Church of England

[Novocastrian]

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

In my less charitable moments I secretly hope that the Americans will go their own separate way sooner or later; the more time that passes (at least in the short term), the more likely the English Church will follow them into the abyss and abandon the Africans. That said, I also suspect that in 50 years the game will have changed entirely; if we can hang on that long, we may yet have African Anglican missionaries leading a revival of the orthodox faith within a battered, bruised but not ultimately broken CofE.

It’s interesting that the CofE seems to be moving more and more into a very strange compromise of orthodox theology and lax moral theology. The theological colleges are increasingly reliable when it comes to teaching dogmatics; if we can just find some kind of workable via media on homosexuality. There are lots of orthodox Anglicans who want to be “tolerant” and inclusive without permitting gay marriage. Welby, for one. I wonder if it can be pulled off.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

In my less charitable moments I secretly hope that the Americans will go their own separate way sooner or later; the more time that passes (at least in the short term), the more likely the English Church will follow them into the abyss and abandon the Africans. That said, I also suspect that in 50 years the game will have changed entirely; if we can hang on that long, we may yet have African Anglican missionaries leading a revival of the orthodox faith within a battered, bruised but not ultimately broken CofE.

It’s interesting that the CofE seems to be moving more and more into a very strange compromise of orthodox theology and lax moral theology. The theological colleges are increasingly reliable when it comes to teaching dogmatics; if we can just find some kind of workable via media on homosexuality. There are lots of orthodox Anglicans who want to be “tolerant” and inclusive without permitting gay marriage. Welby, for one. I wonder if it can be pulled off.

If homosexuality is “the issue” facing the Church, I don’t think the Africans will be in the lead unless you consider archbishop Tutu as a teacher. I won’t get into the factors that many Anglicans apply to accepting gay marriage but the trend is with them. The educated world sees human expression of love not as a curse but as a natural God-given gift.

Pope Francis is a wise man and understands the human need; that is why I trust in him and pray for him daily.

 

[Novocastrian]

If homosexuality is “the issue” facing the Church, I don’t think the Africans will be in the lead unless you consider archbishop Tutu as a teacher. I won’t get into the factors that many Anglicans apply to accepting gay marriage but the trend is with them. The educated world sees human expression of love not as a curse but as a natural God-given gift.

Pope Francis is a wise man and understands the human need; that is why I trust in him and pray for him daily.

Your post reflects my own sympathies, and I would imagine the majority of the laity of the Church of England. That said, I try to be careful, on the basis that I should find it rather odd if the eternal will of God were identical with the morals and mores of a white, middle-class male in the twenty-first century. Such a staggering coincidence seems less likely than my own tendency to re-make God in my own image. For this reason I’m broadly supportive of Welby’s stance; reaffirming traditional doctrine re: marriage while allowing for room in secular society (and to a degree within the Church) for the acknowledgement of the temporal value of loving homosexual relationships.

I am aware of the apparent compromise within this position, and would revise it in either direction could I be convinced of the moral and theological justifications for doing so. At the moment I can’t, so I stick to the via media.

 

[Yeoman]

Any excuse to dig out the files on my computer…

The act I referred to is the ‘Consecration of Bishops Abroad Act’ of 1786 (26 Geo III, c.80). Under it, the Archbishop of Canterbury and two others (or any English bishops he deputised) were allowed to consecrate bishops for ministry outside ‘His Majesty’s dominions’ (i.e. the United States). However these bishops - and anyone subsequently drawing their ordination or consecration from them - was forbidden from exercising their ministry inside British dominions. So, for instance, someone made priest in the United States couldn’t then take up a parish in Canada (although this restriction was repealed in the 19th century).

Samuel Seabury was indeed consecrated by the nonjuring Scottish Episcopal Church in 1784 (I didn’t want to muddy the waters in my previous answer!). The argument of my dissertation, in fact, was basically that the Church of England was concerned that the emerging church in the US would be entirely nonjuring in origin, and thus Parliament was persuaded to pass the act.

The act was needed because customarily English bishops swore (and still swear) an oath to obey the monarch and his/her successors…which an American bishop, of course, could not in all conscience do.

The three bishops consecrated in England were William White, Samuel Provoost and James Madison (not the president, but in fact I believe his first or second cousin). Madison was consecrated a year or so after the other two. While Seabury was the ‘first’ bishop, he never participated in any consecrations (or rather, he was at a number of services but did not lay on hands himself). This was because his position as an ostensibly nonjuring bishop led many in the Episcopal Church to view him with suspicion as not being ‘properly’ Anglican. (As, similarly, the Roman Catholic church views the Anglican Church with suspicion, despite, arguably, the A/C also being in the apostolic succession).

For those readers wondering who the ‘nonjurors’ are - they were those Anglican priests and bishops who in 1688 refused to swear a new oath of loyalty to William III and Mary, who had ousted the previous (Catholic) monarch, James II, because James II had not abdicated and therefore they thought their oath was still valid; they were thrown out by the ‘mainstream’ Anglican church. More nonjurors were ‘created’ in 1714 when George I succeeded to the throne; the alternative candidate was the son of James II, known by supporters (the ‘Jacobites’) as James III. The nonjuring church in Scotland became the Scottish Episcopal Church (the Anglican Church in Scotland), and in England it died out/was subsumed back into the main A/C, by around 1800.

Edit - Seabury was one of the consecrators for Thomas Clagett, the first bishop consecrated in America, in 1792. All four bishops (as were then) participated, even though only 3 are required canonically, because of doubts about Seabury's own consecration: Madison was made bishop just in time for Clagett's consecration. The idea being that just in case Seabury's consecration was actually invalid, Madison made up the numbers anyway).

Did that act provide a jurisdictional basis for the Episcopal Church in the United States to claim a separation from Canterbury?

I’m obviously not an Episcopalian, but one thing that’s always bothered me about the Anglican Communion is it’s intellectual inconsistency in regards to what it is. Some conceive of it as Catholicism in England, under the thesis that the separation from Rome was the principal issue. Others (clearly including some English churchmen) saw it as the foundation of Protestantism in England. Others try to see it as a blend of the two.

For those who view it as a Catholic church, unrecognized by Rome, I’ve always wondered how the Episcopal churches separation from its seat at Canterbury could be explained.

 

[GKC]

Did that act provide a jurisdictional basis for the Episcopal Church in the United States to claim a separation from Canterbury?

I’m obviously not an Episcopalian, but one thing that’s always bothered me about the Anglican Communion is it’s intellectual inconsistency in regards to what it is. Some conceive of it as Catholicism in England, under the thesis that the separation from Rome was the principal issue. Others (clearly including some English churchmen) saw it as the foundation of Protestantism in England. Others try to see it as a blend of the two.

For those who view it as a Catholic church, unrecognized by Rome, I’ve always wondered how the Episcopal churches separation from its seat at Canterbury could be explained.

No, the Revolutionary War did that. It was a fait accompli.

With the exception of the Episcopal Church in the US, the independent members of the Anglican Communion became independent, as the British territories did, from colonies, under the crook of the Bishop of London, to provincial dioceses in territories and Dominions, to independence as their homeland achieved it. It was the Mother church cutting the ties to the children.

As to the studied motleyness of Anglicanism, that’s the fruits of the Elizabethan Compromise you’re seeing.

GKC

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.)

But mine is a true story bro’

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12136663&postcount=348

 

[GKC]

But mine is a true story bro’

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12136663&postcount=348

Not a joke, yes. But still funny.

An assumption that an Anglican is in the Anglican Communion, which EC made, is an unwarranted one, these days.

GKC

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not a joke, yes. But still funny.

An assumption that an Anglican is in the Anglican Communion, which EC made, is an unwarranted one, these days.

GKC

I’m sorry GKC. As this post shows I was on that same boat.

But that was so funny thou

PS - I have conquered the green devils today. Although, I am now faced with the thread of spider mites and other bugs I don’t know what they are in our vegetable garden… I think I still have a bug collecting vacuum my youngest gremlin used… will *hunt *them down after the brutal Texas mid-day sun crosses over.

 

[GKC]

I’m sorry GKC. As this post shows I was on that same boat.

But that was so funny thou

PS - I have conquered the green devils today. Although, I am now faced with the thread of spider mites and other bugs I don’t know what they are in our vegetable garden… I think I still have a bug collecting vacuum my youngest gremlin used… will *hunt *them down after the brutal Texas mid-day sun crosses over.

I congratulate you. I put in about an hour, in the early morning. I would say I might be finished with this project sometime next spring.

GKC

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I congratulate you. I put in about an hour, in the early morning. I would say I might be finished with this project sometime next spring.

GKC

Lol. Oh, they will come back in month or so… rinse and repeat - rinse and repeat. It’s a never ending battle. I want to cover the whole ground and put rocks in it. It is a dry place after all. But I’m not winning that battle either.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Your post reflects my own sympathies, and I would imagine the majority of the laity of the Church of England. That said, I try to be careful, on the basis that I should find it rather odd if the eternal will of God were identical with the morals and mores of a white, middle-class male in the twenty-first century. Such a staggering coincidence seems less likely than my own tendency to re-make God in my own image. For this reason I’m broadly supportive of Welby’s stance; reaffirming traditional doctrine re: marriage while allowing for room in secular society (and to a degree within the Church) for the acknowledgement of the temporal value of loving homosexual relationships.

I am aware of the apparent compromise within this position, and would revise it in either direction could I be convinced of the moral and theological justifications for doing so. At the moment I can’t, so I stick to the via media.

That is why you are an Anglican, my friend. Your Church has lead the way on so many issues by accommodating beliefs that are not necessary for salvation.

 

[Peter_J]

But mine is a true story bro’

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12136663&postcount=348

Touché.

 

[GKC]

Lol. Oh, they will come back in month or so… rinse and repeat - rinse and repeat. It’s a never ending battle. I want to cover the whole ground and put rocks in it. It is a dry place after all. But I’m not winning that battle either.

Not the main issue with me. What I am doing is mildly civilizing my wooded yard, by removing saplings, vines, weeds (yes, as Chesterton knew, they will return), restoring a couple of flower beds, letting my wife put in new camellias, and rescuing my blueberry bushes. This is not a squared away, manicured, regimented, edged, and trimmed bit of suburbia. It’s the family estate, which I need to put back a little, to the way it was for the first 63 years. Got a little out of hand.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Oops.

GKC

 

[Yeoman]

No, the Revolutionary War did that. It was a fait accompli.

With the exception of the Episcopal Church in the US, the independent members of the Anglican Communion became independent, as the British territories did, from colonies, under the crook of the Bishop of London, to provincial dioceses in territories and Dominions, to independence as their homeland achieved it. It was the Mother church cutting the ties to the children.

As to the studied motleyness of Anglicanism, that’s the fruits of the Elizabethan Compromise you’re seeing.

GKC

Indeed, the compromise would seem to be, at least from an outsider viewpoint, theologically untenable. I’d go far enough to say that the compromise set up what we’re seeing today, which is the separation of the Anglican Communion globally back into its constituent elements of “Catholic” (which has its obvious problems, as they’re not Catholic) and Protestant. As this happens, the Episcopal Church in North America is passing away.

On your other point, I guess that revives my point. I can’t quite understand how the Episcopal Church in the United States has a foundational basis that makes sense. If the original point of the “Catholic” segment of the Anglican Communion held that the church in England was its own valid Church, how did that transfer to the English Church in the United States. There’s a problem there. Unless of course you view it as a purely protestant church denying Apostolic succession, in which case there is not. But they don’t view themselves that way.

 

[GKC]

Indeed, the compromise would seem to be, at least from an outsider viewpoint, theologically untenable. I’d go far enough to say that the compromise set up what we’re seeing today, which is the separation of the Anglican Communion globally back into its constituent elements of “Catholic” (which has its obvious problems, as they’re not Catholic) and Protestant. As this happens, the Episcopal Church in North America is passing away.

On your other point, I guess that revives my point. I can’t quite understand how the Episcopal Church in the United States has a foundational basis that makes sense. If the original point of the “Catholic” segment of the Anglican Communion held that the church in England was its own valid Church, how did that transfer to the English Church in the United States. There’s a problem there. Unless of course you view it as a purely protestant church denying Apostolic succession, in which case there is not. But they don’t view themselves that way.

The fissure lines of Anglicanism are not cleanly on the Catholic/reformed edges. These were, historically, the extremes of the spectrum of Anglican doctrine, which mainly would show a bell shaped curve, at least for the past 250 years or so. The fractures these days are more on lines of sexually defined doctrine and practice, scriptural issues, and, yes, some doctrinal points on the Catholic/reformed lines.

As to the valid church issue, nothing more was required than that the offspring churches be constituted, possessed of valid episcopal lines, and Anglican doctrine, and there they were. Anglicanism does not hold to any sort of central authority, save as represented by the Parliamentary acts, in the CoE. No prelate is possessed of a universal ordinary authority. A derived church with valid apostolic succession was perfectly acceptable. As the independent nations sprung from the loins of the Empire walked their own path, but in some sense, in communion, so did the daughters of the CoE.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

Did that act provide a jurisdictional basis for the Episcopal Church in the United States to claim a separation from Canterbury?

I’m obviously not an Episcopalian, but one thing that’s always bothered me about the Anglican Communion is it’s intellectual inconsistency in regards to what it is. Some conceive of it as Catholicism in England, under the thesis that the separation from Rome was the principal issue. Others (clearly including some English churchmen) saw it as the foundation of Protestantism in England. Others try to see it as a blend of the two.

For those who view it as a Catholic church, unrecognized by Rome, I’ve always wondered how the Episcopal churches separation from its seat at Canterbury could be explained.

Well, it was only a temporary separation, and is explained for political reasons. I think you may be confusing communion with jurisdiction.

However, one of my difficulties has long been that Anglicanism in the U.S. does have less of a rationale than Anglicanism in England. Some traditional Episcopalians do apply the “Catholic Church of England” definition, but given what a small (though socially important) part of the American religious landscape Anglicanism has been ever since the Revolution, that’s hard to make stick. In many ways Methodism plays more of the role in America that Anglicanism plays in England, but really no denomination does.

Edwin

 

[ltwin]

Did that act provide a jurisdictional basis for the Episcopal Church in the United States to claim a separation from Canterbury?

I’m obviously not an Episcopalian, but one thing that’s always bothered me about the Anglican Communion is it’s intellectual inconsistency in regards to what it is. Some conceive of it as Catholicism in England, under the thesis that the separation from Rome was the principal issue. Others (clearly including some English churchmen) saw it as the foundation of Protestantism in England. Others try to see it as a blend of the two.

For those who view it as a Catholic church, unrecognized by Rome, I’ve always wondered how the Episcopal churches separation from its seat at Canterbury could be explained.

If I may, as a non-Anglican but someone who has studied the history of the Episcopal Church during colonial and Revolutionary times, interject.

The Church of England was a state church. Once the Revolutionary War started and definitely after the American states won their independence and Britain acknowledged that, it was impossible for the British government to provide any jurisdictional basis for an Anglican Church in the US.

As an agency of a foreign government, the Church of England could not exist in the US because it’s clergy took oaths of loyalty to the British monarch.

There would not have been an issue if there had already been an episcopacy already established in America, but this had not been done for several reasons. There were cloudy and murky jurisdictional issues in England, with the colonies being under the nominal jurisdiction of the Bishop of London.

Yet, there were also fears from the American colonists that if Bishops were sent to America they would establish ecclesiastical courts like existed in England and would start interfering in people’s daily lives. The power of the monarch and the bishop were closely connected in the minds of many Americans. One’s presence in the colonies represented another.

So, at the time of the break, there were no bishops. If there had been bishops and organized dioceses, those bishops could have simply continued doing what they had been doing. But that wasn’t the case. Instead, the American parishes were forced to organize themselves. They met in state conventions to organize Episcopal Churches for each of the former colonies and finally a General Convention to effect a nation wide jurisdiction.

It really was a “do it yourself” situation. The acts of Parliament were required to fix a problem England’s law about ordaining bishops outside of the British empire.

But, I daresay, if Britain had passed an act touching on the ecclesiastical jurisdiction inside the US, I think the US would have seen that as a diplomatic poke in the eye and an infringement on the US’ sovereignty as a nation.

But the short answer to the whole question is this:** The reasons for the Americans’ separation from Canterbury was clear to everyone. The established nature of the English Church and the new found sovereignty of the US made any jurisdictional connection impossible. If Episcopalians had tried to stay under English ecclesiastical authority, it would have been seen as treason.**

 

[Contarini]

Indeed, the compromise would seem to be, at least from an outsider viewpoint, theologically untenable.

I think it is not less but rather more tenable than other forms of Protestantism. (Yes, I accept that it is a form of Protestantism.) I am a bit frustrated by the tendency of many on these forums to express a kind of admiration for the more confessional or generally conservative forms of Protestantism, while pouring contempt on the more ecumenical and moderate forms.

The theological basis of Anglicanism is the claim that Christians ought to be able to unite based on the creedal heritage of the ancient Church (as in the “Lambeth Quadrilateral”: Scripture, the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, the two “evangelical sacraments,” and some form of the historic succession of bishops). The problem with this, of course, is that such a consensus approach could never have created the consensus in the first place. So I’m not arguing that the position is tenable. I do not, however, see that it’s any less tenable than other forms of Protestantism. It is by far the most tenable form of Protestantism, from my perspective.

I’d go far enough to say that the compromise set up what we’re seeing today, which is the separation of the Anglican Communion globally back into its constituent elements of “Catholic” (which has its obvious problems, as they’re not Catholic) and Protestant. As this happens, the Episcopal Church in North America is passing away.

It isn’t passing away, unless you mean that it’s dwindling in numbers. I wonder why so many conservative Christians are so eager to declare mainline churches dead. It seems to me that when you do this, you’re actually buying into one of the worst aspects of the “progressive” mentality–the idea that the mere passage of time reveals truth, so that over time the “right” ideas are bound to triumph.

I also don’t think that the Catholic and Protestant elements of Anglicanism are becoming more separate, necessarily. The liberal/conservative divide is actually bringing “high church” and “low church” folks on both sides together in many ways. But it is true that there are tensions with the ACNA and that perhaps it will eventually split apart on Catholic/evangelical lines. (The major fault line is women’s ordination, but that is in effect a Catholic/evangelical division, since most evangelical Anglicans in the U.S. are sufficiently moderate to have no problems with women’s ordination.)

On your other point, I guess that revives my point. I can’t quite understand how the Episcopal Church in the United States has a foundational basis that makes sense. If the original point of the “Catholic” segment of the Anglican Communion held that the church in England was its own valid Church, how did that transfer to the English Church in the United States. There’s a problem there. Unless of course you view it as a purely protestant church denying Apostolic succession, in which case there is not. But they don’t view themselves that way.

Well, some do. But I don’t think Apostolic Succession has anything to do with it. If the C of E has AS, so does the Episcopal Church. I take your point that the Episcopal Church isn’t a national church in the same way, but after all the people came over here, so their religion traditions came with them. If one were to transfer the nationalistic Anglican attitude to the U.S., one would argue that by rights the Episcopal Church ought to be the Church of Americans, since it’s the historic Church of English-speaking people. However, I agree that there are huge problems with this, and that the existence of a “nation of immigrants” complicates the picture and threatens to dissolve national-church ecclesiology into denominational ecclesiology, thus revealing its threadbare basis in the first place. (And, of course, Anglicanism isn’t the national church of Scotland or of the native population of Ireland. . . . )

Edwin

 

[GKC]

I think it is not less but rather more tenable than other forms of Protestantism. (Yes, I accept that it is a form of Protestantism.) I am a bit frustrated by the tendency of many on these forums to express a kind of admiration for the more confessional or generally conservative forms of Protestantism, while pouring contempt on the more ecumenical and moderate forms.

The theological basis of Anglicanism is the claim that Christians ought to be able to unite based on the creedal heritage of the ancient Church (as in the “Lambeth Quadrilateral”: Scripture, the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, the two “evangelical sacraments,” and some form of the historic succession of bishops). The problem with this, of course, is that such a consensus approach could never have created the consensus in the first place. So I’m not arguing that the position is tenable. I do not, however, see that it’s any less tenable than other forms of Protestantism. It is by far the most tenable form of Protestantism, from my perspective.

It isn’t passing away, unless you mean that it’s dwindling in numbers. I wonder why so many conservative Christians are so eager to declare mainline churches dead. It seems to me that when you do this, you’re actually buying into one of the worst aspects of the “progressive” mentality–the idea that the mere passage of time reveals truth, so that over time the “right” ideas are bound to triumph.

I also don’t think that the Catholic and Protestant elements of Anglicanism are becoming more separate, necessarily. The liberal/conservative divide is actually bringing “high church” and “low church” folks on both sides together in many ways. But it is true that there are tensions with the ACNA and that perhaps it will eventually split apart on Catholic/evangelical lines. (The major fault line is women’s ordination, but that is in effect a Catholic/evangelical division, since most evangelical Anglicans in the U.S. are sufficiently moderate to have no problems with women’s ordination.)

Well, some do. But I don’t think Apostolic Succession has anything to do with it. If the C of E has AS, so does the Episcopal Church. I take your point that the Episcopal Church isn’t a national church in the same way, but after all the people came over here, so their religion traditions came with them. If one were to transfer the nationalistic Anglican attitude to the U.S., one would argue that by rights the Episcopal Church ought to be the Church of Americans, since it’s the historic Church of English-speaking people. However, I agree that there are huge problems with this, and that the existence of a “nation of immigrants” complicates the picture and threatens to dissolve national-church ecclesiology into denominational ecclesiology, thus revealing its threadbare basis in the first place. (And, of course, Anglicanism isn’t the national church of Scotland or of the native population of Ireland. . . . )

Edwin

It would be rather odd, given the national polity we adapted, particularly as a reaction to what we had been experiencing under the Crown, if, having achieved independence, we had decided for an erastian Church, out of habit.

I do wonder, given your closing sentence, how many of the Churches arising as spin-offs from the CoE, in former colonies, did come into being as national Churches.

GKC