Is Anglicanism or Orthodoxy closer to Catholicism?

[jimkhong]

The Anglo-Catholic church you describe sounds a lot like mine. No Sacred Heart, though. Just a Mary Shrine (OL of Walsingham).

What you are pointing out is one of my main posting points. Anglicanism is a loose and general term. All sorts of things to be found in Anglicanism.

Can’t remember the church’s name or where except that it was in Central London. I attended mass there and they used the exact same verbatim Order of Mass as the Catholic Order of Mass printed on the same laminated card that you get in Westminster Cathedral. The only difference is the part in the Eucharistic Prayer where they pray for the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Is that your church, GKC? Let me know the name and the location. Would like to visit it again one day. That was some 20+ years ago

 

[adamhovey1988]

Liturgy=Anglican (for WESTERN Catholics), theology, Orthodox

 

[GKC]

Can’t remember the church’s name or where except that it was in Central London. I attended mass there and they used the exact same verbatim Order of Mass as the Catholic Order of Mass printed on the same laminated card that you get in Westminster Cathedral. The only difference is the part in the Eucharistic Prayer where they pray for the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Is that your church? Let me know the name and the location. Would like to visit it again one day. That was some 20+ years ago

No, I was speaking generically. That’s a not untypical Anglo-Catholic church you described. And though we don’t still do it, we also would mention the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch.

 

[jimkhong]

And though we don’t still do it, we also would mention the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Your meaning? Don’t do it any more? Why?

 

[GKC]

Your meaning? Don’t do it any more? Why?

That rector passed away. The current one follows the 1928 BCP more closely.

 

[jimkhong]

That rector passed away. The current one follows the 1928 BCP more closely.

Aah, so Anglican mass the Catholic way is more a local decision, not something approved by Lambeth or General Synod. Very Anglican that: you do what you do and we won’t bother you if you don’t bother us. The Roman Curia won’t stand for that: they will come down on you like a ton of bricks.

 

[GKC]

Aah, so Anglican mass the Catholic way is more a local decision, not something approved by Lambeth or General Synod. Very Anglican that: you do what you do and we won’t bother you if you don’t bother us. The Roman Curia won’t stand for that: they will come down on you like a ton of bricks.

It is hard for Lambeth, General Synod, or TEC to bother Anglicans such as we are. I am a Continuing Anglican, not in the Communion or TEC.

But, of course, as you note, Anglicans are likely to be somewhat independent, wherever they may be.

 

[jimkhong]

It is hard for Lambeth, General Synod, or TEC to bother Anglicans such as we are. I am a Continuing Anglican, not in the Communion or TEC.

But, of course, as you note, Anglicans are likely to be somewhat independent, wherever they may be.

O yes I forgot. So that is what is confusing. I need to ask whether they are Continuing Anglicans or are they Anglicans. So, Anglo-Catholics within the Communion will still use the BCP? If they have a mass, it will be illicit?

 

[GKC]

O yes I forgot. So that is what is confusing. I need to ask whether they are Continuing Anglicans or are they Anglicans. So, Anglo-Catholics within the Communion will still use the BCP? If they have a mass, it will be illicit?

Continuing Anglicans are Anglicans, not in the Communion. Anglicans in the Communion are Anglicans, in the Communion.

Anglo-Catholics in the Communion may use a variety of liturgical rites and practices. Assuming it doesn’t call for sacrificing virgins, or use clowns or something, there should be no issue. I assume you mean would such be illicit in the eyes of the local Ordinary, or some other higher authority. I would expect so, but you know the variability of Anglicans. You need a CoE voice to better answer that.

 

[jimkhong]

Continuing Anglicans are Anglicans, not in the Communion. Anglicans in the Communion are Anglicans, in the Communion.

Anglo-Catholics in the Communion may use a variety of liturgical rites and practices. Assuming it doesn’t call for sacrificing virgins, or use clowns or something, there should be no issue. I assume you mean would such be illicit in the eyes of the local Ordinary, or some other higher authority. I would expect so, but you know the variability of Anglicans. You need a CoE voice to better answer that.

Haha, I take your point.

I am all for diversity int he Church, but not to the point of the loss of identity. It is so hard now to see who is CofE. A consequence of sweeping all those differences under the carpet 30 or 40 years ago.

What about the Continuing Anglicans? I presume it is a communion of churches. Would the
different wings of Anglicanism have difference churches within the communion?

 

[GKC]

Haha, I take your point.

I am all for diversity int he Church, but not to the point of the loss of identity. It is so hard now to see who is CofE. A consequence of sweeping all those differences under the carpet 30 or 40 years ago.

What about the Continuing Anglicans? I presume it is a communion of churches. Would the
different wings of Anglicanism have difference churches within the communion?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_Anglican_movement

The Continuum is a loose collection of independent jurisdictions and Churches. It was primarily and still is, mostly, on the Anglo-Catholic side of the Anglican spectrum, since it was formed, in the beginning, by Anglicans leaving TEC and other Communion jurisdictions, in the late 70s-early 80s, over issues that were most likely to concern Anglo-Catholics, rather than more evangelical types: liturgical issues, females in clerical garments, things like that. Later, as the sexual/gender politics began to play more in the decline of the Communion jurisdictions (first world jurisdictions, anyway), more reformed/evangelicals began to make their departures.

 

[jimkhong]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_Anglican_movement

The Continuum is a loose collection of independent jurisdictions and Churches. It was primarily and still is, mostly, on the Anglo-Catholic side of the Anglican spectrum, since it was formed, in the beginning, by Anglicans leaving TEC and other Communion jurisdictions, in the late 70s-early 80s, over issues that were most likely to concern Anglo-Catholics, rather than more evangelical types: liturgical issues, females in clerical garments, things like that. Later, as the sexual/gender politics began to play more in the decline of the Communion jurisdictions (first world jurisdictions, anyway), more reformed/evangelicals began to make their departures.

But for those who are evangelicals, what are the arrangements. I presume they have their own parishes but separate churches under a separate bishop with autonomous jurisdiction?

 

[TK421]

I have been to Episcopalian and Orthodox Churches and I found similarities to Catholic Mass in both of them. I feel like reading the history of why both Churches separated from Rome are almost laughable looking at it in today’s context. Who would we be more likely to see a reunion with the EXCEPTION? And really what are even the differences of them with Catholic belief?

Doctrinally, the Orthodox Church/Churches are far, far closer than the Anglican Church, as the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, when compared to certain other denominations, almost seems - dare I say - negligible. The areas of disagreement between Catholicism and Anglicanism have expanded, especially in the 20th century, while relations themselves have nonetheless improved.

Which one is more likely to be reunited with Rome? The Anglican Church, because it is more porous and exposed and has a more frequent history of dialogue with the Catholic Church. Or rather, one individual Anglican at a time. In our postmodern world, people no longer fall in line with ecclesial or civil leaders the way they did in the past. When the Schism originally happened, most of the world didn’t even know what was going on, yet some became identified as Catholic or some as Orthodox, depending on which crown you were ruled under.

 

[GKC]

But for those who are evangelicals, what are the arrangements. I presume they have their own parishes but separate churches under a separate bishop with autonomous jurisdiction?

No. Each of the constituent jurisdictions likely retains its original “flavor”, and new jurisdictions are likely to form with the" flavor" they had before leaving the Communion. But overall, it is as it was in , say, TEC, back 50 years ago. Some parishes in a diocese were more Anglo-Catholic than others, some more evangelical/reformed. But it was a wide tent, and all served under the diocesan. Some parishes more happily than others, and some folks would parish shop for the right flavor. If one wanted the highest/most AC in the area, one went to, say, Good Shepard. If one wanted something a little lower, to St. Michael’s. Or lower still, All Saints. All in the same diocese of the Episcopal Church.

Anglicans have always differed, to one degree or another, across the ecclesiastical/theological spectrum. But they once did it in a single jurisdiction. These days that is no longer possible.

 

[jimkhong]

When the Schism originally happened, most of the world didn’t even know what was going on, yet some became identified as Catholic or some as Orthodox, depending on which crown you were ruled under.

Not quite true: they are identified as Catholic or Orthodox depending on the bishop under whom they were baptised and the rites under which they received the sacraments. Up until today, you cannot change rite in the Catholic Church without application to the Pope.

The mutual excommunications were on the patriarchs and so therefore the schism split along lines of their followers. You do not change religion when your political leader changes. You remain in the rite you were baptised. Which is why the Pope installed Latin patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem to care for the Latins there after the Crusader success, upsetting the Orthodox there. To this day, only Jerusalem still exists with the other being extinct/abolished.

This differs from the situation with the Reformation which until the Peace of Westphalia 1648, people generally (or are required to) follow the religion of the ruler, causing no small amount of havoc to religious life.

 

[jimkhong]

No. Each of the constituent jurisdictions likely retains its original “flavor”, and new jurisdictions are likely to form with the" flavor" they had before leaving the Communion. But overall, it is as it was in , say, TEC, back 50 years ago. Some parishes in a diocese were more Anglo-Catholic than others, some more evangelical/reformed. But it was a wide tent, and all served under the diocesan. Some parishes more happily than others, and some folks would parish shop for the right flavor. If one wanted the highest/most AC in the area, one went to, say, Good Shepard. If one wanted something a little lower, to St. Michael’s. Or lower still, All Saints. All in the same diocese of the Episcopal Church.

Anglicans have always differed, to one degree or another, across the ecclesiastical/theological spectrum. But they once did it in a single jurisdiction. These days that is no longer possible.

By flavour, you mean (for instance) Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Anglicans.

Sorry if this is so perplexing to a Catholic mindset which sees the Church as a communion of bishops and I am a member of the Catholic Church because the bishop to whom I owe allegiance belongs to that communion.

So, the current set up in the Continuing Church would be (i) different flavours have different parishes under the same bishop or (ii) each flavour under its own bishop with his own jurisdiction.

I presume the Continuing Anglicans sees itself as a communion like the Anglican Communion or the Catholic Church. Are all bishops direct members at the Communion level or is there an intermediate Church level? If there is an intermediate level, is it organised territorially, by flavour or by personality (whoever set up the church in first instance).

Read the Wikipedia page as well as been to some of the websites but still not understanding. Sorry.

 

[GKC]

By flavour, you mean (for instance) Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Anglicans.

Sorry if this is so perplexing to a Catholic mindset which sees the Church as a communion of bishops and I am a member of the Catholic Church because the bishop to whom I owe allegiance belongs to that communion.

So, the current set up in the Continuing Church would be (i) different flavours have different parishes under the same bishop or (ii) each flavour under its own bishop with his own jurisdiction.

I presume the Continuing Anglicans sees itself as a communion like the Anglican Communion or the Catholic Church. Are all bishops direct members at the Communion level or is there an intermediate Church level? If there is an intermediate level, is it organised territorially, by flavour or by personality (whoever set up the church in first instance).

Read the Wikipedia page as well as been to some of the websites but still not understanding. Sorry.

Yes. You understand what I meant by “flavor”

There is no “Continuing Church”. The Continuum is a loose collection of independent Anglican jurisdictions, some in communion with others, some not, who all are basically the same sort of orthodox Anglicans, who have left the Anglican Communion, and who are, in varying degrees, more or less, either Anglo-Catholic or evangelical. The major jurisdictions, and minor ones, too, are listed on the Wiki page. Most have links to their sites. If you click on, say, the Anglican Catholic Church, you will see at their page their history and organization. Some of the jurisdictions are quite small, some are more or less centered in a geographical area (Anglican Province of Christ the King is centered in California, for example). But the major jurisdictions at least have some wide spread presence.

Each is hierarchically independent. In other words, the Anglicans that separated from the Anglican Communion began to split apart soon after and are having a hard time becoming unified, for the roughly 40 years since orthodox Anglicans began bailing out of the Anglican train wreck. Progress will be made from time to time, in overcoming the separation, then splits will occur again. It is a long and complicated story; Currently four of the major jurisdictions are moving toward some unified status. Good for them.

No doubt it is a confusing story. But if you don’t expect me to be able to make you understand, I won’t be surprised if you don’t,

. ,

 

[jimkhong]

Yes. You understand what I meant by “flavor”

There is no “Continuing Church”. The Continuum is a loose collection of independent Anglican jurisdictions, some in communion with others, some not, who all are basically the same sort of orthodox Anglicans, who have left the Anglican Communion, and who are, in varying degrees, more or less, either Anglo-Catholic or evangelical. The major jurisdictions, and minor ones, too, are listed on the Wiki page. Most have links to their sites. If you click on, say, the Anglican Catholic Church, you will see at their page their history and organization. Some of the jurisdictions are quite small, some are more or less centered in a geographical area (Anglican Province of Christ the King is centered in California, for example). But the major jurisdictions at least have some wide spread presence.

Each is hierarchically independent. In other words, the Anglicans that separated from the Anglican Communion began to split apart soon after and are having a hard time becoming unified, for the roughly 40 years since orthodox Anglicans began bailing out of the Anglican train wreck. Progress will be made from time to time, in overcoming the separation, then splits will occur again. It is a long and complicated story; Currently four of the major jurisdictions are moving toward some unified status. Good for them.

No doubt it is a confusing story. But if you don’t expect me to be able to make you understand, I won’t be surprised if you don’t,

. ,

Thanks for persevering in such a difficult task. I realise it is probably late hours where you are, helping a poor baffled Catholic understand. Going to some of the websites, I just hit a wall in understanding.

OK so, it is not a communion like the Anglican Communion or the Catholic Church are.

The story of the breakups seem to be reinforcing the idea that once you break the oneness of the Church, it becomes a slippery slope in disintegration, human nature being what it is. Kind of Pandora Box/Forbidden Fruit kind of thing. Doing it once just mean you are more likely to do it again. End up with the Humpty Dumpty problem: easier to break than to put together again.

If there is not a single communion or (I presume) gatekeeper of orthodoxy, who defines who is a member of the Continuum? What is the identity of an Anglican within the Continuum? It is not the flavour has you have many non-compatible flavours in there, even if Anglo-Catholics are an overwhelming majority. Is it a disagreement with the way the Anglican Communion is governed, which would be a rather negative thing? What unites or identify you guys?

 

[GKC]

Thanks for persevering in such a difficult task. I realise it is probably late hours where you are, helping a poor baffled Catholic understand. Going to some of the websites, I just hit a wall in understanding.

OK so, it is not a communion like the Anglican Communion or the Catholic Church are.

The story of the breakups seem to be reinforcing the idea that once you break the oneness of the Church, it becomes a slippery slope in disintegration, human nature being what it is. Kind of Pandora Box/Forbidden Fruit kind of thing. Doing it once just mean you are more likely to do it again. End up with the Humpty Dumpty problem: easier to break than to put together again.

If there is not a single communion or (I presume) gatekeeper of orthodoxy, who defines who is a member of the Continuum? What is the identity of an Anglican within the Continuum? It is not the flavour has you have many non-compatible flavours in there, even if Anglo-Catholics are an overwhelming majority. Is it a disagreement with the way the Anglican Communion is governed, which would be a rather negative thing? What unites or identify you guys?

The term Continuum is a convenience, only. No one decides who gets in, this is not a club. It is a label. And it is indeed a negative definition. It is a loose collection of Anglican entities, who left the formal Anglican Communion, beginning around 1978, because of the perceived apostasy and radical changes in the practice of much of 1st world official Anglicanism.

There had been historical predecessors to the people who began the exodus from TEC, around 1978, which was the start of what is, for convenience, called the Continuum; those who continue in orthodox and traditional Anglicanism. As I said, historically, Anglicanism has comprised a wide spectrum of theological “flavors”, from Anglo-Catholic to reformed evangelical, under an umbrella of mere Christianity; a shared core. When the theological drift was evident, in TEC in particular, and resistance to it began to solidify, this was first coming from mainly the Anglo-Catholics, for reasons I mentioned above. As the train wreck worsened, more evangelicals took alarm and also began an exodus. My own parish was formed from the most Anglo-Catholic parish in this portion of the state, early in the movement. As the process continued, and more evangelicals were looking for a home, safe from theological innovations, more such folk came to us, as the only refugee in the area. Eventually this resulted in our liturgical praxis shifting a little off the high church style. We retain our Anglo-Catholic essence, but have changed our worship style a little to reflect our current makeup.

The identity of an Anglican in the Continuum is simply a member of one of the independent Anglican jurisdictions who, generally, self identify as being in the Continuum. No membership cards.

 

[jimkhong]

The term Continuum is a convenience, only. No one decides who gets in, this is not a club. It is a label. And it is indeed a negative definition. It is a loose collection of Anglican entities, who left the formal Anglican Communion, beginning around 1978, because of the perceived apostasy and radical changes in the practice of much of 1st world official Anglicanism.

he identity of an Anglican in the Continuum is simply a member of one of the independent Anglican jurisdictions who, generally, self identify as being in the Continuum. No membership cards.

Thanks for your patience, GKC. Sorry if I am prejudicial, but from what I can see you start off with a label within a communion. As it is within the Anglican communion, it is already a rather loose association held together by a common history and a very small core of beliefs (small in comparison to Catholics or Orthodox, or even Baptists & Methodists for that matter). I presume that due to the diverse doctrinal positions held by the different flavours, the different flavours objected to the changing TEC doctrines for different reasons. So, the different flavours united by the single fact that they all disagree with the theological drift in the TEC, but not necessarily agreeing on which drift is the defining break with Anglican tradition. So a new label is adopted outside of the Anglican communion with the same diffused divergence in doctrinal opinions. The only difference with the first label is whether there was an unacceptable (but undefined) theological drift under the first label.

Sorry but is my understanding correct? I guess it is premised on that there is no single drift which all flavours agree is the defining break. If there is one, then I stand corrected and it all makes a bit more sense to me. If there isn’t I will just have to sigh and say that is the part of Anglican thinking that is incomprehensible to my Catholic mind.