Ask an Anglican/Episcopalian

[Ferde_Rombola]

Is what funny? You continuing to try and find something to argue about and twist words? No I do not find that funny at all.

I’m sorry. I must have misinterpreted the “lol” at the end of your message.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

No offense taken

And if I believed in what Luther preached…I would be Lutheran.

Fair enough. Then why are not Marriage and Confession Sacraments if the Gospel message is the standard?

 

[aidanbradypop]

Fair enough. Then why are not Marriage and Confession Sacraments if the Gospel message is the standard?

I have no issue with calling them Sacraments. Some low or broad church Episcopalains maintain that Christ only established two (Baptism and Communion).

 

[Picky_Picky]

Not a good analogy, Peter. The Catholic Church did not break with the Eastern Church nor is she the bar to reconciliation.

But you can see that others might interpret things quite differently: that the break was by both parties, and that both are the bar?

 

[aidanbradypop]

But you can see that others might interpret things quite differently: that the break was by both parties, and that both are the bar?

If one believes to be part of the one true Church with the fullness of truth then in their eyes, everyone broke for them (RCC). I can respect that belief. Of course I disagree but I can respect it nonetheless.

 

[Picky_Picky]

If one believes to be part of the one true Church with the fullness of truth then in their eyes, everyone broke for them (RCC). I can respect that belief. Of course I disagree but I can respect it nonetheless.

I could respect it, too, if it gave any hint of respecting the belief of others.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I could respect it, too, if it gave any hint of respecting the belief of others.

Love thy neighbor.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Love thy neighbor.

Fair enough.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
I guess, then, it is fair to ask you: Is it a “silly question” whether we Catholics consider our break with Orthodoxy to be a good thing or not (seeing as we never reconciled)?

Sorry about ^^ that. My evil twin must have been posting under my name.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Apostolicae Curae is another long-time hobby of mine. I would not express what I think you are referring to as “re-establishing”.

GKC

Yes, as we’ve discussed before, I don’t believe it was lost with Parker (4 Co-Consecration Bishops etc), but for the point of the post showing that some in the Anglican Communion were trying to demonstrate good faith to “re-establish…if it were needed” I placed it in quotes as to not turn this into a thread on Anglican Holy Orders.

I freely defer to you on any Apostolic Curea information as you mentioned, you have researched it in depth.

 

[GKC]

Yes, as we’ve discussed before, I don’t believe it was lost with Parker (4 Co-Consecration Bishops etc), but for the point of the post showing that some in the Anglican Communion were trying in good faith to “re-establish…if it were needed” I placed it in quotes as to not turn this into a thread on Anglican Holy Orders.

I freely defer to you on any Apostolic Curea information as you mentioned, you have researched it in depth.

Can’t argue with the conclusion. But the 4 bishops wouldn’t overcome the intertwined points in Apostolicae Curae, as to sacramental form and sacramental intent, as they were judged.

GKC

 

[commenter]

And you might have added, acceptance of the doctrines is mandatory if you want to be a Catholic.

Actually acceptance of the doctrines, and the living Magisterium, is necessary. In C. S. Lewis’ time (died 1963) it still appeared to many that the Magisterium was unnecessary baggage. Anglican checks and balances between bishops, scholars, Scripture and Tradition, and the mass of laity, seemed to assure continuity of true doctrine with no papacy. Lewis (who I admire) predicted the advance of secularization, but did not foresee how rapidly the media would shape the laity, bishops and scholars, and how much most churches would cooperate with secularization by redefining or shrinking “true doctrine”.
No church today claims to have false doctrine, they simply redefine “true” so it fits them.

If Lewis lived today I think he’d say the Anglican checks and balances are seriously wounded in the C of E, and in the TEC (!). Would he reconsider his view on the necessity of a single, world-wide living Magisterium? Lewis was a deep student of history, and the last 50 years provide new data he did not have, on what happens when you don’t have a Magisterium. It may show that a support that was optional during sunny weather become indispensable during stormy weather. I think Lewis would find real True Doctrine - for now - in ACNA and the Continuing Anglican churches, but he would see they are in the long run subject to the same processes as the TEC; they lack the living Magisterium.

 

[aidanbradypop]

If Lewis lived today I think he’d say the Anglican checks and balances are seriously wounded in the C of E, and in the TEC (!).

Nice touch.

I disagree…Maybe that is a little Baptist left in me.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I think Lewis would find real True Doctrine - for now - in ACNA and the Continuing Anglican churches, but he would see they are in the long run subject to the same processes as the TEC; they lack the living Magisterium.

I think you’re right. And not only the Magisterium, but the papacy as well, which is one of the principle pillars keeping the Church unified. Protestants generally don’t seem to understand the significance of “I will give to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” or else they hold the risible opinion that the words were meant for Peter only.

 

[jimkhong]

I’m sorry. I must have misinterpreted the “lol” at the end of your message.

You won’t be alone. David Cameron thought it meant ‘lots of love’.

 

[jimkhong]

In short, the beginnings of the Church of England, from which the Episcopal Church derives, date to at least the second century, when merchants and other travelers first brought Christianity to England. It is customary to regard St. Augustine of Canterbury’s mission to England in 597 as marking the formal beginning of the church under papal authority, as it was to be throughout the Middle Ages.

In its modern form, the church dates from the English Reformation of the 16th century, when royal supremacy was established and the authority of the papacy was repudiated. With the advent of British colonization, the Church of England was established on every continent. In time, these churches gained their independence, but retained connections with the mother church in the Anglican Communion

Hank is a fascinating train wreck, and not a personal hero of mine, but an historical hobby.

Perhaps it might be worth adding with regard to Harry VIII that I don’t think Church of England members look back on him as the founder of their church, they think of him probably as one of the bad men of history – not because of the break with Rome but because they don’t really sympathise with the idea of chopping your wife’s head off every so often. So they would regard the way Catholics concentrate on Harry when they are talking about the CofE as rather odd. If you asked them who started their church their answer – apart from talking about Christ and the apostles of course – might well be St Augustine of Canterbury.

I find it interesting that Anglicans attribute a much smaller (maybe even non-existent) role to Henry in the founding of the Church of England than Catholics would. I also accept the pride that the CoE has in seeing itself as the continuation of the Church of St Albans and St Augustine - I guess the Church of Sweden would say the same thing (probably with good reason, too).

My question would be whether Anglicans see Henry has having done the right thing (break with Rome) for the wrong reasons (to secure his heir). After all, Henry remained Catholic in his outlook to the end of his life. Protestant strand in CoE only came in ascendant with Edward VI and later, James I.

If Henry’s role is to be minimised (Dustin did not even mention him), is the Act of Supremacy 1534 the true origin of the modern Church of England (as opposed to the medieval Church in England)? Or would it be the 1549 BCP (still very Sarum Rite), 1552 BCP (less Catholic), 1558 Act of Supremacy (which declared the CoE to be both Catholic and Reformed), 1563 XXXIX Articles (which defined CoE doctrines) or the 1571/1662 BCP (with the incorporation of XXXIX Articles into BCP)?

 

[jimkhong]

1. Why is the Book of Common Prayer so much shorter than Catholic ritual books? The BCP has everything an Anglican/Episcopalian priest needs for all of the sacraments and Divine Office, which is thoroughly incomprehensible to me considering it’s typically about the same size as the Bible. In the Roman rite, the Divine Office is four fat books, the Missal about 1,500 pages (which doesn’t even include the Lectionary readings), and all of the other sacraments have their own ritual books that vary in size (or are combined into a Ritual/Pontifical which is very thick indeed). What’s up with that?

Noticed that this was not answered. Would I be right to assume that the original BCP in 1549 is largely a translation from the local Latin Sarum Rite used in southern England at that time? And the Sarum Rite was not really all that comprehensive as the modern Latin Rite. Since 1549, both BCP and Latin Rite evolved separately. The BCP got simplified as Catholic practices got replaced with Reformed doctrines while Latin went on a binge of liturgical centralism.

 

[Peter_J]

I find it interesting that Anglicans attribute a much smaller (maybe even non-existent) role to Henry in the founding of the Church of England than Catholics would.

I’m not certain, but I think Anglicans would say that Henry didn’t have a role in the founding of the Church of England, but only in its breaking off communion with Rome.

 

[GKC]

I’m not certain, but I think Anglicans would say that Henry didn’t have a role in the founding of the Church of England, but only in its breaking off communion with Rome.

Yep.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Noticed that this was not answered. Would I be right to assume that the original BCP in 1549 is largely a translation from the local Latin Sarum Rite used in southern England at that time? And the Sarum Rite was not really all that comprehensive as the modern Latin Rite. Since 1549, both BCP and Latin Rite evolved separately. The BCP got simplified as Catholic practices got replaced with Reformed doctrines while Latin went on a binge of liturgical centralism.

Here I am not as well read as I am in other areas relating to Hank. But AFAIK, the 1549 has a lot of similarity to the Sarum Rite, but is not a translation of it. The 1552 is markedly more reformed, the 1559 is a shift back toward the center. And evolution in the liturgical rites of both Churches continued, as stated.

GKC