P
PickyPicky
Guest
Or, some might say, to become part of the Anglican Communion.
- Status
E
Episcopalian
Guest
Thanks @Tis_Bearself! 
As for the OPs question, I’d say that I found it to be so much more of a better fit for me than the Catholic Church. For context: I was raised Catholic, went through the entire sacramental process, attended regularly, and even was the Treasurer of my college’s Catholic group. I maintained attending Mass after college but started exploring different Christian doctrines just to see what they were like. Only after meeting my boyfriend, did we start attending different Christian services. We converted together (he was confirmed and I was received since I already had confirmation) a few years ago.
I never really believed transubstantiation and what the broadchurch Episcopalians believe is closer to what I believe (bread doesn’t change substance, it becomes more of a focal point for God’s presence).
As a gay man, I also didn’t feel very affirmed by the Catholic Church since I was essentially told to hide my feelings. The Episcopal Church is much better than that and to be honest, two of our parish priests are in gay marriages. On top of that, I felt that the priestly celibacy was an antiquated rule that doesn’t make sense anyway.
I guess the last thing that comes to mind, for now, is the allowance for various worship styles. In the Catholic Church, in my experience, it was highly regulated and had the same structure every single week, regardless of the church.
In my Episcopal diocese, my home parish uses incense every week and has a fleet of priests, deacons, and acolytes(altar servers). A twenty minute walk from that I could attend a pre-Vatican II style service complete with Latin and priest facing away from the congregation. Down the street from that, it’s a standard Catholic style service with one priest and two altar servers…even after that, there is another in my parents neighborhood that is literally praise and worship music, with two readings and 45 minute sermon.
It’s such a wide variety and it’s all considered valid, which is pretty neat.
As for the OPs question, I’d say that I found it to be so much more of a better fit for me than the Catholic Church. For context: I was raised Catholic, went through the entire sacramental process, attended regularly, and even was the Treasurer of my college’s Catholic group. I maintained attending Mass after college but started exploring different Christian doctrines just to see what they were like. Only after meeting my boyfriend, did we start attending different Christian services. We converted together (he was confirmed and I was received since I already had confirmation) a few years ago.
I never really believed transubstantiation and what the broadchurch Episcopalians believe is closer to what I believe (bread doesn’t change substance, it becomes more of a focal point for God’s presence).
As a gay man, I also didn’t feel very affirmed by the Catholic Church since I was essentially told to hide my feelings. The Episcopal Church is much better than that and to be honest, two of our parish priests are in gay marriages. On top of that, I felt that the priestly celibacy was an antiquated rule that doesn’t make sense anyway.
I guess the last thing that comes to mind, for now, is the allowance for various worship styles. In the Catholic Church, in my experience, it was highly regulated and had the same structure every single week, regardless of the church.
In my Episcopal diocese, my home parish uses incense every week and has a fleet of priests, deacons, and acolytes(altar servers). A twenty minute walk from that I could attend a pre-Vatican II style service complete with Latin and priest facing away from the congregation. Down the street from that, it’s a standard Catholic style service with one priest and two altar servers…even after that, there is another in my parents neighborhood that is literally praise and worship music, with two readings and 45 minute sermon.
It’s such a wide variety and it’s all considered valid, which is pretty neat.
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
Given the state of communion with some Communion entities, the nose is sort of under the tent.
But, technically, (that word again) yes.
But, technically, (that word again) yes.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I would note that in USA, the Episcopal Churches in a lot of places have become a go-to for gay people and gay couples who are seeking a welcoming church or interested in serving as clergy. Which has also in turn led to some Episcopalians leaving their churches over the issue of gay marriage or openly gay clergy, and becoming something else, such as returning to Catholic Church as part of an Ordinariate, or forming a different church often called Anglican or Anglo this or that instead of Episcopalian.
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
See wiki link above for even more details.
P
Padres1969
Guest
Just a few points of clarification. Divorce is permitted in the COE. And TEC also teaches that abortion is immoral, though it does take a much more forgiving approach to it than say the RCC and doesn’t campaign against safe access to it.
And of course I’d dispute that it has strayed from “most” Catholic style Christian teaching.
And of course I’d dispute that it has strayed from “most” Catholic style Christian teaching.
Last edited:
catholic03
Well-known member
Thanks for clarifying.
C
CelticWarlord
Guest
He’s certainly never been afraid of controversy. I’ve read his autobiography along with several other of his books. Plus I’ve listened to him countless times on You Tube. And, amazingly since I live in western Canada in a sparsely populated province, I once bought one of his books, used at a second hand shop, and found it had been autographed by both him and his wife as a gift to someone.
I prefer Catholicism myself but have few issues with Spong’s approach to being a voice for certain groups that have been traditionally subjugated and despised by the most conservative of religion as a whole.
catholic03
Well-known member
I don’t think that an Anglican bishop who denies the virgin birth, basically denies the existence of God and essentially states that Christianity is a human construction is a good role model. He’s only Christian by virtue of his trinitarian baptism.
C
CelticWarlord
Guest
Good thing I don’t look to him as a role model then.
E
EnglishTeacher
Guest
I briefly looked at the Anglican/Episcopal church before become Catholic, but I had a hard time seeing how its existence could be justified, given how it came into being (king breaks with Catholic Church and declares himself head of the church in England because Catholic Church denies him marriage annulment that he wanted).
P
Padres1969
Guest
It’s a little more complex than that…
B
Bithynian
Guest
He’s been beating the same drum since the '80s. He’s had a number of (written) public skirmishes with theologians and bishops, including Rowan Williams (later Archbishop of Canterbury from '02 - '12).
Too right. I always get my terminology mixed up. I think the more appropriate term for the ACNA is that it’s part of the “Anglican realignment movement”.
He had a number of interdicts against him in Australia: ++Hollingworth (an Anglo-Catholic) of Brisane and ++Jensen (an evangelical) of Sydney prohibited +Spong from preaching at any of their diocesan churches when he visited Australia.
With all that being said, I don’t think he ever insisted on his views: he even arranged alternative episcopal oversight for parishes within his diocese who were discomforted by his episcopate.
E
EnglishTeacher
Guest
I know it is, as I have read plenty of histories of the Tudor period, and yet essentially that is what it boils down to. I have genuine curiosity on this question.
The Anglican Church has a very fine liturgy, and the Book of Common Prayer contains much that is admirable, with many beautiful passages. But I don’t know how one gets past the denomination’s origin, which is undisputed.
The Anglican Church has a very fine liturgy, and the Book of Common Prayer contains much that is admirable, with many beautiful passages. But I don’t know how one gets past the denomination’s origin, which is undisputed.
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
Me too. And Hank’s Great Matter is the most interesting part. I recommend Scarisbrick’s bio HENRY VIII, if you have not already read it.
What it boils down to is the intertwined issues of politics and theology. And Henry’s less than secure grasp on the throne, and his future dynasty, as he saw it. And the relationship between the Throne and the Church, oft a contentious one for several hundred years, minimum, with the Throne/Parliament maneuvering to increase the government’s power over the Church in England, and reduce the power of any external agency over itself, from outside the kingdom You can trace the struggle in a number of Acts and Royal decrees, running back to the First Statute of Westminster, and culminating in the Henrician Acts in 1534. Henry (and Catherine and Anne and Clement and Pius and Cromwell and Wolsey, etc.) was the occasion of the split from Rome; the cause was much deeper, and lay in emerging nationalism, as much as Hank’s dynastic and hormonal issues.
What Henry sought in his causa, a decree of nullity for both personal and dynastic reasons, was a commonplace in the day. But running up against the particular power structure that it did, it was almost bound to fail.
Like history, generally, it’s complicated.
What it boils down to is the intertwined issues of politics and theology. And Henry’s less than secure grasp on the throne, and his future dynasty, as he saw it. And the relationship between the Throne and the Church, oft a contentious one for several hundred years, minimum, with the Throne/Parliament maneuvering to increase the government’s power over the Church in England, and reduce the power of any external agency over itself, from outside the kingdom You can trace the struggle in a number of Acts and Royal decrees, running back to the First Statute of Westminster, and culminating in the Henrician Acts in 1534. Henry (and Catherine and Anne and Clement and Pius and Cromwell and Wolsey, etc.) was the occasion of the split from Rome; the cause was much deeper, and lay in emerging nationalism, as much as Hank’s dynastic and hormonal issues.
What Henry sought in his causa, a decree of nullity for both personal and dynastic reasons, was a commonplace in the day. But running up against the particular power structure that it did, it was almost bound to fail.
Like history, generally, it’s complicated.
Last edited:
E
EnglishTeacher
Guest
It really is a fascinating period to study, and I understand and am familiar with the issues surrounding the break. What I am curious about is how/why someone might settle on the Anglican church, given how it came into existence. (Hope that doesn’t come across as offensive; as mentioned, I appreciate much in their liturgy and Book of Common Prayer.)
Last edited:
B
Bithynian
Guest
I suppose most Anglicans have a holistic and critical view of their own religious history. They understand that Henry’s machinations for a divorce had a role in terminating communion with the Pope, but they also understand that the most formative business of the Reformation - that is, theological questions of grace - occurred within the reigns of his children Edward and Elizabeth.
Given that Henry was quite theologically conservative (in other words, he was an orthodox Catholic on most doctrines), many Anglicans don’t especially envision a ‘Henrician Reformation’ or a ‘Henrician Church of England’. Given Edward’s own brief reign and the restoration of Catholicism by Mary, many identify Elizabeth’s reign as the definitive settlement of a distinctive Anglican theological identity.
As a former Anglican (and a present Catholic), I didn’t see Henry as constitutive of Anglicanism anymore than I saw the Ostrogoths (Arian chieftains who essentially controlled papal elections in the early 6th century) as constitutive of Catholicism. All Christian communities have had bizarre, unhealthy and sometimes scandalous relationships with civil magisterial powers.
E
EOvsRC1054
Guest
I would say, for me, I settled on the Anglican Church because of the very beautiful high-church liturgy and welcoming atmosphere. That aside, I did think about how the Anglican church came into existence and its much deeper than just a King wanting a divorce. King Henry’s split from the papacy may have been the catalyst, but a lot of English were discontented with Rome at the time, fearing that they were just coming under a foreign power’s subjection. Luther’s daring work and John Calvin’s influence were all pretty influential at the time as well.
History hurts for the Anglican Church as much as for the Roman Catholic Church at the time. During the time of the English split and the reformation as a whole, Pope Leo X was selling off indulgences in order to rebuild St. Peter’s. It was a mess back then.
I completely understand your question. I explained the Anglican church history to my friends and they pretty much said, “A church from a divorce. That sounds very inspiring.”
G
GKMotley
Guest
Decree of nullity.
P
Padres1969
Guest
I mean its origins, opposition to Rome’s control, was one of the first things that drew me to it.
- Status