as a child but was not Anglican then). It has a geographical parish system, but of course people don’t always attend their parish church. Especially in towns, you are quite likely to find a wide variety of “churchmanship.” In England, there are very Low Church parishes where the liturgy is basically disregarded, clergy dress in suits, etc. Generally the “low church” folks hold to a “spiritual presence” view, I believe, though probably there are some who hold to a purely symbolic view. Some Anglo–Catholic parishes might expect you to believe in the Real Presence. But I don’t think most would ask.

Edwin

Thank you, Edwin.

But you could answer my question in the OP in light of an Episcopolean (which is also an Anglican Church, right?) about the situation in the US?
Are there also “Low and Hight Episcopoleans”?

 

[Contarini]

Thank you, Edwin.

But you could answer my question in the OP in light of an Episcopolean (which is also an Anglican Church, right?) about the situation in the US?
Are there also “Low and Hight Episcopoleans”?

Yes, but the difference isn’t as great. Many low-church Anglicans in England stay with the C of E because it’s the state church and thus the “default option” for English Protestants. In America you don’t find as many really low-church folks. And the majority of the low-church evangelical Anglicans are now part of the ACNA–the umbrella group of conservatives who recently left because of the homosexuality issue. At the same time, a lot of formerly Anglo-Catholic areas have taken on more evangelical and/or liberal elements.

The diocese in which I live, for instance, was once considered Anglo-Catholic. Some parishes still are, but our present bishop is more of an evangelical (actually one of the most evangelical bishops remaining in the Episcopal Church). He’s also a bit more lax on divorce than his predecessors–certainly not a liberal but perhaps a tad less conservative than previous bishops have been, if what folks in my parish say is true.

On the whole, evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics have come together in America as both perceive a threat from liberalism. In the ACNA, I’m not sure how long that will last now that the “common enemy” is no longer an issue. But a lot of us evangelicals in the Episcopal Church were drawn to Anglicanism by its “high-church” elements, so I’d say that a form of “high-church evangelicalism” is much more common here than in England. The dominant wing of the Episcopal Church right now, though, is definitely the “Liberal Catholic” wing, or even just the plain old liberals. . . .

Edwin

 

[Esdra]

Yes, but the difference isn’t as great. Many low-church Anglicans in England stay with the C of E because it’s the state church and thus the “default option” for English Protestants. In America you don’t find as many really low-church folks. And the majority of the low-church evangelical Anglicans are now part of the ACNA–the umbrella group of conservatives who recently left because of the homosexuality issue. At the same time, a lot of formerly Anglo-Catholic areas have taken on more evangelical and/or liberal elements.

The diocese in which I live, for instance, was once considered Anglo-Catholic. Some parishes still are, but our present bishop is more of an evangelical (actually one of the most evangelical bishops remaining in the Episcopal Church). He’s also a bit more lax on divorce than his predecessors–certainly not a liberal but perhaps a tad less conservative than previous bishops have been, if what folks in my parish say is true.

On the whole, evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics have come together in America as both perceive a threat from liberalism. In the ACNA, I’m not sure how long that will last now that the “common enemy” is no longer an issue. But a lot of us evangelicals in the Episcopal Church were drawn to Anglicanism by its “high-church” elements, so I’d say that a form of “high-church evangelicalism” is much more common here than in England. The dominant wing of the Episcopal Church right now, though, is definitely the “Liberal Catholic” wing, or even just the plain old liberals. . . .

Edwin

So you are then an evangelical (“Low Church”) Anglican/Episcopolean then, I assume? Judging from the sentence in bold.

Another topic:
Our Baptist Church supports a female Baptist missionary in Uganda.
In February she was with some kids she evangelized here in Austria and told me that the evangelization is nearly completed and that she will retire and’ll put this Baptist Church into the Anglican Church of Uganda. She has already spoken to the Diocesean bishop. When I asked her, “Why, as the Anglican Church and the Baptist Church are not congruent in belief?” She answered, “Because he is ‘faithful’”, meaning that he believes in Jesus as the only way and enthrusting one’s life to Jesus etc, I assume.
What do you say to that? Apparently the Anglican Church in Uganda seems to be really Low Church, otherwise I doubt that she would have said so.

 

[Contarini]

So you are then an evangelical (“Low Church”) Anglican/Episcopolean then, I assume? Judging from the sentence in bold.

I would consider myself an evangelical (though less so than I used to be, and many evangelicals probably wouldn’t accept me) but definitely not low-church. That was my point: in the U.S. more than in England, the high/low distinction has broken down to some extent. In part this is because of folks like me who come to Anglicanism from an evangelical background precisely because we love the liturgy, the tradition, the sacraments, etc. This happens in England, I’m sure, but relatively less so.

I come from a Wesleyan background and describe myself on Facebook as a “Wesleyan Catholic in communion with Canterbury.” I tend to agree with the Swedish Lutheran scholar Yngve Brilioth that Wesley and the 19th-century Oxford Movement had more in common than the latter recognized (we don’t know what Wesley himself would have thought of them because he wasn’t around any more, but certainly Methodists and Anglo-Catholics did not think a lot of each other).

I dislike categories that divide Christians from each other–I am obnoxiously, stubbornly, and defiantly ecumenical!

Another topic:
Our Baptist Church supports a female Baptist missionary in Uganda.
In February she was with some kids she evangelized here in Austria and told me that the evangelization is nearly completed and that she will retire and’ll put this Baptist Church into the Anglican Church of Uganda. She has already spoken to the Diocesean bishop. When I asked her, “Why, as the Anglican Church and the Baptist Church are not congruent in belief?” She answered, “Because he is ‘faithful’”, meaning that he believes in Jesus as the only way and enthrusting one’s life to Jesus etc, I assume.
What do you say to that? Apparently the Anglican Church in Uganda seems to be really Low Church, otherwise I doubt that she would have said so.

Uganda was evangelized by the CMS, which was the evangelical missionary society of the C of E, so yes, I think they lean more in that direction (much, though not all, of African Anglicanism does so).

I would make a distinction between Low/High and evangelical/Catholic. One can be Low without being evangelical (much of the Episcopal Church in Virginia historically falls into that category), and one can also be “high and dry.” Both the evangelical and Catholic movements in Anglicanism are attempts to call Anglicans back to a perceived primitive standard of holiness and orthodoxy. Wesley, one of the great renewers of Anglicanism (whose movement tragically wound up separated from Anglicanism, against his wishes), combined both elements to some extent. I wish to be both evangelical and Catholic, though I see Catholic as the noun and evangelical as the adjective.

Edwin

 

[Glen_Ellen]

As a former Episcopalian (left over the gay issue among other things) I can give you some background between high and low church in the U.S…

Part of it is historical. In my area we have both “high” or “Anglo-Catholic” churches and “low” (although not that low) churches. The Anglo-Catholic churches were started primarily by missionary clergy from the Diocese of Oxford (the original center of the Anglo-Catholic movement) and the low churches were started by Americans (more low church). I originally was raised in a high church (we even had an order of nuns attached to the church), but over my lifetime have been in both high and low churches (I personally prefer low, and after I left the Episcopal Church I actually joined a Presbyterian church.)

High or Anglo-Catholic churches in my opinion tend to be more elaborate and traditional in ceremony than most Roman Catholic churches (although service is said, or more often sung, in the vernacular). Communion (also called the Eucharist in the Episcopal Church) happens every week, and is often in high churches referred to as “Mass,” in the Catholic tradition. Focus of the service is on communion, and usually preaching is perfunctory. A lot of focus on genuflecting, kneeling, and crossing yourself at appropriate times. We used to kneel throughout consecration of the host and from then on, which I understand the Catholic church no longer does. Priests may wear full-on cassocks and birettas, which you would never see in a low church.

In “low” churches the services are less elaborate, and vestments and ornamentation of the church are likewise. Services tend to be said, not sung. No incense or bells. If it is really a traditional low church, communion tends to be only every other week, interspersed with “morning prayer” the other week. If the church has two services a Sunday, say 8 and 10 a.m., Communion and Morning prayer may both be said each Sunday but get switched in time, e.g., Communion will be at 8 and Morning Prayer at 10 one week, and then Morning Prayer will be at 8 the next week and Communion at 10. This way, if someone wants to take communion each week they can do so, although it means having to change the time you go to church each week.

Low churches usually put more emphasis on preaching, and thus the sermons are longer and may be expository (going through and analyzing specific passages of Scripture) rather than thematic, and they may have more contemporary services (e.g., a worship band rather than an organ and choir).

If you are an Anglican/Episocopalian, there is nothing preventing you from going into any high or low church and participating. Many Anglicans have familiarity with both types of worship and is partly a question of preference, partly a question of upbringing, which parish you would normally go to that you felt comfortable in. Theoretically, communion is open to all baptized Christians, but, frankly, I’ve not even been in a parish for a long time that even cared if you were a Christian before letting you take communion, (Another reason I’m not an Episcopalian any longer.)

A touchy issue is women clergy, which now seem to predominate, along with homosexual clergy, in the Episcopal Church (many of the women priests are also lesbians). Both high and low churches can split over the issue. Some churches which are high in ceremony but not belief might have women priests (I’m sorry, it’s just creepy in my opinion). Similarly, low churches may or may not like women priests depending on how evangelical and Bible-focused they are and how seriously they take Paul’s statements about no women. Women priests are generally not thought of very well in a lot of evangelical low church parishes, not specifically because of their gender, but often because they come with a lot of non-Christian feminist theology that is difficult to take. Women priests also tend to scare men out of church, and in low evangelical churches my experience is men have a stronger say in what happens then in Anglo-Catholic churches, which are in my experience now generally highly feminized in the Episcopal Church and controlled by women and homosexuals.

 

[Esdra]

I would consider myself an evangelical (though less so than I used to be, and many evangelicals probably wouldn’t accept me) but definitely not low-church. That was my point: in the U.S. more than in England, the high/low distinction has broken down to some extent. In part this is because of folks like me who come to Anglicanism from an evangelical background precisely because we love the liturgy, the tradition, the sacraments, etc. This happens in England, I’m sure, but relatively less so.

I come from a Wesleyan background and describe myself on Facebook as a “Wesleyan Catholic in communion with Canterbury.” I tend to agree with the Swedish Lutheran scholar Yngve Brilioth that Wesley and the 19th-century Oxford Movement had more in common than the latter recognized (we don’t know what Wesley himself would have thought of them because he wasn’t around any more, but certainly Methodists and Anglo-Catholics did not think a lot of each other).

I dislike categories that divide Christians from each other–I am obnoxiously, stubbornly, and defiantly ecumenical!

Uganda was evangelized by the CMS, which was the evangelical missionary society of the C of E, so yes, I think they lean more in that direction (much, though not all, of African Anglicanism does so).

I would make a distinction between Low/High and evangelical/Catholic. One can be Low without being evangelical (much of the Episcopal Church in Virginia historically falls into that category), and one can also be “high and dry.” Both the evangelical and Catholic movements in Anglicanism are attempts to call Anglicans back to a perceived primitive standard of holiness and orthodoxy. Wesley, one of the great renewers of Anglicanism (whose movement tragically wound up separated from Anglicanism, against his wishes), combined both elements to some extent. I wish to be both evangelical and Catholic, though I see Catholic as the noun and evangelical as the adjective.

Edwin

I like your destinction above (last paragraph).
If I were in the Anglican Church I would maybe “churchhop”. - One Sunday evangelical service and the other an Anglican Catholic mass. - 'though I suppose that I would tend more to the evangelical (The one without Real Presence or Spiritual Presence and the stress more on the Word) wing. (having seperated myself from the Roman Catholic Church and being now in a Baptist Church.)

Reading in this thread about Anglicanism, i find these Churches more and more sympathic. - Everyone can find himself in there, so I have the feeling.
You can believe in the Real Presence, but you don’t have to. You can have the Eucharist, but you don’t have to.

 

[Esdra]

As a former Episcopalian (left over the gay issue among other things) I can give you some background between high and low church in the U.S…

Part of it is historical. In my area we have both “high” or “Anglo-Catholic” churches and “low” (although not that low) churches. The Anglo-Catholic churches were started primarily by missionary clergy from the Diocese of Oxford (the original center of the Anglo-Catholic movement) and the low churches were started by Americans (more low church). I originally was raised in a high church (we even had an order of nuns attached to the church), but over my lifetime have been in both high and low churches (I personally prefer low, and after I left the Episcopal Church I actually joined a Presbyterian church.)

High or Anglo-Catholic churches in my opinion tend to be more elaborate and traditional in ceremony than most Roman Catholic churches (although service is said, or more often sung, in the vernacular). Communion (also called the Eucharist in the Episcopal Church) happens every week, and is often in high churches referred to as “Mass,” in the Catholic tradition. Focus of the service is on communion, and usually preaching is perfunctory. A lot of focus on genuflecting, kneeling, and crossing yourself at appropriate times. We used to kneel throughout consecration of the host and from then on, which I understand the Catholic church no longer does. Priests may wear full-on cassocks and birettas, which you would never see in a low church.

In “low” churches the services are less elaborate, and vestments and ornamentation of the church are likewise. Services tend to be said, not sung. No incense or bells. If it is really a traditional low church, communion tends to be only every other week, interspersed with “morning prayer” the other week. If the church has two services a Sunday, say 8 and 10 a.m., Communion and Morning prayer may both be said each Sunday but get switched in time, e.g., Communion will be at 8 and Morning Prayer at 10 one week, and then Morning Prayer will be at 8 the next week and Communion at 10. This way, if someone wants to take communion each week they can do so, although it means having to change the time you go to church each week.

Low churches usually put more emphasis on preaching, and thus the sermons are longer and may be expository (going through and analyzing specific passages of Scripture) rather than thematic, and they may have more contemporary services (e.g., a worship band rather than an organ and choir).

If you are an Anglican/Episocopalian, there is nothing preventing you from going into any high or low church and participating. Many Anglicans have familiarity with both types of worship and is partly a question of preference, partly a question of upbringing, which parish you would normally go to that you felt comfortable in. Theoretically, communion is open to all baptized Christians, but, frankly, I’ve not even been in a parish for a long time that even cared if you were a Christian before letting you take communion, (Another reason I’m not an Episcopalian any longer.)

A touchy issue is women clergy, which now seem to predominate, along with homosexual clergy, in the Episcopal Church (many of the women priests are also lesbians). Both high and low churches can split over the issue. Some churches which are high in ceremony but not belief might have women priests (I’m sorry, it’s just creepy in my opinion). Similarly, low churches may or may not like women priests depending on how evangelical and Bible-focused they are and how seriously they take Paul’s statements about no women. Women priests are generally not thought of very well in a lot of evangelical low church parishes, not specifically because of their gender, but often because they come with a lot of non-Christian feminist theology that is difficult to take. Women priests also tend to scare men out of church, and in low evangelical churches my experience is men have a stronger say in what happens then in Anglo-Catholic churches, which are in my experience now generally highly feminized in the Episcopal Church and controlled by women and homosexuals.

Thank you. This post is highly informative!

 

[hn160]

It has been said that the Anglican which includes can be High, Low, and Crazy and it’s theology is a mile wide and a inch deep.

 

[Contarini]

I like your destinction above (last paragraph).
If I were in the Anglican Church I would maybe “churchhop”. - One Sunday evangelical service and the other an Anglican Catholic mass. - 'though I suppose that I would tend more to the evangelical (The one without Real Presence or Spiritual Presence and the stress more on the Word) wing. (having seperated myself from the Roman Catholic Church and being now in a Baptist Church.)

Reading in this thread about Anglicanism, i find these Churches more and more sympathic. - Everyone can find himself in there, so I have the feeling.
You can believe in the Real Presence, but you don’t have to. You can have the Eucharist, but you don’t have to.

Well, you have to have the Eucharist, but some of the low churches don’t do it weekly (in the U.S. pretty much all do–in England and Australia and maybe some other places there may still be some who don’t).

But the further problem (from an evangelical point of view–of course from a Catholic or Lutheran point of view making the Real Presence optional is a problem too) is that increasingly you can add, “You can believe Jesus really rose from the dead, but you don’t have to,” etc.

Anglicanism is very, very appealing. That’s how I got “trapped” in it. If I had it to do over again, I would not become an Anglican.

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m puzzled by this; if you don’t mind, Edwin, explain?

Anglicanism is very, very appealing. That’s how I got “trapped” in it. If I had it to do over again, I would not become an Anglican.

Edwin

 

[Esdra]

I’m puzzled by this; if you don’t mind, Edwin, explain?

I can understand him pretty well. Actually this is also one of the reasons why I (nearly) converted to the Baptist Church, because it’s appealing.
'Though, so far, I don’t regret it.

Edwin, if I may ask, which denomination did you belong to before you joined the Episcopal Church?

 

[Contarini]

I’m puzzled by this; if you don’t mind, Edwin, explain?

Explain which part? Being trapped? Well, I take severing bonds of Christian fellowship very seriously. Especially when it would affect personal relationships as well. The level of certainty that you need to choose between several options when you aren’t attached to any is very different from the level that you need to leave one community for another.

If there was a way that, like Brother Roger of Taize, I could be in full communion with Rome without severing my present ties, I’d take it in a heartbeat.

Esdra, I didn’t belong to a denomination, or even an organized local church. My family come from the “Wesleyan Holiness” movement, but by the time I came along they were disillusioned with all churches and essentially worshiped as a house church. We would visit various local churches, but never get too involved, and we had Bible studies at home that were really our primary way of gathering as Christians. By the time I went to grad school I was convinced that this was deeply mistaken–but that meant that I had to choose a church. I could have stuck with a church in the Holiness tradition, but even my family wasn’t conventional Holiness by that time.

My parents are now Methodists, which fits our family heritage. Since my wife was Methodist as well, I gave some thought to becoming Methodist several years ago. But i couldn’t bring myself to move away from the Catholic tradition–and my wife then decided to become Episcopalian.

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No. Explain, if you don’t mind of course, the part where you said if you had it to do over again, you wouldn’t be Anglican?

Explain which part? Being trapped? Well, I take severing bonds of Christian fellowship very seriously. Especially when it would affect personal relationships as well. The level of certainty that you need to choose between several options when you aren’t attached to any is very different from the level that you need to leave one community for another.

If there was a way that, like Brother Roger of Taize, I could be in full communion with Rome without severing my present ties, I’d take it in a heartbeat.

Esdra, I didn’t belong to a denomination, or even an organized local church. My family come from the “Wesleyan Holiness” movement, but by the time I came along they were disillusioned with all churches and essentially worshiped as a house church. We would visit various local churches, but never get too involved, and we had Bible studies at home that were really our primary way of gathering as Christians. By the time I went to grad school I was convinced that this was deeply mistaken–but that meant that I had to choose a church. I could have stuck with a church in the Holiness tradition, but even my family wasn’t conventional Holiness by that time.

My parents are now Methodists, which fits our family heritage. Since my wife was Methodist as well, I gave some thought to becoming Methodist several years ago. But i couldn’t bring myself to move away from the Catholic tradition–and my wife then decided to become Episcopalian.

Edwin

 

[Esdra]

Explain which part? Being trapped? Well, I take severing bonds of Christian fellowship very seriously. Especially when it would affect personal relationships as well. The level of certainty that you need to choose between several options when you aren’t attached to any is very different from the level that you need to leave one community for another.

If there was a way that, like Brother Roger of Taize, I could be in full communion with Rome without severing my present ties, I’d take it in a heartbeat.

Esdra, I didn’t belong to a denomination, or even an organized local church. My family come from the “Wesleyan Holiness” movement, but by the time I came along they were disillusioned with all churches and essentially worshiped as a house church. We would visit various local churches, but never get too involved, and we had Bible studies at home that were really our primary way of gathering as Christians. By the time I went to grad school I was convinced that this was deeply mistaken–but that meant that I had to choose a church. I could have stuck with a church in the Holiness tradition, but even my family wasn’t conventional Holiness by that time.

My parents are now Methodists, which fits our family heritage. Since my wife was Methodist as well, I gave some thought to becoming Methodist several years ago. But i couldn’t bring myself to move away from the Catholic tradition–and my wife then decided to become Episcopalian.

Edwin

Interesting.
I also know a dear brother in Christ. He is a refugee from Ethiopia and he also told me that he belonged to a Holiness Church there and was severely persecuted by Muslims as well as the Tewahedo Orthodox Church. His family is still in Ethiopia and he doesn’t know if they are alive or not.
He isn’t allowed to ever go back to Ethiopia (it even says in his Austrian passport!)
I’ve always thought that he went to a Nazarene Church or a Methodist Church or so, but now I know better thanks to you, Edwin!
As there are neither Methodists nor Churches of the Nazarene nor “Holiness Churches”, as he had put it, in my county, he visits the Baptist Church I am also visiting.
Options for him would be, the Roman Catholic Church, of course, then the United Evangelical Church (in my county there are no Reformed Churches, they are all united with the Lutheran Church), the Old Catholic Church in communion with Utrecht, as well as a Brethern Community (I wrote about in another post) in the capital, Innsbruck or a Pentecostal Church (Assemblies of God, called “Free Church: Pentecostal Church”, and Every Nation and Vineyard.)

So, were would you go, Edwin, if you lived in Austria, in the county of the Tyrol? Just curious!

 

[Contarini]

Interesting.
I also know a dear brother in Christ. He is a refugee from Ethiopia and he also told me that he belonged to a Holiness Church there and was severely persecuted by Muslims as well as the Tewahedo Orthodox Church. His family is still in Ethiopia and he doesn’t know if they are alive or not.
He isn’t allowed to ever go back to Ethiopia (it even says in his Austrian passport!)
I’ve always thought that he went to a Nazarene Church or a Methodist Church or so, but now I know better thanks to you, Edwin!

Nazarenes are a Holiness denomination.

Compassion International, which has a strong Nazarene element (I know that two of their presidents were Nazarenes, because both were relatives of mine!), is very active in Ethiopia. My wife and I support a child through them, though I have some misgivings about supporting Compassion’s obvious attempts to undermine the Tewahedo Church. I don’t condone persecution, but I also don’t condone Western Protestants invading traditionally Christian countries and setting up their own churches, especially when they use material aid in order to attract people, which Compassion seems to be doing.

Options for him would be, the Roman Catholic Church, of course, then the United Evangelical Church (in my county there are no Reformed Churches, they are all united with the Lutheran Church), the Old Catholic Church in communion with Utrecht, as well as a Brethern Community (I wrote about in another post) in the capital, Innsbruck or a Pentecostal Church (Assemblies of God, called “Free Church: Pentecostal Church”, and Every Nation and Vineyard.)

So, were would you go, Edwin, if you lived in Austria, in the county of the Tyrol? Just curious!

Either Lutheran or RC. Probably RC if I lived there permanently. When I was in Germany for three months I mostly attended a Lutheran church, but also went to Mass fairly often (and was invited to receive communion, which of course will shock the good folks on this forum!).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

No. Explain, if you don’t mind of course, the part where you said if you had it to do over again, you wouldn’t be Anglican?

I got to a point in the summer of 1997 where I was ready to become Catholic, but my family (mostly my mother and grandmother) were insisting that I was deluded by Satan. I caved in to their pressure and left grad school for six months to sort out what I thought. After returning, I became Episcopalian. I wavered right up to a few weeks before confirmation. I was pretty sure at times that God was calling me to become Catholic, but I didn’t have the guts to go through with it.

I’ve changed since then. I’m not as naive and idealistic; I’m less sure what God is saying to me; I’m more liberal in many ways. I like some of the changes and not others. I can’t go back and be that earnest kid again (I was 24 when I became Episcopalian, but I was a very immature 24). I’m a much better fit for the Episcopal Church now than I was then, and I’m not sure I like the fact.

If I wanted to be faithful to my heritage, I think I should have stuck with a Holiness church or maybe Methodism. I did argue that John and Charles Wesley died as Anglicans, and I still invoke that fact to justify my position! It has some value, but it’s a bit of an excuse.

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I can’t imagine you being Catholic in that you don’t seem to buy many of the papal claims and you are too liberal for it. You’d be having to swallow a lot, eat a lot of crow.

There was a point where I was 100% on board with Catholicism and a gung-ho hardcore Catholic. These days I see Orthodoxy as more true to historic Christianity. The Eucharistic Ecclesiology that Ware and Meyendorff speak of makes more sense to me than the universal ecclesiology Rome proposes as the real model of Christendom. But I acknowledge that Rome has the loudest, most coherent, powerful voice on moral issues in the world, despite the Church being mired down by scandals and issues.

I got to a point in the summer of 1997 where I was ready to become Catholic, but my family (mostly my mother and grandmother) were insisting that I was deluded by Satan. I caved in to their pressure and left grad school for six months to sort out what I thought. After returning, I became Episcopalian. I wavered right up to a few weeks before confirmation. I was pretty sure at times that God was calling me to become Catholic, but I didn’t have the guts to go through with it.

I’ve changed since then. I’m not as naive and idealistic; I’m less sure what God is saying to me; I’m more liberal in many ways. I like some of the changes and not others. I can’t go back and be that earnest kid again (I was 24 when I became Episcopalian, but I was a very immature 24). I’m a much better fit for the Episcopal Church now than I was then, and I’m not sure I like the fact.

If I wanted to be faithful to my heritage, I think I should have stuck with a Holiness church or maybe Methodism. I did argue that John and Charles Wesley died as Anglicans, and I still invoke that fact to justify my position! It has some value, but it’s a bit of an excuse.

Edwin

 

[Esdra]

Nazarenes are a Holiness denomination.

Compassion International, which has a strong Nazarene element (I know that two of their presidents were Nazarenes, because both were relatives of mine!), is very active in Ethiopia. My wife and I support a child through them, though I have some misgivings about supporting Compassion’s obvious attempts to undermine the Tewahedo Church. I don’t condone persecution, but I also don’t condone Western Protestants invading traditionally Christian countries and setting up their own churches, especially when they use material aid in order to attract people, which Compassion seems to be doing.

Either Lutheran or RC. Probably RC if I lived there permanently. When I was in Germany for three months I mostly attended a Lutheran church, but also went to Mass fairly often (and was invited to receive communion, which of course will shock the good folks on this forum!).

Edwin

Sorry, my mistake. I meant Eritrea and not Ethiopia. But I think in this case this doesn’t make much difference, except that there are more Muslims in Eritrea and that this country has it’s own Oriental Orthodox Church, if I remember correctly.

Yes, I’ve already thought so that “the Methodists” seem to be quite active in the north and middle eastern part of Africa.
Can you, being also from the Holiness Movement originally, understand him going to a Baptist Church?

Your were invited by the Catholics in Germany to partake at the Eucharist? What about the so well praised communion? I am, actually, asthonished.