Anglicans...Will they ever...

[GKC]

Matt16_18:

To try and define “Anglicanism” in terms of the doctrines that a faithful Anglican must confess seems to be an exercise in utter futility, since Anglicans seem to tolerate any belief imaginable.

Which leads one to ask, what really is an “Anglican”? How does one define Anglicanism, if not by what Anglicans believe? Is Bishop Spong an Anglican? If so, why? Is it possible to be an apostate and still be an Anglican in good standing? If so, why can’t every person on earth claim to be an Anglican?

Which is close to William Buckley’s famous dictum, that no one, from the Pope to Mao Tse-tung could assert with confidence that he wasn’t an Anglican.

Anglicanism was once defined Creedally, liturgically, by Apostolic succession (and orders. Yes, I know), and by reference to Tradition, as in the councils of the Undivided Church, and the ECFs. Today it certainly is possible to be apostate and be an Anglican in good standing, meaning one who remains in communion with the Anglican Church generally. You mentioned a good example. That’s precisely the reason for the fracturing of the Communion in the past 30 years. Anglicanism was able for most of its existence to accomodate a diversity of opinions on matters of ritual, churchmanship, even of some doctrine, under an general umbrella of Creedal orthodoxy. That is over now. The “diversity” has spread to the fundamentals of the faith. What’s left is a mess.

GKC

 

[JohnCarroll]

GKC:

Which is close to William Buckley’s famous dictum, that no one, from the Pope to Mao Tse-tung could assert with confidence that he wasn’t an Anglican.

Anglicanism was once defined Creedally, liturgically, by Apostolic succession (and orders. Yes, I know), and by reference to Tradition, as in the councils of the Undivided Church, and the ECFs. Today it certainly is possible to be apostate and be an Anglican in good standing, meaning one who remains in communion with the Anglican Church generally. You mentioned a good example. That’s precisely the reason for the fracturing of the Communion in the past 30 years. Anglicanism was able for most of its existence to accomodate a diversity of opinions on matters of ritual, churchmanship, even of some doctrine, under an general umbrella of Creedal orthodoxy. That is over now. The “diversity” has spread to the fundamentals of the faith. What’s left is a mess.

GKC

Hello GKC
I have been away for a while. What do you think of Archbishop Hepworth"s group in Australia potentially coming into communion with Rome AS Anglicans?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Matt16_18:

To try and define “Anglicanism” in terms of the doctrines that a faithful Anglican must confess seems to be an exercise in utter futility, since Anglicans seem to tolerate any belief imaginable.

Which leads one to ask, what really is an “Anglican”? How does one define Anglicanism, if not by what Anglicans believe? Is Bishop Spong an Anglican? If so, why? Is it possible to be an apostate and still be an Anglican in good standing? If so, why can’t every person on earth claim to be an Anglican?

 

[Randy2]

JohnCarroll:

Hello GKC
I have been away for a while. What do you think of Archbishop Hepworth"s group in Australia potentially coming into communion with Rome AS Anglicans?

I have not heard of this. So far its been a rare few Episcopal/Anglican parishes that have come into communion under the AS. nly 8 or so in decades in the US.

You seem to be talking about a bishop coming in with followers. I assume that means multiple parishes.

Can you give more details or direct me to a website where ZI can read more about this?

 

[JohnCarroll]

Randy2:

I have not heard of this. So far its been a rare few Episcopal/Anglican parishes that have come into communion under the AS. nly 8 or so in decades in the US.

You seem to be talking about a bishop coming in with followers. I assume that means multiple parishes.

Can you give more details or direct me to a website where ZI can read more about this?

Hello Randy2
Here is all I know :

Anglican rebel looks for Vatican pact

By Tom Richardson
The Australian

4/26/2005

WHEN the newly installed Pope Benedict XVI presaged ecumenical unity
with carefully directed nods to other religious faiths, Archbishop John
Hepworth realised that a long journey may soon be over.

The global primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, a conservative
offshoot of the US Episcopal Church boasting a 400,000-strong
congregation, left the Catholic faith more than 35 years ago. But
Archbishop Hepworth has fostered ties with Rome, and with the new Pope,
that could see his Anglican splinter group fulfil its vision “to be an
Anglican Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome”.

“We see ourselves as essentially Anglicans searching for ways to
practise unity with the Holy See,” Archbishop Hepworth told The
Australian yesterday.

But Rome’s embrace of the TAC, which has sought unity with the Holy See
for a decade, could drive a wedge between liberal and conservative
elements of the Anglican Church.

Surprisingly for a church whose congregation is found largely in the
Third World and is mostly non-English speaking, Archbishop Hepworth
oversees this global communion from his small office in the Adelaide
Hills.

The church was founded almost three decades ago in protest against the
proposed ordination of women, and has flourished in southern and central
Africa, India, Pakistan, north and central America, New Zealand and
Japan. Its message has also resonated in Australia, where Archbishop
Hepworth says “no provision has been made for people who had a different
conscience”.

Archbishop Hepworth met Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, on
several occasions in the past decade to discuss a “full and organic
unity” between the two churches.

If this unity is achieved, it will be a significant step forward in the
life of the TAC.

“In practice, it means the Anglican Communion will be accepted as a
distinct form of liturgy within the church,” Archbishop Hepworth said.

Archbishop Hepworth, ordained a Roman Catholic priest, was “found” by
the TAC when then Anglican archbishop of Adelaide Ian George refused to
grant him a licence for the priesthood “unless I was prepared to
advocate the ordination of women”.

“I didn’t find them, they found me … to a great extent our communion
came into existence in order to accommodate families thrown out of the
Anglican Church.”

He travels around the world “roughly once every six to eight weeks”, to
“make sure we’re a single group keeping on message”. “Obviously Rome is
now part of that round-the-world agenda,” he said.

END

 

[GKC]

JohnCarroll:

Hello GKC
I have been away for a while. What do you think of Archbishop Hepworth"s group in Australia potentially coming into communion with Rome AS Anglicans?

Greetings, JohnCarroll,

Hoo-boy. I guess you were away during the (long) threads that addressed this subject. I think they were titled “Anglicans to Rome”, or some such. Look for them. Much was said.

I participated a little, but I soon dropped out. Without recapping those threads, this is what I think is going on. ++Hepworth, a former RC priest, certainly desires to bring the TAC, the world wide group of traditionalist Anglicans he heads (the Anglican Church in America is the US, and main, Church in it), into some sort of union with Rome. There have been talks underway for years toward this end, at varying levels. I certainly doubt that they are proceeding on a very high level at this time, or that it is likely that there is any possibility that the TAC would be received as a Particular Church, in its Orders, as has been suggested. This flies in the face of the normal application of Apostolicae Curae. over the years.

At this point, I think there is very little to actually report on the whole effort, beyond the facts of the talks. Certainly, an acquaintance of mine, who heard ++Hepworth speak recently, said he denied that there was much in the way of dramatic breakthroughs at that time. And if anything does happen, the TAC, while probably inclining toward the Anglo-Catholic side, is not monolithic and many would not cross the Tiber, under any conditions. There are Anglicans like that. And there are those who would.

Me, I will be watching to see if the rumors that the Holy Father, while still Cardinal R, was a part of the talks, are repeated, and if it were so, what it might mean. Further, deponent sayeth not.

GKC

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

GKC:

Sorry to disappoint you. I’m not even argueably Protestant. Can I still hang around?

ROFL - who am I to say ?​

And do you like M. R. James’ secular writings?

I like his ghost stories very much: I have them, and his 1924 NT Apocrypha. I would like to see his other academic stuff though - especially on the apocrypha.​

Added: Oops. Forgot. Who wrote the books in question?

I can’t find the books, unfortunately I’ll certainly try to ​

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Subrosa]

You’ll love this…

anglicancommunion.org/documents/authority/authorityenglish.html

Seeya!

 

[GKC]

Subrosa:

You’ll love this…

anglicancommunion.org/documents/authority/authorityenglish.html

Seeya!

"The Gift of Authority " was probably the most interesting document that came out of the ARCIC.

GKC

 

[Psalm45_9]

JGC:

Yes they can, and as an ex Anglo Catholic I should know.
Whether or not it happens in front of them depends on if the priest has valid, though illicit, orders.

Another position that is held by some would be akin to the Orthodox, that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, but the manner of how this change is accomplished has not been revealed.

**"XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
**The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."

anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

 

[JGC]

**"XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
**The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."

anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

It’s an authority thing. A fair few of Anglo Catholic beliefs fly in the face of the 39 Articles. You could say the same about the evangelical wing. Most of them would say the sacrament is purely symbolic, and would repudiate the 'heavenly and spiritual manner.

Where does authority lie? The Lambeth conference? The Archbishop of Cantebury? Scripture? Tradition?

So, to sum up, if you go by the 39 Articles, Anglo Catholic’s should not… but some of them definately do!

 

[Psalm45_9]

JGC:

It’s an authority thing. A fair few of Anglo Catholic beliefs fly in the face of the 39 Articles. You could say the same about the evangelical wing. Most of them would say the sacrament is purely symbolic, and would repudiate the 'heavenly and spiritual manner.

Where does authority lie? The Lambeth conference? The Archbishop of Cantebury? Scripture? Tradition?

So, to sum up, if you go by the 39 Articles, Anglo Catholic’s should not… but some of them definately do!

Thank you for explaining that to me.

 

[GKC]

Psalm45:9:

Thank you for explaining that to me.

The Articles are an historical document, the means by which Elizabeth I choose to govern her already divided Church, religion as statecraft. They are not binding on Anglicans generally, on only on the CoE clergy theoretically, due to the Erastian nature of that Church. Some Anglicans adhere to those doctriness. Some Anglicans pick and choose among them. And some cut them from the Prayer Book and use them to kindle the New Fire at Easter.

Anglcainism s Creedal (one of the places that authority is supposed to lie), not confessional. While there are Articles that you or I or any Christian would have no problem affirming in themselves, as a document, the Articles bind no one. One thing I like about the 1979 Prayer Book ECUSA has generally adopted is that the Articles are in a section for historical documents.

GKC

 

[Ahimsa]

Lumen Gentium:

…come back to Rome? Will they ever submit themselves back under the Holy Father’s authority?

I guess it all depends upon what you mean by ‘authority’. Does it mean declaring undying loyalty to the Pope? Does it mean jettisoning the triad of scripture, tradition, and reason (and, for Methodists, experience)? Does it mean submission to the Latin rite (not immediately, of course, but subtly)?

 

[flameburns623]

I am an Anglican–and a convert to Anglicanism from Evangelicalism. I would never have joined the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA), which is far too liberal, nor am I likely to be attracted to Roman Catholicism. I associate mainly with traditionalists who decline to use the '79 BCP, and I attend an AMiA congregation which does not accept the 1979 BCP, the ordination of women, nor the ordination of homosexuals. Many of us are pretty knowledgeable about Roman Catholicism and would no more unite with a Novus Ordo Catholic Church than we would re-join ECUSA. All of this being said, Episcopalianism has long been a ‘broad-church’ tradition. We tend to say that Episcopalians accept the Christian faith as it was practiced in the first FIVE centuries of the Common Era; as it was expounded in the first FOUR Ecumenical Councils; as it is summarized in the THREE major Christian Creeds (Apostle’s, Nicene, Athanasian); all of which are subject to the TWO Testaments of the Holy Bible which is the ONE infallible, innerant Word of God. How that shakes out in practice differs from Episcopalian to Episcopalian–some are extremely Evangelical, some are quasi-Roman Catholic (or quais-Orthodox) in their spirituality. I tend to like that sort of a mix, despite the inherent risk of heterodoxy.

BTW–very few Episcopalians would agree that the Anglican movement was started either by Henry VIII OR by Elisabeth.

 

[GKC]

flameburns623,

I’m willing to agree that Henry’s dynastic/hormonal issues and their collision with Catherine’s nephew were the precipitating events for the crisis, but it is very true that you can trace the process by which the monarchy was moving to establish a degree of independence for the Church in England from a variety of Roman perogatives, going back some centuries before. The Statute of Westminister, the Statute of Mortmain, the writ Circumspecte agatis, the Statute of Carlisle, the two Statutes of Provisors and the two Statutes of Praemunire, beginnning in the 13th century, all were steps to growing national, not Roman control. It didn’t start with Henry. But it came to a head (so to speak) under him.

GKC

 

[flameburns623]

GKC:

flameburns623,

I’m willing to agree that Henry’s dynastic/hormonal issues and their collision with Catherine’s nephew were the precipitating events for the crisis, but it is very true that you can trace the process by which the monarchy was moving to establish a degree of independence for the Church in England from a variety of Roman perogatives, going back some centuries before. The Statute of Westminister, the Statute of Mortmain, the writ Circumspecte agatis, the Statute of Carlisle, the two Statutes of Provisors and the two Statutes of Praemunire, beginnning in the 13th century, all were steps to growing national, not Roman control. It didn’t start with Henry. But it came to a head (so to speak) under him.

GKC

Are you disagreeing with me or simply elaborating my point? Your post has the form of a disagreement but seems to underscore what I indicated–that few Episcopalians deem Henry or Elisabeth to be the founders of their church.

Anyhow–I will note that a significant number of Anglicans are feeling pretty ‘unchurched’ since the appointment of Gene Robinson. There is some drift into what is called the ‘continuing church movement’, of which I am a part, as I mentioned earlier. But a considerable more have left Episcopalianism for either the Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod (or the Wisconsin Synod, I’m told–an equally conservative body); into Eastern Orthodoxy; or into Roman Catholicism. So by and large, the RCC and other liturgical churches are reaping the benefits of ECUSA’s foray into heresy.

 

[Matt16_18]

flameburns623:

I tend to like that sort of a mix, despite the inherent risk of heterodoxy.

Risk of heterodoxy? All Anglicans embrace heterodoxy. Some are just worse than others.

 

[GKC]

flameburns623:

Are you disagreeing with me or simply elaborating my point? Your post has the form of a disagreement but seems to underscore what I indicated–that few Episcopalians deem Henry or Elisabeth to be the founders of their church.

Anyhow–I will note that a significant number of Anglicans are feeling pretty ‘unchurched’ since the appointment of Gene Robinson. There is some drift into what is called the ‘continuing church movement’, of which I am a part, as I mentioned earlier. But a considerable more have left Episcopalianism for either the Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod (or the Wisconsin Synod, I’m told–an equally conservative body); into Eastern Orthodoxy; or into Roman Catholicism. So by and large, the RCC and other liturgical churches are reaping the benefits of ECUSA’s foray into heresy.

I’m elaborating, with historical exemplars, on a process that had been ongoing, and that was brought to a crisis by Hank’s problems. In one sense, he was the “founder” of the historical circumstance that was the CoE, circa 1534. In another, not. How it might have played out if a few things had been different, I can’t say.

I’m Continuing Anglican too.

GKC