Is there a hierarchy?

[St. Worm2]

Greetings: I would greatly appreciate some help understanding part of the Anglican faith, specifically, "authority" (I think I may have misspoken concerning it recently). "Scripture, Tradition, Reason", is there a hierarchy to those three, or do the Anglican/Episcopal Churches, in a similar manner to the Roman Catholics, hold Tradition on par with the Holy Writ? IOW, does the Anglican Church hold her "Traditions" to also be the Word of God, or are the Holy Scriptures considered to be the supreme 'rule of faith? ... or am I even asking the right questions? .. :confused:

Having so many friends and family members in the Episcopal Church in America, having attended so many services over the years, and being such a big fan of two Church of England theologians, J I Packer and John Stott, I thought I knew more about the Anglican faith than perhaps I do. Hopefully I will know more soon .. ;)

Thanks for your help!

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - One last question, is the same 'official' position held concerning "authority" throughout the various branches of the Anglican faith?

[gtsecc]

You are refering to Hooker's so called 3 legged stool.
This article covers the myths and truths about it.
http://www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928/Articles/Hooker's%20stool.htm

[St. Worm2]

You are refering to Hooker's so called 3 legged stool.
This article covers the myths and truths about it.
http://www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928/Articles/Hooker's%20stool.htmThanks, GT, I'll check it out!

[benedictine]

p.s. - One last question, is the same 'official' position held concerning "authority" throughout the various branches of the Anglican faith?
Not exactly. Becouse each Province is an autonomous church, each church decides its structure; in terms of its metropolitan, for example, I do not believe that the ECUSA has one, we have a Presiding Bishop, but he is not the same as an Archbishop, such as Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria, who is the metropolitan of his province. Also, each church can set up its own general assembly, and other things like that.

[PaladinValer]

Not exactly. Becouse each Province is an autonomous church, each church decides its structure; in terms of its metropolitan, for example, I do not believe that the ECUSA has one, we have a Presiding Bishop, but he is not the same as an Archbishop, such as Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria, who is the metropolitan of his province. Also, each church can set up its own general assembly, and other things like that.
Um, no. Presiding Bishop is the same as an archbishop, which ++Griswold (sp?) has been called in person, letters, and reports many times.

I should point out that many primates (another Anglican title for the chief archbishop of a province) are beginning to use the title of "Presiding Bishop" over "Archbishop." "Metropolitan" is an appropriate title, but I've never heard of it used by anyone other than an Eastern Orthodox Christian.

[pmcleanj]

"Metropolitan" is an appropriate title, but I've never heard of it used by anyone other than an Eastern Orthodox Christian.
In Canada, which is divided into four ecclesial provinces, a "Metropolitan" is the archbishop of an Ecclesial Province, whereas the Primate is the archbishop of the Anglican Church of Canada (which is itself, as a whole, is considered a "Province" within the Anglican Communion.

Just to confuse the issue, the "Province of Canada" is only one of the four provinces that comprise the national Church of Canada (the other three being Rupert's Land, British Columbia, and Ontario). And, to add to the confusion, the Ecclesial provinces that have the same names as a secular Province don't necessarily have the same boundaries.

Regardless of the confusion, I pray daily for "+Barry our Bishop; ++John our metropolitan, and ++Andrew our Primate".

[benedictine]

Um, no. Presiding Bishop is the same as an archbishop, which ++Griswold (sp?) has been called in person, letters, and reports many times.

I should point out that many primates (another Anglican title for the chief archbishop of a province) are beginning to use the title of "Presiding Bishop" over "Archbishop." "Metropolitan" is an appropriate title, but I've never heard of it used by anyone other than an Eastern Orthodox Christian.
I stand corrected.

[gtsecc]

Regardless of the confusion, I pray daily for "+Barry our Bishop; ++John our metropolitan, and ++Andrew our Primate".
What about John Paul, Patriarch of the West, Bartholomew, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Rowan, Our Archbishop?

[pmcleanj]

What about John Paul, Patriarch of the West, Bartholomew, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Rowan, Our Archbishop?
The phrase "So-and-so our Bishop, Whats-his-name our Metropolitan (or Archbishop), and Andrew our Primate" is a liturgical norm during the first part of the Prayers of the People. It's then followed by prayers for other parts of the communion and for other communions.

Certainly I pray, according to the Anglican cycle of prayer, for different diocese and national churches around the world and their bishops, including the See of Canterbury and its Archbishop; and for other communions and their leadership.

But ++Rowan is not my Archbishop. As PaladinValer is sure to point out if I do not, the Anglican churches are autocephalous. Neither are ++JohnPaul and ++Bartholomew my Archbishops. So I pray for them, from time to time, along with the Moderator of the United Church and the Bishop of Fredericton and all the other communities and Bishops that come up in the Anglican Cycle of prayer.

I do pray daily for +Stephen 'our' Bishop from the ELCIC, and +Ray 'our' National Bishop from the ELCIC, because the ELCIC has been a sanctuary for our family when the ACC wasn't able to provide the pastoral care we needed.

[Polycarp1]

I'd like to point out, very quickly and with no offense intended to Paladin Valer, that there is a very real difference between Presiding Bishop/Primus (American and Scottish churches) and the Archbishops elsewhere -- the Archbishop has limited but real jurisdiction over the Bishops throughout his Province; the PB and the Primus do not. The American church debated whether to have an Archbishop and chose not to, and that decision was reviewed as recently as PB Allin, who very much wanted the title but was denied it because the church preferred the diocesan bishops' autonomy as it has historically been accepted in this church.