Anglicanism/Anglican Communion/Orthodox Anglicanism

  • Thread starter Thread starter dallas_r
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not the Lambeth Conference, but over the issue of marital innovations, following a special call meeting of the Primates of the Communion, plus the ACNA, with (apparently) a watching brief. The findings of this meeting stated, in part,"…given the seriousness of these matters we formally acknowledge this distance by requiring that for a period of three years The Episcopal Church no longer represent us on ecumenical and interfaith bodies, should not be appointed or elected to an internal standing committee and that while participating in the internal bodies of the Anglican Communion, they will not take part in decision making on any issues pertaining to doctrine or polity.”

Two points. I have no idea how stringently this is being enforced (or could be enforced), and the problems in the Communion are deeper than merely the TEC.
 
Last edited:
GKMotley said:
the Communion are deeper than merely the TEC.
Click to expand...
Very true, however I think TEC is like a big brother that dioceses look up to and let influence their actions. But yes, there are lots of problems in the communion as a whole that need to be fixed quickly to maintain classical Anglicanism.
 
It looks like Continuing Anglicanism is very fractured whereas the Anglican Realignment seems more organized and unified. Is that a fair assessment?
 
Yes, as to the Continuum, though that is continually trying to get itself together, and has been since the first Anglican Church in North America (not the current ACNA) first fractured 35 + years ago. Some notable success in that direction is under way. No idea how that will work out.

The Realignment I’m not sure I could define.
 
What is exactly hindering the Continuum from unifying? Didn’t they separate from the See of Canterbury over the same reasons?
 
If they were really Catholic then their church would be protected by the Holy Spirit and their teachings on faith and morals would NOT be subject to change. Anyone can see that the Church of England and especially the Episcopal Church are falling to secularism bit by bit at first and now in a landslide, and changing the definitions of what is a sin and also things like female clergy etc. If they were protected by the Holy Spirit this would NOT be happening. By the way my family are converts from the Episcopal church. We tried to fool ourselves that we were Anglo-Catholic for several years but it got to the point that we knew that we couldn’t be in the Church that Jesus Christ founded. The Word of God does not change. And the fact that not all Anglican churches have changed to the secular yet (a good thing!) shows that it is rather like Protestantism where you can’t know what to expect in different parishes like you can in the Catholic Church. It isn’t universal anymore.
 
The usual answer, among the Continuum players is: polity and theology (going to get it right this time: my way), personalities, and purple passion (every man a bishop). It is, in this sense, an immature conglomerate. But still, gleams of light can be seen. I’m patient.
 
Last edited:
I will probably regret commenting on this thread but… as a member of the Ordinariate let me just state how things were and how things are.

Strictly speaking Anglicanism was not a product of Henry VIII (don’t forget Queen Mary restored the Catholic faith during her reign). It was more a product of Elizabeth I, who wished for a ‘via media’. Elizabeth has been described as “an odd sort of protestant” (the Anglican church has never really fitted into the Protestant category anyway due to a number of complex factors), her own prayers indicate a belief in transubstantiation, her chapels were adorned with Catholic images, and she was keen to retain many Catholic elements. Her own position was not really easy as she had been declared illegitimate by the Pope (and therefore without right to the crown), an unfortunate position for a momarch to be in. Historical events then led to many and varied issues and against all odds Anglicanism continued to thrive, peaking during the might of the Empire (incidentally about the same time the Anglican church was rediscovering her own Catholic roots).

There was once a very real and great hope that the Anglican church would be reunited with the Catholic Church. Much of this was the result of the Oxford movement and an appreciation of the work of Blessed John Henry Newman (who even reconciled the XXXIX articles with Catholic thought). I was once part of a society which hoped to see this.

Unfortunately, the ordination of women priests stopped any real hope of that as it was thought but, thanks be to God, Benedict XVI created the Ordinariate thereby making it a reality - the Holy Ghost works in mysterious ways.

I am proud of Anglican Patrimony; I do believe as Benedict XVI said that we too have treasures to bring to the Church, not least liturgical and musical, and in terms of spirituality. I also believe that the work has now been done in terms of Catholic/Anglican unity. If you’re still claiming to be an Anglo-Catholic but not in communion with Rome it is nothing more than a delusion; in the past Anglican thought had been in line with the Eastern Orthodox but even that is no longer the case.

In an odd sort of way I can’t help but smile when seeing that the stronghold parishes of the Catholic faith in the UK are almost always under the care of former Anglicans.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
Sorry, I am not too friendly to Anglicans since they forced my great-grands and grands to move away from Ireland to avoid starving to death. I suppose it worked out nicely for me in the end, as I think the USA is a nice place to live, but I have had to pray very hard to make myself forgive them. Catholics they are not, and never will be. I find it rather insulting that they would claim to be so.
Click to expand...
If you’ll forgive me for saying so I think this is a little harsh (though understandable given historical and deeply held grievances). I’m sure there are some Protestants who would probably hold similar feelings towards Catholics; no side has ever been blameless, and more often than not it has been politics hiding behind religion. It’s worth remembering St Charles Lwanga and his companions - some of whom were Anglican, they all died as martyrs for Christ, not their affiliation.
 
Same back at ya, Ginger. I’m one of those Episcopalians, possibly the majority, who don’t think of themselves as Catholic in any meaningful sense. Perhaps, by your definition anyway, your ecclesial community isn’t really Catholic, either.
 
Just a couple of observations, here, and I hope to be corrected if I’m wrong. First, it seems that it is central to Catholicism, to believe that the Church cannot teach error; while Episcopalians know and accept that our leadership makes mistakes sometimes. Second, while Catholics sometimes speak of the Church as their mother, Episcopalians like myself think of our church more like an uncle we’re all quite fond of, but who’s currently in rehab.
 
dallas_r said:
So what is Anglicanism?
Click to expand...
Forgot to add. If you want to understand Anglicanism the best thing to do would be to read the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 (the last edition that I believe was actually “common”).
ltwin said:
Meanwhile, Scotland has its own Reformation. Its Parliament nationalizes the Catholic Church there but goes further than the English Reformation. The Scots get rid of their bishops and dioceses. They become Presbyterians. Yet, when the Stuarts become kings of both Scotland and England, however, they try to reintroduce bishops and liturgical worship back into the Church of Scotland. Most Scots reject this, but some like it. The national Church of Scotland remained presbyterian, but a new church is started that has bishops and prayerbook worship–the Scottish Episcopal Church.
Click to expand...
A funny story relates to the rioting that took place in Scotland during the 1630s after King Charles I and Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud attempted to force the Book of Common Prayer onto the Church of Scotland. There was a famous incident in Edinburgh’s St. Giles Cathedral when a woman shouted “the mass has come amongst us” and threw her stool at the minister.
 
I’ve read the 62 book (as one reads such things). I’ve attended Masses celebrated using it. I’d hesitate to say I understood Anglicanism.

I’d try comparisons of the 49, 52, 59 and 62 Books. Then I’d use the American 28.
 
Last edited:
GKMotley said:
I’ve read the 62 book (as one reads such things). I’ve attended Masses celebrated using it. I’d hesitate to say I understood Anglicanism.
Click to expand...
LOL. Point taken. But my understanding is that reading the prayerbooks is the best way to understand Anglicanism since it doesn’t really have central confessional documents like other churches have (other than the ecumenical creeds).
 
Your last sentence is spot on. Anglicanism is, theoretically, creedal, not confessional. Reading across the early CoE Books is like watching the development of the basic Anglican spectrum as reflected there-in.
 
Cannot teach error with regard to Faith and Morals. Individual people, even popes, aren’t perfect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top