And I told you, above, seriously.
Anglicanism is not a result of being in communion with +Cantaur.
At one time, Anglicanism was the Church of England, pure and simple. As the British Empire expanded, and colonial sees were established, under Canterbury as primate, the family grew. But after the independence of the colonial Churches as the current constituent Churches of the Communion, each Church had its own, independent Primate. The association, like the British Commonwealth, was a voluntary one.
Assuming the apostolic succession/valid orders, creedal Christianity and Anglican liturgy/formualries, what you have is an Anglican Church. Sometimes/often such will be in communion woth +Cantaur, and lately, sometimes not. TEC, by is abondomanent of a large portion of the creedal componment, and its use of invalid matter in the case of orders, is becoming a non Anglican Church, in communion with Canterbury, which is on the same path. It’s not with whom one is in communion that defines Anglicanism, but the content and expression of the faith.
I again recall the Non-Jurors to your mind. Where you had an Anglican group, including the previous Archbishop of Canterbury, not in communion withn the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Eventually, I expect the Anglican Communion to be an association of liberal, post Christian entities, likely still in communion with Canterbury. With Anglicanism being limited to the letterhead.
GKC
But the definition of the Anglican Communion is that is a group of provinces/churches that are in full communion with the Church of England. And the Primate of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury. I agree that TEC and other provinces are doing things that are challenging historical orthodoxy, but a key component of historical Anglicanism is that connection to the Church of England (which can, both through AS and Tradition, trace that connection to Pope Gregory the Great and St. Augustine of Canterbury).
I do have to ask though: what happened to that glorious province that was founded by Pope Gregory and St. Augustine of Canterbury? Maybe Anglicanism needs another St. Gregory and St. Augustine to reform, reinvigorate and restore it.
On the main subject of the necessity for communion with +
Cantuar, remember although Apostolic Succession is traditionally important, there is also the issue of spiritual authority. Only +
Cantuar sits on the Chair of St. Augustine created Pope Gregory I. Even if one disagrees with the theology or manner of +
Cantuar, he still holds that ceremonial importance that, if denied, reduces Anglicanism to simply another denomination (as oppsed to a Rite with a connection to the Early Church).
Well I would point out that some Anglicans (along with some Orthodox, for that matter) call themselves “Catholic” even though they’re not in full communion with the Pope.
Remember, Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox recognize a key difference between
Catholic and
Roman Catholic. Catholic, in its plain definition, means Universal. Since we all agree that there is one Universal Church, or
One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, then all true (i.e. Saved) Christians are part of the Catholic Church.
It is unfortunate for discussions-sake that Roman Catholicism uses
Catholic as part of its name for it causes a lot of confusion. After all, most people do not know that Catholic simply means Universal, but instead they automatically connect it to Roman Catholicism (the Latin Rite). In fact, I remember the first time I was at an Anglican service and the Nicene Creed was recited and we got to that part about ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’. I was a little confused (I was thinking ‘wait a sec! we’re not Roman Catholic, why do say we are?’) until I realized that Catholic simply means Universal. Obviously, all Christians are part of that Universal Church.
Look at it this way:
All Christians are Catholic, but not all Christians are Roman Catholic.
