Why would someone join the Anglican( Episcopalian Church)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jas84173

Guest
I am so confused. How on earth do Anglicans believe they are the true Church? England wasn’t Christian for 400 years after Christ. And why would anyone say that it is true but the Catholic Church is not? As in if I talked to an Episcopalian priest how would he tell me the Anglican church is the true Church? Seeing it was basically founded over a denied annulment, I can’t see how anyone can stay with that church. Not intending to be rude but the history of King Henry Vlll is almost comical is it not?
 
Last edited:
When I first found God I almost went to it. I was baptized Anglican as my mother is British. But as soon as I saw them ordaining openly gay women I opted for a non denominational church until I decided to cross the Tiber.
 
Anglican’s don’t believe they are the “true church” in the sense you’re using the term at the exclusion of all other denominations. Rather Anglicans believe they are part of Christ’s Universal Church, as would Catholics so be considered.
 
And who belongs to this universal Church? Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants? Any one who claims to be a Christian? I’m just trying to understand.
 
Funny, but honestly the politics of the day, including the Pope, played a big role in why Henry and the English church cut ties to Rome.
 
Generally speaking anyone who professes the ancient creeds or beliefs in line with those creeds would be considered Christian. Trinitarian Christianity in other words.
 
Not really anything to elaborate on. Do you profess the ancient creeds? Nicene, Apostles, Athanasian? Do you believe in what those creeds say? If yes, Christian.
 
Henry’s first wife (her name escapes me, Catherine of Aragon maybe?) was the niece of aunt or something of the French king. The pope wouldn’t grant the anullment for fear of angering France at a time they were needed for defense against the Holy Roman Empire. Henry said fine I’ll go be my own pope and broke ties.
 
Close, Catherine was the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor. And the Pope was loathe to anger him lest he lose the protection of the Holy Roman Empire in the face of a belligerent France among others. To say nothing of making an enemy of his greatest protector at the time in the Holy Roman Empire.
 
That’s what it was. I knew I would probably mix a few details up. It’s been awhile since I read on it.
 
Okay but which Nicene Creed counts? Remember fillioque which is a divider between Catholics and Orthodox? The original Nicene Creed was worded as the Orthodox say it now. The western church added the “Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” later on whereas Orthodox say " proceeds from the father". So if they only accept the ancient creed there’s is the same as Orthodox right? Or is it a case of a paradox where they reject councils further than the 4th or 7th yet accept that because no one realized it would contradict what they believe?
 
Anglicanism believes to have a valid apostolic succession. They see Roman Catholics, Easter Orthodox, Lutherans, and some other churches as true churches because they too have a “valid” apostolic succession. They believe the other churches have fallen into heresy and other sins and are not the purest expression of Christianity. To be fair King Henry wanted an anullment, not a divorce. Also, he wasn’t the founder of Anglicanism as you know it today, he was still very much a Catholic, just not under the Pope. He literally called Catholics “Pope Catholics” and Anglicans “Anglo-Catholics”. Modern Anglicanism was started by Queen Elizabeth, she made it more Protestant and downplayed tradition, which is a big deal in the Anglican communion.
 
A lot of Anglicans (like Catholics) don’t know how to defend their faith. If you talk to a good Anglican, they can stump you pretty often, they are really hard to debate. A lot of the good Anglicans know Vatican documents inside and out and can make it seem like one writing contradicts another.
 
What would they stump me with? The new 1979 Book of Common Prayer right in the beginning says it was influenced by the Liturgy following the Second Vatican Council. How can one defend the faith when their most revered book admits it was influenced by a Catholic Ecumenical Council?
 
I think the only thing I like is their view on national pride. Like their Liturgical Calendar includes a very diverse list of historic people who weren’t even necessarily of their Faith. I’m not saying the Holy See should do that as our Litany of Saints is different and more Canon but it is cool that they honor such a diverse list.
 
Many things, my friend. The list is simply too long. They usually end up using Scripture, Tradition, and reason. Tradition being from the Early Church Fathers not the Latin mass type of tradition. In my experience, they love using magisterial documents of the church to make it look like one Catholic doctrine contradicts another.

As for the 1979 BCP, it is pretty stupid, even Anglicans think this. Most Anglicans use the 1928 because it is more traditional and not influenced by recent problems like gays and woman ordination. 1979 BCP is not used by any other diocese of the Episcopal Church (TEC for short) which tells you something already. Plus TEC is suspended from meeting with all of the other Bishops in the Anglican communion because of heresies like woman ordination, gay marriage, etc.

Ok back to your other question concerning the 1979 copy Book of Common Prayer. Anglicans are basically Catholic in spirituality. Just without the Pope and some other theological issues. They have no problem admitting that they are Catholic because they think they are. But they are also protestant. Anglicanism is defined as the middle ground between Catholicism and protestantism because they are a mix of both, a lot of people find this appealing.

I like the 1928 BCP because it has beautiful prayers and prayers for all sorts of things, but I would only trust a 1979 bcp as a last resort.
 
According to an old Episcopal book that I was reading at a friend’s house, the Episcopalians believed that their church, the Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches were the three Churches with valid apostolic succession.

The Catholic Church believes that she and the Eastern Churches have valid apostolic succession. I am not sure what the Orthodox Churches teach on this. The Greek Orthodox Church once had close relations with the Anglicans, but that has been severely damaged in recent years with the Anglican ordination of women, atheists, etc…
 
PaulfromIowa said:
According to an old Episcopal book that I was reading at a friend’s house, the Episcopalians believed that their church, the Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches were the three Churches with valid apostolic succession
Click to expand...
This is correct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top