Why would someone join the Anglican( Episcopalian Church)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No. I am sorry to appear unequal to the task here. The majority of Anglican self-governing jurisdictions (which is not the same as the majority of the national Churches as found in the Anglican Communion) attempt female ordinations. Similarly, the laity of those jurisdictions/Churches who do attempt that thing are likely the majority of all Anglicans, sum total.

The orthodox are both, in the main, separated and in the minority. The innovators are in the majority, by jurisdiction and by head count.
 
No, I’m referring to how many Hanks had been on the throne there, including Henry VIII, by count.
 
Last edited:
England was Roman Catholic until it split from the Pope. The fact that Roman Catholicism took a few centuries to reach England is not relevant to determining whether the schism 500 years ago created a valid apostolic church.
 
Some have to remember, the Puritans fleeing England thought the Church of England too
Catholic.
Also, by the time the Revolutionary War came around, there were many Anglicans and
Anglican churches in the colonies. The name Episcopal came about because the colonists were at war against the country of England and did not want their churches
here connected to the Church of England so they created the Episcopal church.
If I have recounted the history incorrectly, please correct me.
My father was a non-practicing Catholic and my mother a non-practicing Lutheran. When they started a family, they chose to join the Episcopal church where I was baptized
at the age of 2 and later confirmed. Many families have been Episcopalian for
generations.
I converted to the Catholic church 40 years later when I realized the Episcopal church was losing its way and I wanted to belong to the One, True, Holy and Apostolic church.
 
I would suspect the latter, since the original post stated that there had been a surfeit of Henrys in England, no need for more.
 
So basically they don’t care about tradition but just go with the political tide. Did they forget to read the first chapter of the epistle to the Romans?
 
Would the continuum or ACNA be a “self-governing jurisdiction”? I realize that both of these are outside the universe of the Anglican Communion, so not definable in that dimension, but in effect, they are “self governing”?

Are there any moves in process wherein the AC might recognize them?

Are there any moves in process wherein the members of the Continuum might come to some kind of joint government for themselves? It is difficult for me to understand an branch of Anglicanism with no reference to the C of E (at least, no reference to the post 1980 or so, C of E). I realize they relate to the historic C of E and perhaps the historic Catholic Church.

But then again, what do I know?
 
Last edited:
I don’t think a requirement to being an Episcopalian is that you have to be rich.
 
Some people join different churches because they believe that that one is the true Church. Others join them because they’re “accepting” (Episcopalians) or “exclusive” (Masons). Yet others are just in their respective churches because their spouse wants them to be there, or they want to have some sort of social support. Whatever the reason, I can’t imagine anyone joining a group- religious or otherwise- because they believed it was wrong for them to do so.
 
GKM can answer this much better than me, but in his absence I’ll have a go.

There are certainly moves to bring the Continuum churches together. Some have already entered into full communion with each other and are working on how to achieve unity.

The Anglican Communion has processes for admitting new members. ACNA has close ties with some of the more conservative national churches of the Communion, some of which treat ACNA as a fellow member of the Communion (although she isn’t). The difficulties which would have to be overcome before ACNA could become a member of the Communion are (a) potential opposition from more liberal churches and (b) reluctance to establish overlapping jurisdictions in North America with the existing churches.
 
Yes, the ACNA is just such a thing. Like the Episcopal Church.

A number of the member Churches in the AC are in full communion with the ACNA. Which would certainly like to replace the TEC as the representative Church in the US in the AC, which is unlikely to happen, per PIckyPicky’s post. He’s getting good at this.

The Continuum (which is a grouping of like jurisdictions, not a formal group with a formal name), began in 1978 as a unity, fractured into bits fairly rapidly and has made fitful attempts to get together again, for 40 years. Last year, 4 of the major jurisdictions made significant progress to that end, entering into full communion, Communicatio in Sacris, and will hold joint Synods starting next year. It’s the most progress since 1979. But Anglicans are unpredictable. Still, it’s something.

You know that they relate to the historic Church of England and (as you say, perhaps), the historic Catholic Church. But not the current CoE. The name Continuum derives from a portion of the Statement of St. Louis (1978) which is the declaration of independence for orthodox Anglicans. They do no new (apostate) thing. They Continue.

And PickyPicky’s post is just fine.
 
Last edited:
Usually in America the wealthier southern family’s were Episcopalians and the poor ones weren’t.
 
“JanSobieskiIII said:
Athanasius_Mary said:
the only thing that seems to unite Anglicans is that they are emphatically not Roman.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that few of them are “emphatically” not Roman.

Some would be the evangelical type, though even they would be a little closer to “traditional” type than most Protestants; and for Western Christians “tradition” has to be somewhat compatible with Rome.

Others, in ACNA or especially in the Continuum, would be even more Rome compatible: not only on the liturgical aspects, but on tradition, especially applying tradition to current issues, such as Marriage, Abortion, etc.

Those Anglicans who would be emphatically not Roman would be the hard Left, those who embrace the secular culture. But even though I do not think there are that many, this group seems dominant in seminaries, church publishing or promotions in English speaking countries. There is a powerful minority making decisions, and a huge passive majority going along.

I don’t know much about Anglicans in the Global South. My guess is they vary according to their local situation, but in general somewhat Rome compatible.

My assessment of Catholics is that they assume non Catholic Christians are thinking about the Roman Catholic Church, positively or negatively, a lot more than they actually do. Mostly they have other stuff on their minds, but do think about us on occasion.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Yep, in general (which is the best one can hope for, in discussing Anglicans.

My late rector used to include the Pope, and the Ecumenical Patriarch, by name, when offering prayers for the whole Church in the Mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top