Ask an Anglican/Episcopalian

[GKC]

Minor quibble, my friend! Tolkien was also a convert, albeit as a boy! Alas, my copy of Carpenter’s biography is still in a box (I HATE moving) but I believe he was 8 years old.

Added: I got curious. Carpenter says that Mabel was received in June 1892. Ronald would have been 8, yes. But wandering around, I find no specific date for Ronald’s reception. Mabel was said to be instructing him. I must be missing it.

I well know the frustration of packed away books. I would estimate around 3/4s of mine are indisposed. at the moment.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Re: the separation of the Eastern Church from the Catholic Church, others DO interpret things differently, but history does not support their contention. The split was forced on the Eastern Church by their Muslim overlords, a fact today’s Orthodox refuse to acknowledge. That is on the books.

It must sadden you that men who aren’t cut from the same cloth as Pius IX can be pope.

 

[David_Zampino]

That’s true, but I’m looking at the result. The CoE took on a lot of Calvinism, too.

Early Anglicanism was very heavily influenced by Calvinism. As I recall, the original version of the Articles of Religion had a significantly more Calvinist bent.

 

[David_Zampino]

Added: I got curious. Carpenter says that Mabel was received in June 1892. Ronald would have been 8, yes. But wandering around, I find no specific date for Ronald’s reception. Mabel was said to be instructing him. I must be missing it.

I well know the frustration of packed away books. I would estimate around 3/4s of mine are indisposed. at the moment.

GKC

Ronald was born in 1892. I think that Mabel was received in 1900. I suspect that the boys were received at close to the same time, as Mabel wrote of their 1st Communion. This would suggest to me that she was still alive at the time!

 

[commenter]

He certainly indicated that he could not be RC.

GKC

I know he was indicating that in the 1940s, I have read a letter of his from about 1946 to Lyman Stebbins. Did he write anything between 1946 and 1963 about this? (Actually I would extremely interested in reading anything he wrote AFTER 1963, even a shopping list).

My meager reading of his writings about the role of churches leads me to think his continuing in Anglicanism was predicated on the ability of the C of E to maintain orthodox doctrine. Someone who was so deep into apologetics has to take into account current trends, and the church’s response. He may have indicated he could not be RC (given the alternative was then solid as a rock).

As a guest in this gracious thread, I hate to keep bringing up the late Lewis, but he was such a giant it’s hard not to - he is the face of Anglicanism to the rest of Christendom, and to 20th century society generally.

 

[GKC]

Ronald was born in 1892. I think that Mabel was received in 1900. I suspect that the boys were received at close to the same time, as Mabel wrote of their 1st Communion. This would suggest to me that she was still alive at the time!

Ronald was born in Jan 1892, Mabel was received in Jun 190 (ignore my silly posting of her reception in 1892; that age thing, you know). So he was 8 at that time. Carpenter mentions her instructing Ronald, after her reception, and quotes a letter from Mabel to her mother in law mentioning Ronald was going to make his first communion at Christmas 1903. So logically, he likely could have been 8 or 9 when received. But I don’t find Carpenter stating the precise date.

I’ll buy 8.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I know he was indicating that in the 1940s, I have read a letter of his from about 1946 to Lyman Stebbins. Did he write anything between 1946 and 1963 about this? (Actually I would extremely interested in reading anything he wrote AFTER 1963, even a shopping list).

My meager reading of his writings about the role of churches leads me to think his continuing in Anglicanism was predicated on the ability of the C of E to maintain orthodox doctrine. Someone who was so deep into apologetics has to take into account current trends, and the church’s response. He may have indicated he could not be RC (given the alternative was then solid as a rock).

As a guest in this gracious thread, I hate to keep bringing up the late Lewis, but he was such a giant it’s hard not to - he is the face of Anglicanism to the rest of Christendom, and to 20th century society generally.

I share your opinion of Lewis. But I doubt, absent something more conclusive, any reason to doubt that the CoE’s subsequent problems would overcome the points he made in his letter to Stebbins, which can be found in THE COLLECTED LETTERS OF C.S. LEWIS, vol II, ed. Hooper, pp. 645-646.

He did make one or two other references to his problems with the RCC, in subsequent personal letters, which I can’t immediately cite, including the oft quoted point that it was not only what he would be required to affirm, at a given point of conversion, but that he would be required to every affirm anything similar as might be pronounced in the future

As I have said, 50 years of studying and collecting Lewis don’t provide a crystal ball. But that can make for an informed opinion, IMO. So, maybe. Maybe not.

GKC

 

[Kliska]

Heh. I think many Catholics are shocked when they find out that protestants enjoy Lewis.

lol I love love love Lewis!

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

It must sadden you that men who aren’t cut from the same cloth as Pius IX can be pope.

You can be pope, Peter, if the Cardinals elect you.

I guess you mean I prefer sound doctrine to benign friendship and re-writing history. You’re right about that.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
It must sadden you that men who aren’t cut from the same cloth as Pius IX can be pope.

I guess you mean I prefer sound doctrine to benign friendship and re-writing history. You’re right about that.

Oops, how silly of me have forgotten that Pius IX was the last pope to teach sound doctrine rather than re-writing history.

 

[jimkhong]

But the CofE, although regarding itself as a separate entity from the Church of Rome, still regards itself as “that part of the Church that happens to be in England”. As to the Acts of Supremacy, there is no concern that I know of in the Church of England about being a national church or having the monarch as its Supreme Governor. There is a lurking concern with being seen to have a lien on the throne – many Anglicans will think preventing a Catholic from inheriting the Crown is a problem waiting to happen: in other words there is more concern with the church’s handle on the State than the other way around. Only among a small sliver of the church is there any hankering after “submitting to the Pope”.

I am myself an atheist/non-religious English person but I certainly do not view our Christian heritage as something that should be airbrushed from history. It seems to me an integral and inseparable part of our national heritage. I have a great admiration for the Church of England, and I find it difficult to imagine a greater tragedy for the coherence of our society than its disappearance.

As to our embarrassment about this or that: embarrassment is now, I fear, the fundamental element of the English character. It has incorporated worse elements in the past, as you may know.

Well, Picky, you sound a nice guy. I am certainly not suggesting all English atheist/non-religious has lost touch with their Christian heritage or all English atheist/non-religious are Richard Dawkins. But certainly, many (not all) English, for instance, view the cathedrals as national monuments rather than living places of worship. Many (not all) return to the church only for weddings, to ‘get the baby done’ and funerals. Curiously, while surveys have repeatedly revealed declining affliation with recognised religions, many still prefer the continuing establishment of the CoE and takes an interest in the debate over women priests.

Somehow (and I am struggling to define it accurately, and risking a over-simplified over-generalisation), the English seem to have a curious relationship with their history (especially religious history) - an acceptance for the quirkiness and yet full cognisant of the divergence in values between the motives behind the actions of those days and modern day English values. Regicide was a good example and reasons for 1534 Act would be another. I agree with you that embarassment seem to be a part of the national make-up - what with unnecessary hang-ups over colonisation, imposition of Christianity, etc.

I guess being embarassed would be much more acceptable than the way some other cultures deal with it - changing their history books to align their history with the present-day view of themselves. The Chinese in PRC, the Malays in my country, and some Muslims dreaming of golden ages of days past, would be prime examples.

I have high regard for the CoE and do not think her any less catholic for not being in communion with Rome. The break with Rome was certainly unfortunate and I recognise the prevailing social and political currents that meant the 1534 Act was only a stumble within that wider stream. Much like the 1517 Theses and 1054 Mutual excommunications were largely markers for the widening social and cultural gulf of the day. But I do not see 1054, 1517 or 1534 as inevitable though they have happened, and we have to deal with the consequences today. I look forward to the day that the abysses of 1054, 1517 and 1534 can be bridged and the Churches reunited, though not on the terms some of our Curial Cardinals have in mind today. Maybe one day, we can have a Russian, Swede or an Egyptian as Pope, or whatever title the Churches agree to call him in the future.

 

[Contarini]

What is its ‘underlying value,’ Peter? Does it suppress its clear meaning?

And how else are Catholics to interpret those words? They mean, not only the Orthodox, but the Anglicans, the Lutherans, the Calvinists and all the others in the polyglot.

There is only one ‘one, holy, catholic, Apostolic Church’ and it’s the Catholic Church, the only Church the Lord came to build. The history spoken of by John Henry Newman will tell you that.

No. Newman actually makes it very clear in the Essay on Development that he’s quite aware of the diversity and pluralism of the early Church.

It appears that most folks who misuse this quote from Newman not only aren’t that deep into history, they aren’t that deep into Newman.

 

[Contarini]

Whose TEC? KJ Shori’s?

Denominations are not the personal property of the person who happens to preside over them at a given moment.

 

[Contarini]

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”.

I don’t see any evidence for your speculation. Lewis was pretty upset with the Anglicanism of his day. I think he’d be even grumpier today, but I can’t see that it would change his ecclesiastical allegiances (especially since he did not belong to TEC, obviously).

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.

You can, of course, fantasize as you wish. But there’s no actual evidence that Lewis would find either ACNA (especially since he didn’t live in North America) or Catholicism appealing. Continuing Anglicanism a bit more so, but I doubt he’d opt for it. I think that if Lewis lived today he’d still be a member of the C of E. Of course, we really don’t know.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

As far as a possible hint might be found, he was complimentary to Orthodoxy, as he had found it. But I wouldn’t take that as more than the merest hint.

GKC

Agreed.

 

[GKC]

I don’t see any evidence for your speculation. Lewis was pretty upset with the Anglicanism of his day. I think he’d be even grumpier today, but I can’t see that it would change his ecclesiastical allegiances (especially since he did not belong to TEC, obviously).

You can, of course, fantasize as you wish. But there’s no actual evidence that Lewis would find either ACNA (especially since he didn’t live in North America) or Catholicism appealing. Continuing Anglicanism a bit more so, but I doubt he’d opt for it. I think that if Lewis lived today he’d still be a member of the C of E. Of course, we really don’t know.

Edwin

For other reasons, I was looking over some of his early 50s letters recently, and yes, he made passing comments on the state of the CoE there. Not detailed, but, as you say, grumpy.

If I could think of him leaving the CoE, I like to fantasize about him becoming the leading light of the currently miniscule, analog of the Continuum, over there. But as you and I say, we don’t know. Other folks certainly fantasize other things.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

Well, Picky, you sound a nice guy. I am certainly not suggesting all English atheist/non-religious has lost touch with their Christian heritage or all English atheist/non-religious are Richard Dawkins. But certainly, many (not all) English, for instance, view the cathedrals as national monuments rather than living places of worship. Many (not all) return to the church only for weddings, to ‘get the baby done’ and funerals. Curiously, while surveys have repeatedly revealed declining affliation with recognised religions, many still prefer the continuing establishment of the CoE and takes an interest in the debate over women priests.

Somehow (and I am struggling to define it accurately, and risking a over-simplified over-generalisation), the English seem to have a curious relationship with their history (especially religious history) - an acceptance for the quirkiness and yet full cognisant of the divergence in values between the motives behind the actions of those days and modern day English values. Regicide was a good example and reasons for 1534 Act would be another. I agree with you that embarassment seem to be a part of the national make-up - what with unnecessary hang-ups over colonisation, imposition of Christianity, etc.

I guess being embarassed would be much more acceptable than the way some other cultures deal with it - changing their history books to align their history with the present-day view of themselves. The Chinese in PRC, the Malays in my country, and some Muslims dreaming of golden ages of days past, would be prime examples.

I have high regard for the CoE and do not think her any less catholic for not being in communion with Rome. The break with Rome was certainly unfortunate and I recognise the prevailing social and political currents that meant the 1534 Act was only a stumble within that wider stream. Much like the 1517 Theses and 1054 Mutual excommunications were largely markers for the widening social and cultural gulf of the day. But I do not see 1054, 1517 or 1534 as inevitable though they have happened, and we have to deal with the consequences today. I look forward to the day that the abysses of 1054, 1517 and 1534 can be bridged and the Churches reunited, though not on the terms some of our Curial Cardinals have in mind today. Maybe one day, we can have a Russian, Swede or an Egyptian as Pope, or whatever title the Churches agree to call him in the future.

Some quick points:

1 Yes, we are both generalising unforgivably!

2 You wouldn’t think me a nice guy if you saw my reaction to the cricket score from Australia.

3 Yes, Professor Dawkins is an embarrassment, although (yep, here comes that ambiguity again) I can sympathise with his motivation. But this is not the place to discuss evolutionary biology.

4 A side issue: I understand numbers worshipping at English cathedrals are increasing, but of course your general point still applies.

5 I don’t see how it’s possible to get around the fact that 2,000 years of British history are going to have nice things happen and nasty things happen, and many, many things happen which are partly nice and partly nasty. (Whatever it is - 4,000 years? - of the Malays likewise). I was taught the Whig View of history, a general march of progress, but even then we had some nuances: we knew the Roundheads were Right but Repulsive and the Cavaliers were Wrong but Wromantic. We knew the regicide was horrible but also that it was a step towards parliamentary democracy.

I feel very strongly the tug of patriotic partisanship, indeed I know that I do not escape it, but I also know the truth is more complicated. And if I want to share in the celebration of our achievements from Alfred and Athelstan to – what shall I say? – Winston and Attlee (and I do) I have to accept at least some of the shame at our misdoings, too.

Younger societies start to have the same problem: look at the difficulties some Americans have about understanding what their view of the Confederacy should be.

A commenter a short way back produced “the murder of St Thomas More” as though it were a clincher. I understand that pleasure in a simple partisan statement. It is less comfortable, but perhaps more complete in truth, to say something like “Thomas More was a great man and a martyr; he was also a man with blood on his hands. Tyndale was a great man and a martyr, too.” More complete in truth, and closer to a via media, perhaps?

 

[aidanbradypop]

A commenter a short way back produced “the murder of St Thomas More” as though it were a clincher. I understand that pleasure in a simple partisan statement. It is less comfortable, but perhaps more complete in truth, to say something like “Thomas More was a great man and a martyr; he was also a man with blood on his hands. Tyndale was a great man and a martyr, too.” More complete in truth, and closer to a via media, perhaps?

I think it best if we all leave the skeletons in the cloest.

 

[GKC]

Some quick points:

1 Yes, we are both generalising unforgivably!

2 You wouldn’t think me a nice guy if you saw my reaction to the cricket score from Australia.

3 Yes, Professor Dawkins is an embarrassment, although (yep, here comes that ambiguity again) I can sympathise with his motivation. But this is not the place to discuss evolutionary biology.

4 A side issue: I understand numbers worshipping at English cathedrals are increasing, but of course your general point still applies.

5 I don’t see how it’s possible to get around the fact that 2,000 years of British history are going to have nice things happen and nasty things happen, and many, many things happen which are partly nice and partly nasty. (Whatever it is - 4,000 years? - of the Malays likewise). I was taught the Whig View of history, a general march of progress, but even then we had some nuances: we knew the Roundheads were Right but Repulsive and the Cavaliers were Wrong but Wromantic. We knew the regicide was horrible but also that it was a step towards parliamentary democracy.

I feel very strongly the tug of patriotic partisanship, indeed I know that I do not escape it, but I also know the truth is more complicated. And if I want to share in the celebration of our achievements from Alfred and Athelstan to – what shall I say? – Winston and Attlee (and I do) I have to accept at least some of the shame at our misdoings, too.

Younger societies start to have the same problem: look at the difficulties some Americans have about understanding what their view of the Confederacy should be.

A commenter a short way back produced “the murder of St Thomas More” as though it were a clincher. I understand that pleasure in a simple partisan statement. It is less comfortable, but perhaps more complete in truth, to say something like “Thomas More was a great man and a martyr; he was also a man with blood on his hands. Tyndale was a great man and a martyr, too.” More complete in truth, and closer to a via media, perhaps?

I continue to like this guy.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

You can, of course, fantasize as you wish. But there’s no actual evidence that Lewis would find either ACNA (especially since he didn’t live in North America) or Catholicism appealing. Continuing Anglicanism a bit more so, but I doubt he’d opt for it. I think that if Lewis lived today he’d still be a member of the C of E. Of course, we really don’t know.

Edwin

Yeah, seems like he’d be a good fit with Forward in Faith.

On the other hand, our Orthodox brethren will probably point out that Anglican-to-Orthodox conversion was less common 50 years ago than it is today.