Hi! Can you help me understand the Anglican Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Catholic1seeks, you raised a very interesting thread, and the discussion was excellent for the first 70 posts or so. @ltwin, @GKMotley, and @JoyToTheWhirled wrote up a lot of posts to answer all your very interesting questions, and I think they did so quite adequately. I really enjoyed reading through the entire thread – something I hardly ever do with any thread. I just don’t understand why in the last dozen posts or so, the discussion has to turn sour about “apostolic succession”? Wouldn’t it be great to just be thankful for all the information provided, and leave it at that? (Just my thoughts…)
 
Last edited:
Depends. Some Anglicans care a lot about AS. Others don’t.
Click to expand...
Ok ok ok, I guess this is what has been the root of my confusion:

Some are using “Anglican” or Anglican Church to mean another version of Catholicism – like an on-par church with Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. As if its the anglo version of the Catholic Church. The whole “three branch” theory of some Oxford Anglicans.

And yet, on the other hand, Anglicanism is not just an anglo version of Catholcisim, but a catch-all for essentially ANY Christianity expressed under the throne of England (at least initially).

And so really the first position does not make sense, since (1) not all Anglicans even hold to this theory and (2) many of them don’t even practice a type of Christianity that resembles apostolic or Catholic tradition. They even oppose it vigorously, like Calvinistic expression of English Christianity and so on.
 
Some of them do (surprise). It’s one meaning of referring to themselves as a via media.
 
Remember that term “motley”? And how I said one can’t generalize about Anglicans? There you go.
 
catholic1seeks said:
And so really the first position does not make sense, since (1) not all Anglicans even hold to this theory and (2) many of them don’t even practice a type of Christianity that resembles apostolic or Catholic tradition. They even oppose it vigorously, like Calvinistic expression of English Christianity and so on.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t go that far. You can be a Calvinist and an Anglican (I mean at one time I’m pretty sure all Anglicans were Calvinists of one sort or another). You can be a Calvinist and be liturgical. You can be an Anglican Calvinist and believe in the branch theory. Though, its true that the more Calvinist or evangelical parts of the Anglican Church would be more likely to embrace the “Protestant” character of the Anglican churches.
 
Last edited:
Right, but then you went on to talk about how you believe in One True Church that has apostolic succession. I guess when I hear apostolic succession, I automatically associate it with bishops that are priests and offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, hear confessions, have real jurisdiction, and so on.

But clearly not all Anglicans have that view.
 
You can be an Anglican Calvinist and believe in the branch theory.
Click to expand...
That implies that Anglican Calvinitsts consider Catholics and Orthodox as just as valid expressions of Christianity. Is that so? Orthodoxy is hardly Calvinist.
 
As opposed to the Anglo-Catholisc, and even parts of the undefined Anglicans.
 
catholic1seeks said:
That implies that Anglican Calvinitsts consider Catholics and Orthodox as just as valid expressions of Christianity. Is that so? Orthodoxy is hardly Calvinist.
Click to expand...
They certainly would see the Catholic and Orthodox churches as part of the Great Tradition of which Anglicanism is a part. Would they recommend their children become Catholic or Orthodox? Probably not.
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
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.”
Click to expand...
My understanding of this is that after the American Revolution, the name “Episcopalian” was used in the US to distinguish that church from the C of E, so I guess it started out as semantics. They’re still (as far as I know) part of the Anglican Communion, though.

And of course “episcopal” referred to the bishop structure, which was different from most other Protestant churches in the US.

(Wanted to add it reminds me of the stories of Merriam Webster changing words for the American dictionary…)
 
Last edited:
GKMotley said:
And then there is the whole issue of the on-gong conflicts between the Throne and Rome, stretching back at least to the first Statute of Westminster, up to the Henrician Acts. An intertwining of Church and State, in a power struggle brought to a head by nascent nationalism. History is full of history.
Click to expand...
Yes. I’m watching Gunpowder from the BBC on Amazon. Only seen the first episode but interesting if you like history.
 
There seems to be this modern fad among several new poppin-up Protestant groups that try to integrate the “Great Tradition.” In a way, it tries to see past denominational lines.

I find that perspective very interesting and open-minded. But I do not find it to be very realistic or persuasive. For example, these groups will try to nod towards the early Christian understanding of the Eucharistic “real presence,” but in the process, they end up missing the point of the realism, etc.
 
What I mean by the Great Tradition is simply the shared theological heritage that the historic Protestant churches share with other Christian churches.
 
One way to say it:

No matter how much we try to integrate, there will always be boundaries. Even the most progressive and inclusive churches have their boundaries (“we ACCEPT gay marriage”) and so on. The question is, how do we know what is authentic diversity, and what is outside the Church? etc.
 
This thread has basically turned into Anglican apologetics. Fact of the matter is that the Anglicans split from the church founded by Jesus Christ and his apostles. Some may be fine with that, but I personally do not think it is what Jesus wanted.
 
Anglican apologetics? Catholic1seeks asked questions. People answered. Not sure what the problem is.
 
Odd, I thought it looked like “kick the Anglican”.

I never do Anglican apologetics. Sometimes I talk history, esp. when I know it well. And that sometimes looks like apologetics to those who know it less well. Sometimes I correct stuff about Anglicanism, 'cause I’ve found the history related to them to be a puzzle to many. It was the reason I first posted, anywhere, on anything, over 20 years ago. Sometimes I try and answer questions. But I don’t proselytize for the tribe (I am much.more likely to get snarky over many of them) and I do prefer not see the “How can you believe…”/“How do you defend this (or that) Anglican enormity I’ve just posted?” sort of queries.

But I’m still around.

P.S. I don’t see anyone else doing Anglican apologetics either. I see history here and there.
 
Last edited:
That’s all well and good. Speaking of history, surely you wouldn’t deny that Peter was chosen by Jesus to lead his church and that he was the leader of the apostles as recorded by Luke in Acts, right? Surely you wouldn’t deny that Jesus repeatedly and explicitly expressed for his flock to be one?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top