Nor would I. The re-presentation, in time, of the one Eternal Sacrice, forever presented before the Father, in Heaven. The very Body and Blood present on the altar, as history and eternity intersect, before us, before the alter Christus.“Service” is basically the English translation of “liturgy.” This is a very poor argument. A much better case could be made that the Protestant term “service” is a carryover from Catholicism, since it doesn’t really fit a traditionally Protestant theology of worship.
Are you under the impression that Anglicans would disagree with any of this? I certainly wouldn’t.
Edwin
Well, let’s see it !Yes, he does. So do I.
GKC
Anglicanus Catholicus
Ask a question.Well, let’s see it !
This is precisely the sort of question which wikipedia is ill-suited to answer. I should know–I have helped to modify that particular article. I was able to tweak it a bit away from some of the more hair-raising claims I found, but obviously others could tweak it back (and just as obviously obviously I have no right to speak officially for Anglicanism). A wikipedia article is the sum total of the changes made by interested and persistent people. A good way to get basic facts right. Not a good way to communicate theological nuance.Church of England /Anglican
The Church of England considers itself to be both Catholic and reformed:
Reformed insofar as many of the principles of the early Protestant reformers as well as the subsequent Protestant Reformation have influenced it via the English Reformation and also insofar as it does not accept Papal supremacy or the Counter-Reformation.
Catholic in that it views itself as being an unbroken continuation of both the early apostolic and later mediæval universal church, rather than as a new formation, and in that it holds and teaches the historic Catholic Faith. In its customs and liturgy it has retained more of the Catholic tradition than most other churches touched by the Protestant Reformation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England
You said “No you don’t” in response to the statement that we say “We believe in one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” How was I supposed to interpret that?Did I? I don’t think so.
No doubt you think you do!No doubt you believe it but do you know what it means exactly?
Such as, simply declare that we can share one another’s Eucharists and that we agree on the essentials of the Faith. I do not reproach you for not doing this. I’m simply pointing out that from our perspective we would be happy to do this tomorrow. There is nothing you teach that we (as a whole) consider to be heretical, just some things that we think are unnecessary or maybe even erroneous (we don’t think erroneous and heretical are the same). As long as you accept the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, the authority of Scripture, and the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, and the historic succession of bishops, we see no serious obstacles to reunion on our part. The obstacles, right or wrong, are on your side.Full communion and accept you as you are…such as?
I know what I mean by it. I don’t profess to know what you mean by it!This can also applies to other denominations. Do you even know what ‘full communion’ means?
I know the several various origins one can ascribe to “Anglicanism,” depending on how you define the term. I suspect that you have one particular historical event in mind, which is not the origin of Anglicanism in most of the senses that matter to us.Do you know the origin of Anglicanism?
There is much difference between the Roman Catholic church liturgy and the Anglican liturgy, as far as Holy orders, valid Eucharist and many other things are concerned here, not to mention that the Anglican church has severed itself from the Apostolic succession. But this is not my comment. My comment was toward both Roman Catholics and Anglicans That the Mass is not a SERVICE.“Service” is basically the English translation of “liturgy.” This is a very poor argument. A much better case could be made that the Protestant term “service” is a carryover from Catholicism, since it doesn’t really fit a traditionally Protestant theology of worship.
Are you under the impression that Anglicans would disagree with any of this? I certainly wouldn’t.
Edwin
This is not true. Anglicanism teaches the Communion of Saints and the two services are very much alike. Anglicanism isn’t feel good religion. Episcopalianism is. True Anglicans are quite conservative folks who are pro-life and do not believe in sexually active gay clergy or same sex unions.All the Protestant Churches derive from the Catholic Church. There are some similarities in the Anglican services and the Mass but for the most part Anglicanism is giving way to modern ‘‘feel good’’ religion.
Individual Anglicans might believe in the intercession of the saints but I do not believe Anglicanism teaches it.
Episcopalianism doesn’t exist in England as far as I know. Never seen an Episcopalian church here anyway, just the Anglicans.This is not true. Anglicanism teaches the Communion of Saints and the two services are very much alike. Anglicanism isn’t feel good religion. Episcopalianism is. True Anglicans are quite conservative folks who are pro-life and do not believe in sexually active gay clergy or same sex unions.
In one sense, England is kinda full of episcopalians, since technically, it refers to a type of ecclesiastical polity; the church is overseen by bishops (episcopi). In that sense, both the CoE and the RCC are “episcopal”.Episcopalianism doesn’t exist in England as far as I know. Never seen an Episcopalian church here anyway, just the Anglicans.
let me try this again. plus history, faith and historyIt isn’t me. It is the Church. I have faith that the Church is right. My opinion counts for nothing, without me, the truth would still be the truth.
Of course.let me try this again. plus history, faith and history
Actually all of these boil down to the same thing–your Church’s belief that we have lost apostolic succession. You cannot of course expect us to agree!There is much difference between the Roman Catholic church liturgy and the Anglican liturgy, as far as Holy orders, valid Eucharist and many other things are concerned here, not to mention that the Anglican church has severed itself from the Apostolic succession.
Then answer my point about the meaning of the word “leitourgia.” Historically this is how the word “service” came to be used to mean “liturgy”–because it’s the English translation. I agree that most Protestants think of the two as different. But since the words originally meant the same thing, it seems unreasonable to say “the Mass is not a service” rather than “you have lost the original sense of what your ancestors meant when they said ‘service.’”But this is not my comment. My comment was toward both Roman Catholics and Anglicans That the Mass is not a SERVICE.
As an Anglican, I entirely agree with you.One cannot lower the Mass in its mysteries to a glorified bible study or service on Sunday. The Mass is not where God’s people go to feel good to good music or a motivational speaker, all these are good in themselves but that is not the purpose of the Mass. So bringing in a live band and glorified gospel singing is not worshiping in Truth and Spirit, this is belongs outside the Mass not in the Mass, unless it is orchestrated to the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of Eucharist, that follows the unbroken 2000 year Tradition of the Apostles.
I take your point that a sacramental liturgy involves more than a simple service of worship (such as the Liturgy of the Hours, or Benediction). But it remains a service among other things. The Mass is seen in Catholic theology, is it not, as the most perfect form of Christian prayer? Isn’t it seen as an offering to God? That is exactly what the word “service” originally meant when used of worship. Indeed, the Orthodox refer to a priest “serving the Liturgy.”P.s, I was not raising an argument, I thought I was being informative to the thread, that the Mass is not a service. Grant it the Roman Catholic church has services, but these are distinct from the Mass.
You are using “Anglican” to mean “the Anglicans I like.” This is not meaningful communication. Episcopalians are Anglicans. We stand in the Anglican tradition and we are still in full communion with Canterbury (as “Continuing Anglicans” are not). We may not be what you consider “true” Anglicans. But historically and objectively, we are Anglicans. We might argue that Continuing Anglicans aren’t “true Anglicans” because they have broken communion with Canterbury. I for one would not make that argument. Rather, I would say that Anglican is a broader term than Episcopalian.This is not true. Anglicanism teaches the Communion of Saints and the two services are very much alike. Anglicanism isn’t feel good religion. Episcopalianism is. True Anglicans are quite conservative folks who are pro-life and do not believe in sexually active gay clergy or same sex unions.
I’m Continuing Anglican. Contarini is correct.You are using “Anglican” to mean “the Anglicans I like.” This is not meaningful communication. Episcopalians are Anglicans. We stand in the Anglican tradition and we are still in full communion with Canterbury (as “Continuing Anglicans” are not). We may not be what you consider “true” Anglicans. But historically and objectively, we are Anglicans. We might argue that Continuing Anglicans aren’t “true Anglicans” because they have broken communion with Canterbury. I for one would not make that argument. Rather, I would say that Anglican is a broader term than Episcopalian.
Furthermore, Anglicans in England and other parts of the world are often quite liberal and do not fit your definition of “true Anglicans.” That’s the main reason to object to your definition–it creates the misleading impression that the Church of England and Anglicans throughout the world as a whole are of the same sort as your “true Anglicans.” Some are (perhaps the majority throughout the world are), but not all, and not the Church of England as a whole (which covers a very broad spectrum–evangelicals are arguably becoming the majority, but historically they have not been dominant).
Edwin
What is meant by the term “High Anglican Church”?Episcopalians are Anglicans.
A number of things can be meant by it. What is never meant by it is a distinct denomination or ecclesiastical body. It is a wing of the Anglican tradition which emphasizes the more Catholic elements of Anglicanism. It’s a somewhat broader and vaguer term than “Anglo-Catholic,” though it’s often used to mean much the same thing. “High Church” usually means an emphasis on traditional liturgy, a high valuation of the sacraments, a strong view of the authority of the Church and of the priestly office, etc. I would define an Anglo-Catholic more precisely, as an Anglican who accepts without reservation the authority of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the tradition of the first-millennium Church in general, and accepts only those portions of the Reformation as can be reconciled with that tradition. (Generally a true Anglo-Catholic will also treat the medieval Western councils with considerable respect, and will pay a certain deference even to the utterances of the post-Reformation “Roman Catholic” Church.) One may have a taste for “high church” liturgy and even doctrine without being willing to go quite so far.What is meant by the term “High Anglican Church”?
Interesting. So Episcapalian can be Anglo-Catholic high Church? Is there different factions within Anglicanism or are they all united to the Anglican Church? I do not understand these disputes between high and low—liberal and conservative–etc when it comes to Anglicanism.A number of things can be meant by it. What is never meant by it is a distinct denomination or ecclesiastical body. It is a wing of the Anglican tradition which emphasizes the more Catholic elements of Anglicanism. It’s a somewhat broader and vaguer term than “Anglo-Catholic,” though it’s often used to mean much the same thing. “High Church” usually means an emphasis on traditional liturgy, a high valuation of the sacraments, a strong view of the authority of the Church and of the priestly office, etc. I would define an Anglo-Catholic more precisely, as an Anglican who accepts without reservation the authority of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the tradition of the first-millennium Church in general, and accepts only those portions of the Reformation as can be reconciled with that tradition. (Generally a true Anglo-Catholic will also treat the medieval Western councils with considerable respect, and will pay a certain deference even to the utterances of the post-Reformation “Roman Catholic” Church.) One may have a taste for “high church” liturgy and even doctrine without being willing to go quite so far.
I am very close to Anglo-Catholicism, but not quite there. I would say that I generally follow the Seven Councils and the first-millennium Church, but I wouldn’t embrace them without hesitation. I remain Anglican largely because I think the Reformation did have some value. I hope that the Reformation can be interpreted in the light of the “undivided Church,” but I think its critiques need to be listened to very carefully rather than simply rejected where they differ from what Catholics and Orthodox have in common (which is another way of defining Anglo-Catholicism). At the end of the day if you force me to choose between the Reformation and the first-millennium Church, I’ll choose the latter. But I’d rather put the two into dialog and see what new insights might emerge. And Anglicanism is a place where that dialog can happen.
Edwin