Anglican questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter mark_a
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mark_a

Guest
So I’m trying to follow the “Anglicans to Rome-thread 2 thread”. .

They are trying to stay focused and are really getting technical, so I thought it best to ask some questions starting another thread.

Can someone explain these terms and how they differ from one another? I used to presume they were sota kinda interchangable. I’m familiar w/ the Henry VIII part of the story, if anyone cares to pick it up from there.

Anglican
TAC
Episcopal
Anglican Church of North American
ECUSA
Traditional Anglican Communion
Church of England
Low Churchmen
High Churchmen
sui juris
Indult Catholics
APCK
Anglican Catholic
 
Anglican=a member of the Church of England, or another church in the world-wide Anglican communion (formed by Anglican immigration and missionary activity), or a church influenced by the traditions of the Church of England. Sometimes used since the 19th century to describe an alleged “middle way” between “Roman” Catholicism and Protestantism, holding to the teachings of the “undivided” Church of the first millenium. But this is better described by the term “Anglo-Catholicism.”

TAC=an international communion of traditional Anglican churches. The U.S. branch, the “Anglican Church in America,” is one of a number of small denominations that broke away from the Episcopal Church owing to the ordination of women and the revision of the Prayer Book in 1979. These “Continuing Churches” differ very little from each other in doctrine but have been unable to form a united front so far.

Episcopal=the branches of the Anglican Communion existing in the Scotland, the United States, and a few other places (such as Mexico) whose Anglicanism derives from the U.S. Both Scotland and the U.S. originally used the term “Episcopal Church” to indicate that they were not simply puppets of England. Today, an Episcopalian in the U.S. is a member of the large, “mainline,” liberal expression of Anglicanism. Many conservative Episcopal parishes and dioceses (and individuals, such as myself) have begun referring to themselves as “Anglican” as a way of stressing our identification with the worldwide Communion, without actually leaving ECUSA.

Anglican Church of North America=the original name of the Continuing Anglicans. However, they very quickly split into several different groups, and I believe that the only part of ACNA left was the Province of Christ the King, so that it now refers to itself as the Anglican Church of the Province of Christ the King. GKC can perhaps correct me on this one.

ECUSA =the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. The U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion, in full communion with Canterbury but currently in a state of impaired communion with a number of other parts of the Communion owing to the election of Gene Robinson.

Traditional Anglican Communion --see TAC

Church of England --the “mother church” of Anglicanism. The state church of England (not Scotland or Wales), with a wide variety of theological belief and practice ranging from low-church evangelicalism to Anglo-Catholicism to extreme liberalism.

Low Churchmen–the Protestant wing of Anglicanism, particularly with regard to ritual. At one time this meant something almost indistinguishable from Presbyterianism. Today that old-fashioned Low-Church Anglicanism still exists, but there are also charismatic Anglicans, and because of the shift toward Catholicism in the past couple of centuries “low church” may simply mean “not Anglo-Catholic”–no private confession, no incense or chanting, communion once a week with perhaps a mid-week Eucharist as well, etc. Today, any church not having weekly Eucharist is considered very low church indeed (whereas once monthly or quarterly communion was normal). Similarly, almost all Anglican priests (at least in the U.S.) wear Eucharistic vestments, which would have been almost unheard-of at one time.

High Churchmen=Anglicans who emphasize the importance of ritual, tradition, and the structure of the Church, and are more likely to emphasize the Fathers and the medieval tradition rather than the Reformation. The two typical high-church doctrines traditionally were baptismal regeneration and apostolic succession (though of course a stronger doctrine of the Eucharistic presence also came along with this). Since the 19th century “High Church” may be indistinguishable from “Anglo-Catholic,” but it may also be a bit broader.
 
sui juris=the Catholic equivalent of “autonomous” churches in Orthodoxy. A church in the Roman Communion (or, if you prefer, the Catholic Church) with its own traditions, canon law, and ecclesiastical structure, which may have some dependence on another church but is not simply an appendage of it. At least that’s my understanding–Catholics could no doubt speak more precisely. “Sui juris” is Latin for “of its own law” or “of its own right.”

Indult Catholics=Catholics in full communion with Rome who attend a parish celebrating the Tridentine Mass by permission (indult) from the Vatican, at the discretion of the local bishop. To be distinguished from those Catholics who attend schismatic or quasi-schismatic parishes affiliated with groups like SSPX or SSPV.

APCK=the Anglican Province of Christ the King–to the best of my knowledge, all that is left of the Anglican Church in North America, which was the original “Continuing Anglican” jurisdiction.

Anglican Catholic: the Anglican Catholic Church is one of the larger Continuing Anglican bodies–it split away from the ACNA. Allegedly there were theological reasons and the ACC was trying to preserve a more clearly Anglo-Catholic identity, but in my experience the APCK is actually more Anglo-Catholic than the ACC (the really Anglo-Catholic wing of the ACC later split away and now calls itself the Holy Catholic Church–Anglican Rite). From what I’ve been told, I believe that the main reason for the split was the personality of the head of the APCK.

Anglican Catholic may also be a synonym for Anglo-Catholic. Anglo-Catholics are Anglicans who see themselves as a third branch of the Catholic Church along with the communions of Rome and Constant(name removed by moderator)le. They claim that Anglicanism retains as its doctrinal standards the teachings of the undivided Church of the first millenium, and that Protestant doctrine is a kind of infestation in Anglicanism that has not changed its essential character. Again, GKC (who unlike me is a real Anglo-Catholic) can give you better information from the inside.

In Christ,

Edwin
 
Thanks for the crash course. I can see that it took quite some effort.

Gee, I thought the Orthodox/Eastern/Western/Catholic thing was complicated. . . . .
 
Contarini,

Great job.

As for your comment on the APCK and the orginal Anglican Church of North America, certainly ++Morse is the only bishop remaining of the 4 original bishops consecrated by +Chambers. Thus conveying to the Continuum PNCC lines, incidentally. The Anglican Catholic Church does look at itself, and the APCK, as the only real deal in the Continuum.

Oh. “Continuum” is another way to refer to the traditional Anglican churches that broke from the Anglican Communion, and are known as “Continuing Anglicans”.

Really neat post.

GKC

traditional Anglican
 
mark a:
So I’m trying to follow the “Anglicans to Rome-thread 2 thread”. .

They are trying to stay focused and are really getting technical, so I thought it best to ask some questions starting another thread.

Can someone explain these terms and how they differ from one another? I used to presume they were sota kinda interchangable. I’m familiar w/ the Henry VIII part of the story, if anyone cares to pick it up from there.

Anglican
TAC
Episcopal
Anglican Church of North American
ECUSA
Traditional Anglican Communion
Church of England
Low Churchmen
High Churchmen
sui juris
Indult Catholics
APCK
Anglican Catholic
Click to expand...
Easy, invent a new man made opinion and invent a new protestant church to believe in them. It is the decay of the Faith of those who left Christ’s Catholic Church.
 
**## Two additions to Contarini’s fine posts: **
"Broad Churchmen"
**- that “tone” or temper of Anglican Churchmanship which is neither Rome-ward nor Geneva-ward. It is itself a middle way between High and Low Anglicanism. AKA “Latitudinarians” - not to be confused with the Latitudinarians of the 18th century, who would have a good deal in common with the “High Church” of today, up to a point. **
**Labels are as apt to hide meaning as to reveal it. **
**BTW, one can perfectly well be “High Church” and “liberal” - “liberalism” in doctrine or on Biblical matters is not confined to the Broad Church. Again, “liberalism” is a relative term, not ansolute, so, as often used, it is almost useless as a label. **
**Low Church Anglicanism, though often Calvinist, is not always so: Wesleyan Methodism is Arminian in origin, not Calvinist except in the sense that Arminianism is historically derived from Calvinism. Low Church Anglicanism is more “Protestant” in “tone” & “temper” than the High Church type. It should not be confused with the **
**“Free Churches” (formerly known as “[Protestant] Dissenters”): a name given to the bodies, sometimes founded by dissenters from the C of E. These are the Protestant Churches in England other than the “Protestant Church as by law established” - Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterian Church in England, and so forth. It seems that what US Catholics encounter as Protestant is usually this type of Protestantism. **
High, Broad, and Low Churchmanship are all represented by various organisations within the C of E: none is more or less “truly Anglican” than the others; though not all are of equal date. The “argument from prescription” so popular in RC apologetics is not applied within Anglicanism to any of these Churchmanships; all are equally legitimate, and complement each other. This is at once a strength, and a weakness. ##
 
Gottle of Geer said:
**## Two additions to Contarini’s fine posts: **
"Broad Churchmen"
- that “tone” or temper of Anglican Churchmanship which is neither Rome-ward nor Geneva-ward. It is itself a middle way between High and Low Anglicanism. AKA “Latitudinarians” - not to be confused with the Latitudinarians of the 18th century, who would have a good deal in common with the “High Church” of today, up to a point.
**Labels are as apt to hide meaning as to reveal it. **
**BTW, one can perfectly well be “High Church” and “liberal” - “liberalism” in doctrine or on Biblical matters is not confined to the Broad Church. Again, “liberalism” is a relative term, not ansolute, so, as often used, it is almost useless as a label. **
Low Church Anglicanism, though often Calvinist, is not always so: Wesleyan Methodism is Arminian in origin, not Calvinist except in the sense that Arminianism is historically derived from Calvinism. Low Church Anglicanism is more “Protestant” in “tone” & “temper” than the High Church type. It should not be confused with the
"Free Churches" (formerly known as “[Protestant] Dissenters”): a name given to the bodies, sometimes founded by dissenters from the C of E. These are the Protestant Churches in England other than the “Protestant Church as by law established” - Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterian Church in England, and so forth. It seems that what US Catholics encounter as Protestant is usually this type of Protestantism.
High, Broad, and Low Churchmanship are all represented by various organisations within the C of E: none is more or less “truly Anglican” than the others; though not all are of equal date. The “argument from prescription” so popular in RC apologetics is not applied within Anglicanism to any of these Churchmanships; all are equally legitimate, and complement each other. This is at once a strength, and a weakness. ##
Click to expand...

A gold star for both you and Contarini. Though I tend to see “Broad” used these days less as a mid point between high and low ecclesiology, than as a term refering to contentless style - i.e., “liberal” at its most vacuous.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top