Catholicism and Anglicanism are so very close. Why argue with the basics?

[colliric]

He’s something, all right. But not of my Church.

Back soon.

GKC

oh so he’s part of the Church of England wing too is he?

Anglicanism is so confusing sometimes…

 

[Subrosa]

I looked up the Episcopal Church website (episcopalchurch.org/) and found this…Retired Albany bishop joins Roman Catholic Church

Maybe Traveller should compare and contrast.

Also, I’m not convinced that the Episcopal Church in America does not have the Queen as it’s titular head.

Have a look at this link I found on the site…

episcopalchurch.org/images/ec_hm_memeber_ac.gif

I also found this which supports the concept that the American church is independent…
gracecathedral.org/enrichment/dispatches/dis_20041022.shtml

Of interest is this statement…

What are the other levels of hierarchy in the Anglican Church?
There is no hierarchy as such. Governance structures differ in various churches. For instance, American bishops are democratically elected, while English bishops are appointed by the Queen. In American churches, clergy are servant-leaders with mostly spiritual authority; elected councils of lay members control finances and hiring and firing of clergy.

Still too close for me, though. Sorry.

I don’t mean to be negative, but I just don’t see it. Especially now with all the controversy concerning female and gay bishops. I am conservative on these issues. Of course, we each must choose our own paths.

Subrosa

 

[chris_molter]

The root difference between Anglicans and Catholics (and Orthodox as well!) is really the source(s) of authority within those communions.

Try answering these questions:

From where does each communion derive its teaching authority?

How do they determine the “official” teachings of the Church, or the correct interpretation of a particular passage of scripture?

What level of accountability does each diocese or province have to the rest of the communion?

What methods of discipline exist to assure the faithful that wayward and heretical teachings are corrected, and in practice how are they used?

How does each communion explain its theological reasoning/development throughout time back to the Apostolic age? Also, how close are the beliefs of the present communion to the beliefs of the Apostles and Church Fathers?

These are some of the questions I had to work through as I saw the Episcopal Church crumble around me. I used to think I was very “middle of the road” theologically for an Episcopalian, but the more I read, the more I realized not only was I vastly more “conservative” than most 'Piskies, but I was also much more “catholic-minded” than the vast majority of conservative Anglicans!

 

[GKC]

The root difference between Anglicans and Catholics (and Orthodox as well!) is really the source(s) of authority within those communions.

Try answering these questions:

From where does each communion derive its teaching authority?

How do they determine the “official” teachings of the Church, or the correct interpretation of a particular passage of scripture?

What level of accountability does each diocese or province have to the rest of the communion?

What methods of discipline exist to assure the faithful that wayward and heretical teachings are corrected, and in practice how are they used?

How does each communion explain its theological reasoning/development throughout time back to the Apostolic age? Also, how close are the beliefs of the present communion to the beliefs of the Apostles and Church Fathers?

These are some of the questions I had to work through as I saw the Episcopal Church crumble around me. I used to think I was very “middle of the road” theologically for an Episcopalian, but the more I read, the more I realized not only was I vastly more “conservative” than most 'Piskies, but I was also much more “catholic-minded” than the vast majority of conservative Anglicans!

This poster is correct. Well done.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[GKC]

No, tht’s incorrect. The Archbisop of Canterbury is not the leader of the entire Anglican Church, for any intents and purposes. I’m leaving for the day, but will reply in more detail later. Trust me.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

Thanks for the patience. It’s hard to find the time to post much lately. On this issue, I wish I had saved the very first post I ever made, anywhere, to a bunch of very nice RCs, who later became friends. But they were thinking that the Archbishop of Canterbury was the Anglican analog of the Pope, and that all Anglicans burned clarified yak butter before images of the Queen. Or something. And so I posted.

Time is not plentiful right now, but I’m want to try to make some general comments, that might apply to more than one post in the thread, and then address the others as appropriate.

First, consider the Worldwide Anglican Communion, which a poster a couple of posts down seems to have discovered. The WWAC is “offical” Anglcainism, and is made up of 38 completely independent, self-governing Anglican jurisidictions, who are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. There are Anglicans who are not in such communion; let’s skip them for now.

The 38 Anglican jurisdictions, each headed by a primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury is the primate of the Church of England, the Presiding Bishop is the primate of the Episcopal Church in the USA (now calling itself just The Episcopal Church, I think), etc. One can usually spot the member Churchs of the Communion, buy the name “Anglican” in the title. This is not fool-proof; the Church in Scotland and the Church in America use "Episcopal, and I think there is another. The Church of England, of course, is the CoE. And some Anglican Churchs, not in the Communion, say “Anglican” in the title (i.e., the Anglican Church in America). Not saying much about these latter here.

And the CoE is the mother Church of all of them. Once upon a time, say 300 years ago, if you said “Anglican”, perforce you meant “Church of England”. That’s all there was. But as the British flag wandered around the globe and found a home and an empire, the Church of England followed. Anglicans weren’t great shakes at evangelizing, but they were great at making Little England wherever the map was colored red. At first these were merely colonial extensions of the CoE, run by theBishop of London, but eventually colonial bishops were appointed. And eventually colonies became independent countries, and the various colonial Churchs became independent Churchs.

You can consider the WWAC as an analog of the British Commonweath. With the Archbisop of Canterbury as the analog of the Queen (don’t get confused. I’m not referring to the Queen in her role as the supreme governor of the CoE, IAW the Act of 1559). As the Queen is the symbolic (read:toothless and powerless figurehead) of the Commonwelath, the Archbishop of Canterbury is the analog in the WWAC. This, of course, overstates the case. He does have some authority. He can deny a given member Church an invite to his deccenial get together, the Lambeth Conference. And he has some (declining) moral powers of sausion, residing in his own historic office. And he can politic all over the place. But he has no doctrinal authority. He cannot say to this one “come” and he cometh, etc. He cannot show the Episcopal Church, USA the door, over the gay issue. That takes a vote of the Communion.

Within his own Church (CoE) he has more to do, but no Primate in the Anglican Communion functions like a Pope. At most it is a primacy of honor. And politics. And money. Don’t forget money.

That might be enough on this issue. Points: The Archbisop of Canterbury is not the leader of all the Anglicans. No one is. And no one in Anglicanism has any relationship with the British monarch, except the Church of England, arising from Henry’s Supreme Head Act of 1534, as modified by Elizabeths’ Act of Supremacy of 1559. These apply to the Church of England, not the Episcopal Church, USA (whose apostolic succession and episcopacy doesn’t derive from the CoE, or any Anglican Church in communion with it at the time. Surprise).

No doubt I will refer to these things in later posts. Which I’l now go look at.

Thank you for your patience.

GKC

 

[GKC]

So, do the Episcopalians consider themselves autocephalous at the diocesan level or the parish level? How about the Anglicans?

Hello again. Generally, yes. I don’t mean that the diocese doesn’t recognise the administrative and bureaucratic ties to the larger entity. But in day-to day operations, and on doctrinal matters, the diocese runs the show (just as the national jurisdiction doesn’t bow to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the local ordianry doesn’t do so to the Presiding bishop) . And there is minimal structure to control or corral it doctrinally. The Bishop of Fort worth (one of the last of the Good Guys) knows full well that he can’t ordain a female. Wrong sacaramental matter, etc; see Ordiantio Sacerdotalis). So he doesn’t. And right next door is the bishop of Dallas, who thinks he can, and tries to. And no way to settle the matter. Yes. Authority. It was not once a problem. Now it is.

Last night, an Episcopal parish here in Colorado Springs changed to Anglican. What does that mean? Does that mean they rejected the authority of thei diocesan bishop and now submit to some other ordinary in England?

Without knowing the particulars, yes, partially, that is likely just what happened. The small scale fracturning ot the Episcopal Church has been going on for a long time. Back about 30 years ago, a group of Anglicans split from ECUSA over liturgica,l and later female ordination issues. These are what is known as Continuing Anglicans. Many otherwise orthodox Anglicans stayed, more or less unhappily, slowlying bleeding away as their limits were reached. Recently, many Episcopalians who could handle the 1979 Prayer book, females in sacerdotal garments, and miters, and other trifles, reached their limit in the matter of the homosexual issues. Most of them didn’t become Continuing Anglicans (drat), but are seeking, in various ways, alternate episcopal oversight. This is normally found in orthodox, but not terribly Anglo-Catholic bishops in Africa. The umbrella organization is the Anglican Mission in America, to which a number of parishes have fled, under the oversight of the Bishop of Rwanda. They consider this country mission territory, and in that sense, they are right. What this group hopes, I think, is to be recognised as THE official Anglican representative of the WWAC (see post above), if and when the Communion tosses the Episcopal Church for not toeing the line on the gay issue.

So, yes, that’s what I assume you saw happen. But the alternate oversight is likely coming from Africa, or from an AMIA bishop here.

I wonder if the reason they changed was an argument “with the basics.”

At long last, they found a basic they couldn’t compromise on, yes. Other Anglicans reached that point 30 years ago, and walked further and faster away.

Thanks for your patience.

GKC

 

[GKC]

While we don’t have all the answers, the truth is not relative. What you are demanding is basically the admission that the truth is relative in so far as disagreements with Anglicanism are concerned. The Catholic Church is not the only one in which sacraments are celebrated validly. Those denominations which have not departed from the fundamental Christian dogma, have valid baptism and therefore also marriage. Those which have valid holy orders have all sacraments valid, such as the Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox churches. The Anglicans don’t have valid sacraments because while the current rites are sufficient for ordination, the Edwardian rite was not and there is a gap in Apostolic succession. Those Anglican bishops who were ordained validly by e.g. Old Catholic bishops confer ordination validly, which is why Anglican lines are traced and sometimes conditional ordination is conferred.

Why we have to argue about such basics is that if we lie about this, what will we be true on, or true to? The accommodation of dissenting ideas is not as important as the truth is.

Again, I thank you for a restrained and even generous statement. The issue of the OC/PNCC participation in Anglican consecrations is not always recognised There have been, as far as I know, only two *sub conditione *ordinations, and they relied as much on the demonstrated Catholicity of the two gentlemen, one the former Bishop of London), as on their lineage. But the point is valid, if you will, and to Anglicans, more basic. Since the beginning of the joint consecrations with the OCs, in 1932, and the PNCC in particular, AFAIK in 1946, the spread of the Dutch Touch has been pervasive. It is hard to find an Anglican bishop free of it. And the consequences follow, unless one takes the Orthodox view of Orders.

*Apostolicae Curae *is a complicated and sad matter, which I have done more than a little reading on. The ruling on the Ordinal I think a possible, though an incorrect one, though I readily admit that it is the position of the RCC, and all RCs should affirm it. But the personal, historical, political and theological issues, for an Anglican must also be considered, not just Merry del Val’s words that appeared over Leo’s signature. The best summary of the RC position that I’m aware of is ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, by the former Jesuit priest Francis Clark. The best counter arguement, and best historical view of what happpened are the two volumes by Fr. John J. Hughes, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD. I commend these books to anyone wanting to pursue the background and the RC/Anglican logic on the case. Fr. Hughes, incidentally, a RC priest, was once an Anglican priest, and the other person (the first) known to have been ordained sub conditione In my opinion, his books win. But that’s the Anglican talking.

Again, thanks for a good post.

GKC

 

[GKC]

oh so he’s part of the Church of England wing too is he?

Anglicanism is so confusing sometimes…

You understate the case. Anglicanism, at it’s simplest, isn’t.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Subrosa,

“Also, I’m not convinced that the Episcopal Church in America does not have the Queen as it’s titular head.”

I’m not sure I can help you with that, but I tried.

Now I need a break. I’m going out to look for a copy of THIS ROCK magazine. Someone here told me it had an article on Henry VIII. I like articles on Hank.

Pax, frater.

GKC

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Thanks for your patience.

Thank you GKC. I did some more reading and it seems the conservative pastor at Grace Church & St. Stephen’s got fed up with the liberal diocesan bishop. The vestry (?) voted and is sticking with the conservative pastor. They announced they are no longer under the authority of the liberal diocesan bishop but now fall under the Bishop of Nigeria, within CANA – The Convocation of Anglicans in North America.

It seems that although Anglicans and Anglicans are so “very close” as the OP puts it, they still disagreed with regard to “the basics.”

May God help them through this trial.

 

[GKC]

Thank you GKC. I did some more reading and it seems the conservative pastor at **Grace Church & St. Stephen’s**got fed up with the liberal diocesan bishop. The vestry (?) voted and is sticking with the conservatice pastor. They announced they are no longer under the authority of the liberal diocesan bishop but now fall under the Bishop of Nigeria, within CANA – The Convocation of Anglicans in North America. It seems that although Anglicans and Anglicans are so “very close” as the OP puts it, they still disagreed with regard to “the basics.”

May God help them through this trial.

That’s another group like the AMIA. I (surprise) have troublekeeping it all straight.

Thanks.

GKC

 

[colliric]

anyway as a Catholic, I one day hope the Archbishop of Canterbury returns his rogue diocese and “the church of england” into direct communion with Rome, ending 400 years of sad seperation. I know it may not happen in my lifetime, but I hope they can put aside their minor differences and follow the lead of Cardinal Newman back into the universal church of Christ.

I know it would be hard for the COE to accept rejoining the one true Church, but the riff between us and the Orthodox is slowly closing in again…I hope the same occurs with us and the COE and Anglo-Catholics.

 

[GKC]

anyway as a Catholic, I one day hope the Archbishop of Canterbury returns his rogue diocese and “the church of england” into direct communion with Rome, ending 400 years of sad seperation. I know it may not happen in my lifetime, but I hope they can put aside their minor differences and follow the lead of Cardinal Newman back into the universal church of Christ.

I know it would be hard for the COE to accept rejoining the one true Church, but the riff between us and the Orthodox is slowly closing in again…I hope the same occurs with us and the COE and Anglo-Catholics.

Your good wishes are appreciated.

GKC