Hi! Can you help me understand the Anglican Church?

[ltwin]

But the Anglican Church started when a king decided to throw off the authority of the Pope. Anglicanism as a tradition doesn’t make sense to me. It’s as if it started simply because a whiny king couldn’t get his way.

That is how it was legally established. King Henry wanted an annulment. The Pope would not grant it. The King convenes Parliament, which then passes laws separating the Church in England from the Roman Church and ending papal control.

Once this happens, English Protestants who were influenced by Lutheranism and Calvinism began to gain influence over the doctrinal trajectory of the Church of England. Anglicanism becomes a hybrid of Lutheranism and Calvinism (with some Arminianism thrown in for good measure). The first Book of Common Prayer is published, which establishes the benchmark for Anglican liturgy.

And now, on the surface, it seems much of Anglicanism looks (Roman) Catholic. Why would someone choose to be Anglican over Catholic?

During the English Reformation, many just went to the parish church that they always had. Many realized that if they remained Catholic, they would be legally discriminated against and so took the path of least resistance. Others no doubt truly believed what the Anglican Church was teaching. Then of course, as generations went by, many people are Anglican because their parents were Anglicans.

 

[GKMotley]

It isn’t a problem with me, as an Anglican. It’s a issue that would keep me from affirming what I would have to affirm, to become another form of Catholic, to wit, RC.

 

[catholic1seeks]

@ltwin

Thanks for your clarifications.

I mean no disrespect to Anglicans. It’s just, it seems unnecessary. Like, the Anglican Church seems to be just one more unnecessary division in the Body of Christ.

Like I said, I better understand the rationalizations or reasonings of other Christian communities. I just don’t really understand why Anglicanism is necessary.

It seems redundant. Like, either make the necessary conclusions that lead to Rome, or follow the paths of Luther and Calvin. I know that doesn’t sound very sensitive of me to say, but again, the whole thing with Anglicanism’s origins and various trajectories through the ages makes me wonder…

 

[catholic1seeks]

What is a “Catholic,” and how do we know?

Can you be more or less of a Catholic?

 

[GKMotley]

Nit picky detail. Not an annulment. That implies something done to a marriage. A decree of nullity, that no valid marriage took place. Small point.

Otherwise, no quibbles. Other than that some folk are Anglican because they took a deep look and chose it.

 

[GKMotley]

Valid apostolic succession.

No one need agree with me.

I’ll argue the point with no one, either.

 

[ltwin]

I understand that some Anglicans think they are Catholics. But I just don’t really get it. Anglicanism used to be un-Catholic a little after it’s origin in the 16h century, then it became more Catholic (in appearance).

That’s because of the Oxford Movement.

Is it simply English Christianity?

Yes. Anglicanism is the form of Christianity associated with English nationality and culture.

Would it make sense for people outside the UK to be Anglican?

Yes, due to British colonization and missionary work.

That is, I know there are Episcopalians in the USA (which are the American version of Anglicans). But how does that make sense, if it was originally the “Church of England.”

The US began as 13 British colonies. In many of these colonies (Virginia, South Carolina, etc.), the Church of England was established by law and supported by taxes. After the Revolution, the American members of the Church of England created Protestant Episcopal Churches in each state. Eventually, these state churches united to form the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA.

Why would Anglicans stop being Anglicans just because their government changed?

 

[catholic1seeks]

But how do you know Anglicans have apostolic succession?

 

[ltwin]

It seems redundant. Like, either make the necessary conclusions that lead to Rome, or follow the paths of Luther and Calvin. I know that doesn’t sound very sensitive of me to say, but again, the whole thing with Anglicanism’s origins and various trajectories through the ages makes me wonder…

It’s hard to do that because the Church of England was a national church. It was always seeking to be “comprehensive” and inclusive of everyone. That became a problem when the Reformation unleashed various theological movements that did not always see eye to eye.

If you are trying to be a national church, it makes it hard to be exclusive.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Why would Anglicans stop being Anglicans just because their government changed?

Well initially, that was precisely one of my questions, because it started because of the government. After all, don’t many Anglicans just claim that Anglicanism is England’s branch of the Catholic Church?

 

[GKMotley]

Had to change their names, though. And go to the Non-jurors for episcopal consecration.

And the Ritualists, following the Oxford Movement/Tractarians.

 

[catholic1seeks]

It’s hard to do that because the Church of England was a national church. It was always seeking to be “comprehensive” and inclusive of everyone. That became a problem when the Reformation unleashed various theological movements that did not always see eye to eye.

If you are trying to be a national church, it makes it hard to be exclusive.

Then how can a tremendous diversity within one communion maintain that it is part of the apostolic “Catholic Church” when different groups have very different practices and theology?

 

[ltwin]

Had to change their names, though.

Yes, for patriotic reasons of course. But the Anglicans had always been called Episcopalians anyway, so it was not so much a change.

And go to the Non-jurors for episcopal consecration.

Yes, of the Episcopal Church of Scotland–another example of Anglicans outside of England.

 

[GKMotley]

I’ve never met any. I’ve met a lot who say that Anglicanism is a part of the Catholic Church.Not another Catholic Church.

 

[GKMotley]

Non-Jurors were sort of the original Continuing Anglicans

 

[ltwin]

Then how can a tremendous diversity within one communion maintain that it is part of the apostolic “Catholic Church” when different groups have very different practices and theology?

Because there has never been perfect agreement about every aspect of the Christian faith, ever. To be Catholic, one could argue, could mean including diverse differences.

 

[catholic1seeks]

But then that gets to the heart of it:

How and who decides what is essential – what is Catholic?

As Cyprian said in the third century:

“If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition).

 

[GKMotley]

Especially when defining the Catholic Church to include those possessing valid apostolic succession. Not that everyone does that, of course.

 

[ltwin]

Well initially, that was precisely one of my questions, because it started because of the government.

No. There would have been Protestants in England whether King Henry wanted a divorce or not. That only made the kings and Parliament a factor in shaping what kind of Protestantism would become dominant.

After all, don’t many Anglicans just claim that Anglicanism is England’s branch of the Catholic Church?

Yes, but once again, why would American Anglicans stop being Anglican just because their government changed from a monarchy to a republic?

 

[catholic1seeks]

To be Catholic, one could argue, could mean including diverse differences.

Catholic surely involves diversity, for it precisely means the wholeness of the faith.

But there have always been boundaries. There have always been sects, schisms, and heresies that the early Christians defined as outside the visible Catholic Church.