Church of England

  • Thread starter Thread starter Isaiah45_9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GKC said:
Well done, says I. And I knew not of the Act mentioned (though, now knowing of it, I’ll bet I’ve got a compendium of Parliamentary Ecclesiastical Acts that might contain it).

I thank you for adding to my store of minutiae with that. Which I will incorporate into my show and tell as appropriate.

I certainly agree that the RCC has a negative view of the Anglican world (as concerns holy orders), per Apostolicae Curae/1896. Suspicion is not the word.

Thank you again. Learning something new, especially in an area that interests me, is something to be grateful for.

GKC
Click to expand...
Thank you GKC - it’s nice occasionally to actually put all that work to use!! 😃

The impact of of Apostolicae Curae - if somewhat lessened nowadays with the creation of the Personal Ordinariate - was, for what it’s worth, probably the biggest stumbling block on my journey from Canterbury to Rome (my conversion predated Anglicanorum coetibus). I appreciate where it comes from, but it’s a huge thorn in the side of what otherwise could be extremely warm ecumencial relations.

God bless,

Ellie
 
Additional point, confirming yours:

Holmes/A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH has +Madison as the President’s second cousin, and discusses the concern over Seabury’s lines, resulting in a hesitation for the American bishops to consecrate, until there were 3 of them, with English lines. Sometimes I don’t recall all I’ve read.

GKC
 
The sad tale of the politics, personalities, history, and theology bubbling in the long story of that Letter, from the first meeting of Halifax and Portal, in 1892, to the last echoes of the Malines Conversations in 1927, have been a hobby of mine for roughly 15+ years.

And thank you again.

GKC
Murmurs said:
Thank you GKC - it’s nice occasionally to actually put all that work to use!! 😃

The impact of of Apostolicae Curae - if somewhat lessened nowadays with the creation of the Personal Ordinariate - was, for what it’s worth, probably the biggest stumbling block on my journey from Canterbury to Rome (my conversion predated Anglicanorum coetibus). I appreciate where it comes from, but it’s a huge thorn in the side of what otherwise could be extremely warm ecumencial relations.

God bless,

Ellie
Click to expand...
 
This is the issue with Anglicanism, and even with Eastern Orthodoxy,

Without a distinct head and hierarchy, all he** breaks loose.

That’s one of the major reasons I reverted to Catholicism, because of how impressive it is to see how much Unity there is in the faith even with ~1.2 billion members.
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
Howdy,

Please help a Catholic brother out 🙂

In another thread one poster said to another poster: “I thought you were Anglican”.

The other poster replied: “I am Anglican”.

As incredibly funny as that can be, it does hold true that not 2 Anglicans are alike? 🙂

So, how does it work? Is the Church under the hierarchy of the crown? And does that mean that the Crown has the ability to direct the Church in a Pope like manner?

There’s High Church and Low Church - are there further levels within those 2?

Some ordain women, some don’t.

Do all branches/off shoots have Bishops? Which ones have Bishops?

Thanks,
Click to expand...
The truth is that there is even some debate about what the definition of “the Crown” is. If we look at the Queen (which may or may not be the same thing) we find that her jurisdiction is complete over both the secular and religious nation of England. On the other hand her jurisdiction over both fields is so slight as to be possibly non-existent. It’s a mystery. You’ll understand that sort of concept, I’ve no doubt.

As to High and Low and suchlike, you need to recognise that the Church of England is quite different from other provinces of the Anglican Communion in that it is the national church of the English. That means (or at any rate what it has decided it means) is that it must attempt to encompass a national range of Christian tendencies from Calvinist to Catholic. This has, to some extent, transmitted itself to the wider Communion, but only to some extent. The Church of England, at any rate, is as motley as you can find, and much loved for it.
 
Picky_Picky said:
The truth is that there is even some debate about what the definition of “the Crown” is. If we look at the Queen (which may or may not be the same thing) we find that her jurisdiction is complete over both the secular and religious nation of England. On the other hand her jurisdiction over both fields is so slight as to be possibly non-existent. It’s a mystery. You’ll understand that sort of concept, I’ve no doubt.
Click to expand...
On paper one thing - in practice another?
Picky_Picky said:
As to High and Low and suchlike, you need to recognise that the Church of England is quite different from other provinces of the Anglican Communion in that it is the national church of the English. That means (or at any rate what it has decided it means) is that it must attempt to encompass a national range of Christian tendencies from Calvinist to Catholic. This has, to some extent, transmitted itself to the wider Communion, but only to some extent. The Church of England, at any rate, is as motley as you can find, and much loved for it.
Click to expand...
Got it.

I was under the impression that all of Anglicanism was under the CofE and that Episcopalians was the branch of Anglicanism that didn’t want to be under the CofE.

Thanks.
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
On paper one thing - in practice another?

Got it.

I was under the impression that all of Anglicanism was under the CofE and that Episcopalians was the branch of Anglicanism that didn’t want to be under the CofE.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
It is not an uncommon impression. As I said, it was what started me posting online, years ago.

GKC
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
I was under the impression that all of Anglicanism was under the CofE and that Episcopalians was the branch of Anglicanism that didn’t want to be under the CofE.
.
Click to expand...
No. In fact, those Anglicans in the U.S. who are not Episcopalians do not have a formal relationship with the C of E, as the Episcopal Church does. There was an attempt to discipline the Episcopal Church by the Anglican Communion but it does not appear to be going anywhere. The ACNA, the recent conservative breakaway group, would like to be part of the Anglican Communion but currently is not.

The main point to bear in mind is that in Anglicanism the different national churches or provinces are in communion with each other but are seen as equal. The C of E is the mother church and thus has a primacy of honor, but no authority. An “Anglican Covenant” was proposed several years ago which would have given the Anglican Communion (not the C of E per se) more power over national churches, but it fizzled. If there was a last straw for me, it was that, although I had mixed feelings about the Covenant. Those who opposed it kept saying, “We don’t want to be like the Roman Catholics” (i.e., we don’t want an international body with any disciplinary teeth). And in a sense I agreed that it was silly for Anglicans to set up their own separate international body parallel to the Catholic Church. What I wanted was for Anglicanism to be united to Catholicism. But the failure of the Covenant made it crystal clear that the Episcopal Church is unwilling to be part of any larger body that could have any authority, even the mildest. Many Episcopalians think that the Episcopal Church is really a Church, which is nonsense.

Edwin
 
Picky_Picky said:
The truth is that there is even some debate about what the definition of “the Crown” is. If we look at the Queen (which may or may not be the same thing) we find that her jurisdiction is complete over both the secular and religious nation of England. On the other hand her jurisdiction over both fields is so slight as to be possibly non-existent. It’s a mystery. You’ll understand that sort of concept, I’ve no doubt.

As to High and Low and suchlike, you need to recognise that the Church of England is quite different from other provinces of the Anglican Communion in that it is the national church of the English. That means (or at any rate what it has decided it means) is that it must attempt to encompass a national range of Christian tendencies from Calvinist to Catholic. This has, to some extent, transmitted itself to the wider Communion, but only to some extent. The Church of England, at any rate, is as motley as you can find, and much loved for it.
Click to expand...
All of Anglicanism is, what you say, motley.

I find it a useful word.

GKC
 
Contarini said:
No. In fact, those Anglicans in the U.S. who are not Episcopalians do not have a formal relationship with the C of E, as the Episcopal Church does. There was an attempt to discipline the Episcopal Church by the Anglican Communion but it does not appear to be going anywhere. The ACNA, the recent conservative breakaway group, would like to be part of the Anglican Communion but currently is not.

The main point to bear in mind is that in Anglicanism the different national churches or provinces are in communion with each other but are seen as equal. The C of E is the mother church and thus has a primacy of honor, but no authority. An “Anglican Covenant” was proposed several years ago which would have given the Anglican Communion (not the C of E per se) more power over national churches, but it fizzled. If there was a last straw for me, it was that, although I had mixed feelings about the Covenant. Those who opposed it kept saying, “We don’t want to be like the Roman Catholics” (i.e., we don’t want an international body with any disciplinary teeth). And in a sense I agreed that it was silly for Anglicans to set up their own separate international body parallel to the Catholic Church. What I wanted was for Anglicanism to be united to Catholicism. But the failure of the Covenant made it crystal clear that the Episcopal Church is unwilling to be part of any larger body that could have any authority, even the mildest. Many Episcopalians think that the Episcopal Church is really a Church, which is nonsense.

Edwin
Click to expand...
I recall well, an exchange of posts, years ago. You were there.

GKC
 
Contarini said:
No. In fact, those Anglicans in the U.S. who are not Episcopalians do not have a formal relationship with the C of E, as the Episcopal Church does. There was an attempt to discipline the Episcopal Church by the Anglican Communion but it does not appear to be going anywhere. The ACNA, the recent conservative breakaway group, would like to be part of the Anglican Communion but currently is not.

The main point to bear in mind is that in Anglicanism the different national churches or provinces are in communion with each other but are seen as equal. The C of E is the mother church and thus has a primacy of honor, but no authority. An “Anglican Covenant” was proposed several years ago which would have given the Anglican Communion (not the C of E per se) more power over national churches, but it fizzled. If there was a last straw for me, it was that, although I had mixed feelings about the Covenant. Those who opposed it kept saying, “We don’t want to be like the Roman Catholics” (i.e., we don’t want an international body with any disciplinary teeth). And in a sense I agreed that it was silly for Anglicans to set up their own separate international body parallel to the Catholic Church. What I wanted was for Anglicanism to be united to Catholicism. But the failure of the Covenant made it crystal clear that the Episcopal Church is unwilling to be part of any larger body that could have any authority, even the mildest. Many Episcopalians think that the Episcopal Church is really a Church, which is nonsense.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Thanks Edwin. I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

This reminds me of a saying in Spanish:

“Juntos pero no revueltos”

I guess it can translate as:

“Together but not scrambled”

😃
 
To me, the Anglican Communion is analogous to the British Commonwealth. Both are groups of churches/nations that have historical, political, and cultural ties to the UK but today are sovereign in their own right. Just as the Queen is the symbolic head of the Commonwealth, the Archbishop of Canterbury is looked to as a symbol of unity by other Anglican churches but does not have any ecclesiastical authority outside of the Church of England.
 
ltwin said:
To me, the Anglican Communion is analogous to the British Commonwealth. Both are groups of churches/nations that have historical, political, and cultural ties to the UK but today are sovereign in their own right. Just as the Queen is the symbolic head of the Commonwealth, the Archbishop of Canterbury is looked to as a symbol of unity by other Anglican churches but does not have any ecclesiastical authority outside of the Church of England.
Click to expand...
I have used precisely that analogy.

GKC
 
GKC said:
I have used precisely that analogy.

GKC
Click to expand...
I wonder have you heard the following humorous phrase about the different groups in the Anglican Communion:

“The Africans pray, the Americans pay and the English make all the rules”?

I know it’s not entirely accurate, but I always thought it reflected at least some generalized historical stereotypes.
 
ltwin said:
I wonder have you heard the following humorous phrase about the different groups in the Anglican Communion:

“The Africans pray, the Americans pay and the English make all the rules”?

I know it’s not entirely accurate, but I always thought it reflected at least some generalized historical stereotypes.
Click to expand...
I have not heard it, but it is apropos.

GKC
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
Howdy,

Please help a Catholic brother out 🙂

In another thread one poster said to another poster: “I thought you were Anglican”.

The other poster replied: “I am Anglican”.

As incredibly funny as that can be,
Click to expand...
One time I walked into a bar to discover that everyone was listening to this one guy, who was in the process of saying "… And then the woman said ‘Well I thought you were Anglican!’ "

I never found out what came before, but judging by the way everyone cracked up, I’d say that was incredibly funny. (Maybe you didn’t tell it right.)
 
Peter_J said:
One time I walked into a bar to discover that everyone was listening to this one guy, who was in the process of saying "… And then the woman said ‘Well I thought you were Anglican!’ "

I never found out what came before, but judging by the way everyone cracked up, I’d say that was incredibly funny. (Maybe you didn’t tell it right.)
Click to expand...
The point of the exchange that Isaiah mentioned was that not all Anglicans are in the Anglican Communion.

The point of your experience could be similar. There are Anglicans. And then there are Anglicans. Hard to tell.

GKC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top