Ask me anything: Episcopalian Edition

[GKMotley]

That last para is some extrapolation. There was a great deal more similar, usually winding up with somebody getting the chop.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

amen and amen…

 

[ltwin]

That is because the COE can excommunicate other churches like the ECUSA and still be Anglican, but the ECUSA can’t be excommunicated by the COE and still define itself as “Anglican” in the way that it currently does (Like the COE, it defines the Anglican churches as those in communion with Canterbury).

Yeah, I agree with GKMotley here. It’s comparable to the Eastern Orthodox. Imagine if the Ecumenical Patriarch were to break off communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. The Russian Orthodox Church would not suddenly cease being Eastern Orthodox. They would just cease being in communion with Constantinople.

 

[GKMotley]

And I assure you that the CoE can’t excommunicate anything.

 

[ATraveller]

And then you have folks like me who pretty much come down on the side of the Catholic positions, but for this reason or that prefer to remain in the Anglican Church.

Do you think the Anglican tradition is closer to Catholicism than confessional Lutheranism like the LCMS?

 

[HopkinsReb]

Speaking generally, because, again, motley, I’d say doctrinally closer to Luther, ecclesially closer to Catholicism. The 39 Articles are somewhere between Luther and Calvin, but, again, historical document more than foundational confession for modern Anglicans.

Unlike the Lutherans, we do have an ordained ministerial priesthood.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Here’s a nice example of motleyness: last night I hosted a small discussion group from church. In the room we had me, a Zwinglian, and a five-point Calvinist.

I’m curious to see what would happen if I flung holy water on them.

 

[GKMotley]

Anglicanism not being confessional, but creedal. Yep.

 

[rakovskii]

That is because the COE can excommunicate other churches like the ECUSA and still be Anglican, but the ECUSA can’t be excommunicated by the COE and still define itself as “Anglican” in the way that it currently does (Like the COE, it defines the Anglican churches as those in communion with Canterbury).

The Episcopal Church’s website defines Anglicanism as:

This way of life is the system of doctrine, and approach to polity of Christians in communion with the See of Canterbury. … Anglicanism reflects the balance and compromise of the via media of the Elizabethan settlement between Protestant and Catholic principles.
Glossary of Terms – The Episcopal Church

So if a Church conflicts with the system of doctrine of the churches in communion with Canterbury, or decided to reject the “via media” of the “Elizabethan settlement”, because for example they find Elizabeth’s Articles contradictory on the Eucharist or the main principle of a state church, it would be in conflict with this definition of Anglicanism.

The Orthodox Church defines itself as the churches who keep Orthodox teaching and are in communion with each other, but not with a particular See. While Anglicanism has a central focus on the See of Canterbury who is considered foundational and unites the Anglicans, and Catholicism has one on the Pope, this is not nearly as true as with Constantinople, as there have been heretical Patriarchs of Constantinople and breaks in communion with Constantinople by other EO Churches. I think that Orthodoxy would consider Rome or Jerusalem more foundational than Constantinople. If Rome was in communion with the EOs, Rome would be first among equals according to Eastern Orthodoxy, which doesn’t share the Anglican concept of the king being the head of the church. “Anglicanism” is fundamentally based on the English (Anglo-) Church, but the EOs are not based on Constantinople or even Hellenism in particular.

 

[ltwin]

The Episcopal Church’s website defines Anglicanism as:

It’s a website. It’s not a creedal statement.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Also, GKMotley and I are not likely to concede a point about Anglicanism on the grounds that “the Episcopalians say…”

 

[rakovskii]

My other major complaint about the Anglican church is really more historical - how it’s an “English” state church and the English monarchy severely repressed the Irish Catholics and that carried over into Protestant abuse of Catholics (especially Irish) in American history.

I understand that it’s not really a theological issue, and that the converse is true - Catholic Church repressed Protestantism in France and under Catholic monarchs in England.

 

[GKMotley]

Which members of the Anglican Communion do you think consider a king to be the head of their Church? Aside from the CoE, which considers Supreme Governor to be the title the British Monarch has, with respect to the CoE. Because of a particular Parliamentary Act passed in 1558. Binding on the CoE. So what other independent, self-governing Anglican jurisdictions to you think are subject to and governed by to that Act of Parliament? Or perhaps you can cite other such jurisdictions who are governed by their own such laws, and have monarchs of their own in place as analogs of the Supreme Governor?

The Communion already has members who differ from TEC (as one example) in various matters of polity and doctrine. That what being what auto-cephelous means, and why some Communion jurisdictions are in impaired communion with other Communion jurisdictions. And why, when those seven (IIRC) Communion Archbishops who participated in ++Beach’s enthronement did so, they also declared him to be a fellow Anglican Primate.

As to whether the Articles have quite the foundational force that you seem to think, consider Lambeth, 1968. One of the sort of resolutions that oft come from that decennial get together addressed how the articles should be looked at, by Communion members:

Lambeth 1968 The Ministry - The Thirty-Nine Articles
“The Conference accepts the main conclusion of the Report of the Archbishops’ Commission on Christian Doctrine entitled ‘Subscription and Assent to the Thirty-nine Articles’ (1968) and in furtherance of its recommendation:
(a) suggests that each Church of our Communion consider whether the Articles need be bound up with its Prayer Book;
(b) suggests to the Churches of the Anglican Communion that assent to the Thirty-nine Articles be no longer required of ordinands;
(c) suggests that, when subscription is required to the Articles or other elements in the Anglican tradition, it should be required, and given, only in the context of a statement which gives the full range of our inheritance of faith and sets the Articles in their historical context.”

This passed. And following this TEC moved them into a new section of the 79 book. Historical documents.

What that recognizes is that there is not a single attitude toward the Articles throughout the Communion, but variable ones. And that should be reflected in how the Articles might be viewed. IOW, Anglicans are a motley crew. And to find out what attitude any take toward them, one needs to inquire of the particular Anglican entity. Anglicans, generally (meaning, without further explication) may interpret, affirm, deny, or partially affirm or deny, the Articles. Or cut them from the Prayer Book and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter.

And, finally, one should always keep in mind that Anglicans in the Communion are Anglicans in the Communion, while Anglicans not in the Communion are Anglicans not in the Communion. And agreement on doctrine or policy isn’t required, in either case.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Yeah, I don’t put much stock in criticisms of that nature. After all, the Catholic Church committed some pretty bad abuse that softened Europe up for the Reformation.

Every institution managed by humans is going to do some pretty bad things at some point. The Anglican Church is no exception, and I have no inclination to defend it in all cases.

 

[GKMotley]

Consider that “liked” a minimum of googol times.

 

[rakovskii]

Which members of the Anglican Communion do you think consider a king to be the head of their Church?

I’m not sure, but the South African, COE, and Australian Churches the last time I checked required their clergy to assent to the Articles and a few other statements regarding the Articles and Ordination.
Besides that, the king’s role, instead of the bishops’ or Pope’s role, was one of the foundational issues for Anglicanism’s splitting off from Rome. So it’s one of the distinctive foundational features, even if today (perhaps ironically) many members of the Anglican church don’t agree with the State Church ideology on which Anglicanism was founded.

 

[GKMotley]

And is TEC one that requires assent to the Articles? Assuming one can give credence to their current statements? Hmmm? And how about considering the British or any other monarch, as Supreme Governor, or anything analogous?

 

[GKMotley]

Or, in my case, even many cases.

 

[rakovskii]

Yeah, I don’t put much stock in criticisms of that nature. After all, the Catholic Church committed some pretty bad abuse that softened Europe up for the Reformation.

Every institution managed by humans is going to do some pretty bad things at some point. The Anglican Church is no exception, and I have no inclination to defend it in all cases.

In the case of the Anglican church however, it was founded with a state church (King as head vs. Bishops as head) ideology, and one of its enumerated foundational Articles is that the king has the right to execute. It’s defined as the “Anglican” Church, and even today the English state and Church are intertwined. So abuses by the “English” state in the 20th and even 21st century have a much more “theological” or essential quality for Anglicanism than for some other Churches.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Those Articles came after Henry died, and he would have been, quite frankly, appalled by many of them. They’re not foundational to my Anglicanism and they are not part of the original separation.

Yes, Caesaropapism is definitely a problem with Anglicanism. This I do not deny. But, since I am not part of a Caesaropapist church, I am unconcerned with it.