Anglican vs. Catholic [Archive]

Naomi4Christ

13th November 2005, 04:26 AM

AngylBelle

13th November 2005, 04:31 AM

Wow, you made that so clear and easy! Thank you so much.

Could you please explain to me the meaning of *Old Catholic* as in the subforum title?

Fish and Bread

13th November 2005, 04:40 AM

Noami's explanation is pretty good, but she may have forgotten that some Anglicans do in fact believe that Saints may play a role in our prayer life. It depends on what parish you visit or the individual that you talk to. :) Generally, it's considered optional. If people don't want to do it, it's fine, and if they do want to it, it's also fine. :) Also, most (But not all) Anglicans believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist (But usually more like the Lutherans do than the Roman Catholics do), since that's been historically what we've believed. :)

The "Old Catholics" are a seperate church/denomination that comes from a seperate Christian tradition than the Anglican churches/denominations. We just share a forum because we're kind of similar, and our churches signed an agreement with each other many years ago saying we recognize each other sacraments and ministries (So our priests can says masses/services together and so forth). :) Generally, the Old Catholics are just a tad more like the Roman Catholics than Anglicans, putting a heavier emphasis on devotion to the Saints, the ecumenical councils, etc. This isn't always true, though. Some "Anglo-Catholic" Anglican parishes and Old Catholic parishes are almost identical in their beliefs. :)

John

Naomi4Christ

13th November 2005, 04:41 AM

Wow, you made that so clear and easy! Thank you so much.

Could you please explain to me the meaning of *Old Catholic* as in the subforum title?

There are a few threads here about Old Catholics that you can look at.

My understanding is that:

Anglicans have a shared history with the Church of England which began as an autonomous church when Henry VIII rejected papal authority. For a few decades after this break, the Church of England theology was very similar to that of the Roman Catholic church - just minus the papacy. Then along came the Reformation and more doctrines changed and the church became a Protestant church.

Old Catholics, on the other hand, have a Polish history (nothing to do with England) - but similarly, they have rejected the papacy and certain Romish doctrine. They seem to be very similar to Anglo-Catholics in look and beliefs.

AngylBelle

13th November 2005, 04:44 AM

Thank you both for clarifying!

My understanding is that:

Anglicans have a shared history with the Church of England which began as an autonomous church when Henry VIII rejected papal authority. For a few decades after this break, the Church of England theology was very similar to that of the Roman Catholic church - just minus the papacy. Then along came the Reformation and more doctrines changed and the church became a Protestant church..

I am not sure I fully understood this. The Anglican Church is a Protestant church?

Fish and Bread

13th November 2005, 04:53 AM

Thank you both for clarifying!

I am not sure I fully understood this. The Anglican Church is a Protestant church?

This is actually a subject of debate amongst Anglicans. :) The most common understanding is that we're both Protestant and Catholic, in the sense that, like the Protestant reformers, we split from Rome over doctrinal disputes (On many of which we sided with the Protestant reformers), but unlike most of them we retained things like apostolic succession, bishops, priests, and deacons, seven sacraments, the liturgy, liturgical seasons, etc. We're almost a middle ground between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, in a sense. :) You'll run into some Anglicans who basically seem on the surface of things like Lutherans with different terminology and others who seem more like Roman Catholics without a Pope. :)

John

Naomi4Christ

13th November 2005, 04:58 AM

Thank you both for clarifying!

I am not sure I fully understood this. The Anglican Church is a Protestant church?

Of orthodox churches (ie those believing in the Trinity), there are three branches of Christendom - Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox. We are neither RC or Orthodox, therefore we are Protestant.

We are however, along with all other Protestant churches, and with the RCC and Orthodox churches, catholic - meaning univeral - we are all members of the body of Christ.

AngylBelle

13th November 2005, 05:12 AM

You'll run into some Anglicans who basically seem on the surface of things like Lutherans with different terminology and others who seem more like Roman Catholics without a Pope. :)

John

Haha, ok...I was wondering because many Anglican beliefs parallel my own Presbyterian followings.

Thank you both very much.

I am really enjoying learning about your faith. Is there anything *specific* that I should know about what makes an Anglican, Anglican?

Naomi4Christ

13th November 2005, 05:15 AM

Haha, ok...I was wondering because many Anglican beliefs parallel my own Presbyterian followings.

Thank you both very much.

I am really enjoying learning about your faith. Is there anything *specific* that I should know about what makes an Anglican, Anglican?

I would say tolerance.

We are also very big on social outreach and fellowship.

karen freeinchristman

13th November 2005, 05:23 AM

:) Good answers, Naomi and John! :thumbsup:

AngylBelle

13th November 2005, 05:29 AM

Thanks everyone! I am blank for questions at the moment (you all are just too good!!) but please feel free to share with me whatever you feel is important in explaining your faith!

:wave:

Naomi4Christ

13th November 2005, 05:39 AM

Haha, ok...I was wondering because many Anglican beliefs parallel my own Presbyterian followings.

That's good. We have far more in common with other denominations than we think. We actually disagree on very little. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

gitlance

13th November 2005, 12:06 PM

Thank you both for clarifying!

I am not sure I fully understood this. The Anglican Church is a Protestant church?

The Anglican Church is reformed Catholic.

Naomi4Christ

13th November 2005, 12:08 PM

The Anglican Church is reformed Catholic.

..and that means?

hint: protestant reformation

karen freeinchristman

13th November 2005, 12:28 PM

The Anglican Church is both Protestant (Reformed) AND Catholic.

Also known as the via media, the middle way. :)

Naomi4Christ

13th November 2005, 12:29 PM

...but not Roman Catholic.

karen freeinchristman

13th November 2005, 12:30 PM

...but not Roman Catholic.
Right! :)

PaladinValer

13th November 2005, 01:07 PM

Please don't be put on the defensive, I am just curious about the difference between the two. Up until a few days ago I thought they were very similar, but apparently not. Could you please tell me the difference between your beliefs and Roman Catholicism? Thanks!

Only a few differences:

1. We reject the notion of papacy (major)
2. We allow women clergy (technically minor)
3. We allow married clergy (minor)
4. We have a more "open" communion (major)

The following answers given by others are NOT true about the difference between the Vatican Church and the Anglican Church. In fact, they are things that ARE similar between the Vatican Church and the Anglican Church:

Do not elevate the role of Mary (In reality, Anglicans do honor and revere St. Mary the Theotokos)

Do not do 'saints' (we are all saints) (In reality, Anglicans do recognize those who've past on that have, according to the Church, been declared to have lived such elevated and holy lives that they are specifically remembered and honored for the lives they lived)

Anyone who loves the Lord is welcome to share Holy Communion with us (In reality, Anglicans believe only those who have been Baptized properly in a Trinitarian formulation and who are not in a state of "perilous sin" are welcome to receive Holy Communion)

We have Holy Communion to remember what Jesus did for us and to unite with one another (In reality, Anglicans believe in the physical and spiritual Presence of Christ in Holy Communion. It is not just a "remembrance")

Could you please explain to me the meaning of *Old Catholic* as in the subforum title?

The Old Catholic church is a fellow historic, Traditional, and Apostolic church of the Visible Church of God. They broke from the Vatican in the 1800's because of the issue of papacy, particularly due to the proclaimation of the dogma of papal infallibility. They are in a state of Full Communion with the Anglican Church.

I am not sure I fully understood this. The Anglican Church is a Protestant church?

Absolutely not. Anglicans proclaim the validity of Holy Tradition, of the Apostolic Succession, and the cooperative work of theosis. We only "protested" the abuses of the Vatican Church.

Naomi4Christ

13th November 2005, 01:09 PM

Not in the mother church, Palidin

PaladinValer

13th November 2005, 01:19 PM

Wrong.

Naomi4Christ

13th November 2005, 01:20 PM

I guess I don't get any further information than this. There's a bit of a backlog anyway.

Letalis

13th November 2005, 01:22 PM

Do you guys have like a catechism or something? Something that explains all your *official* beliefs and not what individuals choose to believe?

Naomi4Christ

13th November 2005, 01:23 PM

There are the 39 Articles of Religion that outline the faith of the Church of England

john23237

13th November 2005, 01:56 PM

Do you guys have like a catechism or something? Something that explains all your *official* beliefs and not what individuals choose to believe?

Yes, we do. You will find it beginning on page 845 of the 1979 ECUSA Book of Common Prayer. It is followed by the historical documents (including the 39 Articles). Hope this helps.

Lel

13th November 2005, 02:00 PM

Do you guys have like a catechism or something? Something that explains all your *official* beliefs and not what individuals choose to believe?

Yes, but there is still quite a bit of room for interpretation, given that we are Anglicans. Nonetheless, here is the Catechism (http://holycross-raleigh.org/bcp/845.html) from the US Book of Common Prayer 1979.

The 39 articles are a historical document of the Anglican Church, but some Anglicans adhere to them nowadays, and some think they ought to be salted and burned.

PaladinValer

13th November 2005, 03:14 PM

Do you guys have like a catechism or something? Something that explains all your *official* beliefs and not what individuals choose to believe?

1. Despite what Naomi says, the 39 Articles are no longer adhered to as she infers.
2. There is a Catechism in the ECUSA's 1979 BCP.

There are also agreements between our churches, like the one about St. Mary the Theotokos which came out fairly recently, that show the great level of similarity we have. I'd be happy to help fish them out, if you'd like :)

SirTimothy

13th November 2005, 03:19 PM

1. Despite what Naomi says, the 39 Articles are no longer adhered to as she infers.

In the church of england... I'm afraid she's right, you're wrong, King PV. They're the official guideline, and they're not allowed to teach anything contrary.

Timothy

PaladinValer

13th November 2005, 03:38 PM

Reread what I said:

"Despite what Naomi says, the 39 Articles are no longer adhered to as she infers."

Let's face it: one reason why many people don't like the Articles is due to their ambiguity. Many Articles, especially the one on the Real Presence of Christ in Holy Communion and the one on Predestination, can be interpreted in such a myriad of ways that it truly borders on the level of rediculousness.

Not to mention the Articles are contrary to what Henry VIII believed. Is he no longer an Anglican? And what of the Anglicans before him?

The fear of such things, especially transubstantiationism, is due to undeserved fear of trying to understand. The Humanists are right that the religious scholars had taken hold of Christianity; there's no denying this. They heavily (and comically often) criticized the church for its abuses, relying often on secular thinkers of the past for backup. However, even St. Sir Thomas More and Desiderus Erasmus, the most noted of the Northern Humanists, dare not question the use of secular knowledge to benefit a Christian life, in both faith and deed. Aristotle's use of logic were vital to the adoption of the idea of transubstantiationism in the West. It gave a logical and sound explaination to how the bread and wine became the Body and Blood.

Now perhaps transubstantiationism isn't right, but it is a valid theory. So is consubstantiationism, to be fully honest. What is true is that Christ's Presence is an Objective Reality; He is truly there, physically and spiritually. And that is acceptable within the bounds of that particular Article.

Theories, especially logical ones, cannot be possibly regarded a heterodox, unless they contradict something previously taught by the Church. Transubstantiation has no such violation and nor does consubstantiationism. Both accept an Objective Reality.

gtsecc

13th November 2005, 03:41 PM

Not in the mother church, Palidin
The Mother Church is the undivided Church.

PaladinValer

13th November 2005, 03:42 PM

The Mother Church is the undivided Church.

How true :)

gtsecc

13th November 2005, 03:47 PM

The 39 Articles, upon first appearance, seem contrary to the faith.
Fortunately, as John Henry Newman explains, they can be compatible with the faith Catholic.

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/viamedia/volume2/tract90/tract90-1.html

MommasaursRex

13th November 2005, 03:56 PM

Subscribe* I don't really have a question at the moment, but enjoyed the dialogue in this thread.

M-Rex

Naomi4Christ

13th November 2005, 03:59 PM

The Mother Church is the undivided Church.

...which doesn't exist

Thomas2618

13th November 2005, 04:04 PM

gtsecc

13th November 2005, 04:14 PM

Don't believe in a papacy

We have always acknowledged the Bishop of Rome as having the Seat of Primacy.

Again, the same understanding that the Eastern Orthodox hold.

Have married clergy

As do Roman Catholics.

Recognise female clergy

Not all Anglicans do.

Do not elevate the role of Mary

Our understanding of the Role of mary is almost identical to that of Roman Catholics, and basically the same as that of Eastern Orthodox.

One of the greatest Shrines to Mary for Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox is an Anglican parish, Walsingham.

Do not do 'saints' (we are all saints)

We believe in the Communion of Saints, which specifically includes their intercessory prayers for us.

Again, this is the same understanding that Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox hold.

We have Holy Communion to remember what Jesus did for us and to unite with one another

Sure it makes us remember, but we also believe the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ.

Scripture contains everything we need to know for salvation

You are misquoting Article 6, but I still recognize it.

It is laid down that, 1. Scripture contains all necessary articles of the faith; 2. either in its text, or by inference; 3. The Church is the keeper of Scripture; 4. and a witness of it; 5. and has authority in controversies of faith; 6. but may not expound one passage of Scripture to contradict another; 7. nor enforce as an article of faith any point not contained in Scripture. From this it appears, first, that the Church expounds and enforces the faith; for it is forbidden to expound in a particular way, or so to enforce as to obtrude; next, that it derives the faith wholly from Scripture; thirdly, that its office is to educe an harmonious interpretation of Scripture. Thus much the Article settles.

Two important questions, however, it does not settle, viz. whether the Church judges, first, at her sole discretion, next, on her sole responsibility; i.e. first, what the media are by which the Church interprets Scripture, whether by a direct divine gift, or by catholic tradition, or by critical exegesis of the text, or in any other way; and next, who is to decide whether it interprets Scripture rightly or not;—first, what is her method, if any; and next, who is her judge, if any. In other words, not a word is said, on the one hand, in favour of there being no external rule or method to fix the interpretation of Scripture by, or, as it is commonly expressed, of Scripture being the sole rule of faith; nor on the other, of the private judgment of the individual being the ultimate standard of interpretation. So much has been said lately on both these points, and indeed on the whole subject of these two Articles, that it is unnecessary to enlarge upon them; but since it is often supposed to be almost a first principle of our Church, that Scripture is "the rule of faith," it may be well, before passing on, to make an extract from a paper, published some years since, which shows, by instances from our divines, that the application of the phrase to Scripture is but of recent adoption. The other question, about the ultimate judge of the interpretation of Scripture, shall not be entered upon.

"We may dispense with the phrase 'Rule of Faith,' as applied to Scripture, on the ground of its being ambiguous; and, again, because it is then used in a novel sense; for the ancient Church made the Apostolic Tradition, as summed up in the Creed, and not the Bible, the Regula Fidei, or Rule. Moreover its use as a technical phrase seems to be of late introduction in the Church, that is, since the days of King William the Third. Our great divines use it without any fixed sense, sometimes for Scripture, sometimes for the whole and perfectly adjusted Christian doctrine, sometimes for the Creed; and, at the risk of being tedious, we will prove this, by quotations, that the point may be put beyond dispute.

In the sense in which it is commonly understood at this day, Scripture, it is plain, is not, on Anglican principles, the Rule of Faith."

Polycarp1

13th November 2005, 04:22 PM

We're often called (by ourselves, at least; never mind what some others call us! :o ) the "Bridge Church, which means that we share aspects of :liturgy: Catholicism and :preach: Protestantism.

Back when we first got spun off as a separate Congregation forum, before we invited the Old Catholics in to share our home, I posted An Outline of the Faith (http://www.christianforums.com/t673925-an-outline-of-the-faith.html), which was the (U.S.) Episcopal Church's effort to define where we stand corporately.

One thing that is very important to Anglicanism generally is its inclusiveness: there is room here for Naomi, gtsecc, PV, and me, sharing a common heritage and practicing our faiths in somewhat disparate ways. That ambiguity which someone was grumping about in the 39 Articles was intentional, to make them acceptable to as broad a spectrum of believers as possible, in order to preserve what was then the English National Church from being riven by dissent. (To say there's a lesson in that for us today would be getting us into debatable territory, so pretend I didn't. ;))

MommasaursRex

13th November 2005, 04:22 PM

http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-left.gifQuotehttp://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right.gif http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-by-left.gifOriginally Posted by: gtsecc http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-by-right.gifhttp://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right-10.gifThe Mother Church is the undivided Church.http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-left.gifhttp://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-right.gif

How true :)

What does undivided church mean?

Thanks.
M-Rex

karen freeinchristman

13th November 2005, 04:23 PM

:sigh:

gtsecc

13th November 2005, 04:26 PM

What does undivided church mean?

Thanks.
M-Rex
The Church before 1054 - 1066.

Thomas2618

13th November 2005, 04:29 PM

One must also remember that the Reformation was more like a revolution in the mainland churches and more like a Re-formation on the Isles. The Anglican Church reformed, yes; however, it reformed, or formed back to the Catholic Faith as it was held before the Romish additions. The other protestant churches went against Rome but they also went against the Catholic Faith and invented -not reformed- their own faiths.

marciebaby

13th November 2005, 04:29 PM

You guys crack me up. Is there anything you agree on?

MommasaursRex

13th November 2005, 04:30 PM

The Church before 1054 - 1066.

Oh, okay...thanks for answering my question.

M-Rex

Naomi4Christ

13th November 2005, 04:30 PM

You guys crack me up. Is there anything you agree on?

Where would be the fun it that? :D

gtsecc

13th November 2005, 04:32 PM

You guys crack me up. Is there anything you agree on?
I bet we both don't like France.

Thomas2618

13th November 2005, 04:38 PM

I like France.

Polycarp1

13th November 2005, 04:42 PM

What does "undivided church" mean?The Church before 1054 - 1066.

Well, the Oriental Orthodox might dispute that. ;)

gtsecc

13th November 2005, 04:47 PM

Well, the Oriental Orthodox might dispute that. ;)
That is a good point.
I think most folks mean 1054/1066 when they say undivided, and although divided, the OO kept basically the same doctrine.

Polycarp1

13th November 2005, 04:48 PM

You guys crack me up. Is there anything you agree on?

Yeah, it is wryly amusing, but then look at it in a positive way. Can you imagine what this discussion would be like in, say, General Theology? We're all committed to being part of the same Communion and loving the people we argue with as our brothers and sisters in Christ, whose views are as important as our own. In a very real way, we're modeling Ecumenism for the rest of the Church Universal to observe, and learn to practice.

john23237

13th November 2005, 04:54 PM

You guys crack me up. Is there anything you agree on?

The day you find Anglicans agreeing completely on anything, you will know the Fundie are right in that the second coming is indeed at hand. Short of that, we will spend hours debating what wattage light bulb to put in a fixture and, yes, we actually think we are normal!

Thomas2618

13th November 2005, 05:08 PM

The day you find Anglicans agreeing completely on anything, you will know the Fundie are right in that the second coming is indeed at hand. Short of that, we will spend hours debating what wattage light bulb to put in a fixture and, yes, we actually think we are normal!

I much prefer none myself...candlelight is beautiful...

How many Baptists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? 5: one to screw it in, three to form a committee to approve the purchase of the bulb, and one to serve the covered dish.

How many Presbyterians? none: lights will go on and off at preset times. If the light goes out, then it was never meant to be on in the first place.

higgs2

13th November 2005, 06:06 PM

How many Episcopalians does it take to change a lightbulb?

WHAT DO YOU MEAN CHANGE THE LIGHTBULB!!???! My great grandfather donated that light bulb, we've always had that lightbulb, who needs change anyhow?

or

Three. One to donate the money, one to engrave the plaque, and one to call the electrician.

gitlance

13th November 2005, 06:24 PM

..and that means?

hint: protestant reformation

No, that means we have the theology of the Church prior to 1054, with all the liturgy of the middle ages.

Please learn the truth before you make false assumptions of the Church. You honestly need to read a bit more into the history of the Church in England, and quit believing the lies the Church Society is feeding you.

Naomi4Christ

13th November 2005, 06:27 PM

What's pre-1054 got to do with anything?

karen freeinchristman

13th November 2005, 06:29 PM

No, that means we have the theology of the Church prior to 1054, with all the liturgy of the middle ages.

Gitlance, this is NOT where the Church of England is at. You might wish, hope and pray that it is this way, but it is not. :sorry:

gitlance

13th November 2005, 06:29 PM

Not in the mother church, Palidin

Yes in the Mother Church, Naomi. Go read the BCP 1662. Now, go read any book written by +++Rowan Williams.

Naomi4Christ

13th November 2005, 06:32 PM

gitlance

13th November 2005, 06:36 PM

gitlance

13th November 2005, 06:37 PM

Gitlance, this is NOT where the Church of England is at. You might wish, hope and pray that it is this way, but it is not. :sorry:

Well that's about where many of the other (if not most) of the other Western provinces are. A few of the provinces don't even have the filioque in the Nicene Creed anymore.

ECUSA is definitely reformed Catholic in its official theology and practice.

gitlance

13th November 2005, 06:38 PM

The only place I am going right now is to bed...

The mother church of the Anglican communion is the Church of England. Stop pining over something that doesn't exist any more. You have to be a Christian in today's world - shine your light where people can see it.

Being a Christian in today's world is in no way synonymous with compromising the Catholic faith. I would rather live in the minority as a faithful Catholic than live in the majority as someone who rejects the faith of the apostles.

karen freeinchristman

13th November 2005, 06:39 PM

OR!!!!

Three. One to call the electrician, one to mix the drinks, and one to talk about how much better the old one was. :D

I'll mix the drinks! :)

Naomi4Christ

13th November 2005, 06:43 PM

Being a Christian in today's world is in no way synonymous with compromising the Catholic faith. I would rather live in the minority as a faithful Catholic than live in the majority as someone who rejects the faith of the apostles.

But what makes you think you are upholding the faith of the apostles? There's a bit more to it than trying to relive what went on before the Magna Carta was signed.

Letalis

13th November 2005, 07:08 PM

Alright, so you have an outline of the faith, but you don't believe it? Is there an outline of your faith that you do believe?

higgs2

13th November 2005, 07:34 PM

OR!!!!

Three. One to call the electrician, one to mix the drinks, and one to talk about how much better the old one was. :D

Oh, that's way better!

higgs2

13th November 2005, 07:35 PM

I'll mix the drinks! :)
I already called the electrician, may I have a drink?

gitlance

13th November 2005, 07:46 PM

But what makes you think you are upholding the faith of the apostles? There's a bit more to it than trying to relive what went on before the Magna Carta was signed.

Yeah there's more to it. I know what it is, for I have read all the writings of those first Christians. It might do you some good to read them for yourself.

I have also read all the pronouncements of the ecumenical councils, which were considered binding on all Christians.

gitlance

13th November 2005, 07:47 PM

Alright, so you have an outline of the faith, but you don't believe it? Is there an outline of your faith that you do believe?

To whom is this addressed?

Letalis

13th November 2005, 08:59 PM

To whom is this addressed?
Anglicans, specifically those who disagree with the articles.

pmcleanj

13th November 2005, 09:03 PM

You guys crack me up. Is there anything you agree on?
Food and drink.

Not any particular food and drink, of course. But we generally agree that food and drink should be adjunct to any worship service, ministry, or internet board discussion. Haven't you noticed?

gitlance

13th November 2005, 09:09 PM

Anglicans, specifically those who disagree with the articles.

Episcopalians will affirm the Catechism of the Episcopal Church, found on a sticky on the front page of STR.

pmcleanj

13th November 2005, 09:13 PM

Alright, so you have an outline of the faith, but you don't believe it? Is there an outline of your faith that you do believe?
First, the 39 Articles are not, and are not intended to be, an outline of the faith. What they are is ... Articles. 39 points of discussion, briefly expounded. That's all.

Aside to all with quirky sense of humour: the pastor today was on an evangelical rant, counting the number of times that different words are used in the KJV, and using that to justify various claims about the attributes of God. Dear husband leaned over and whispered in my ear "have you noted how many times 'a' and 'the' are used in the Bible? Surely such an emphasis on the Articles indicates God's recognition that Anglicanism is the truest surviving manifestation of the One Church!"

Second, an "outline of the faith" necessarily simplifies and structures that which is complex and unstructured. It provides easy -- or at least easier -- answers to the very complex questions that disturb us about spiritual matters. Unfortunately, we get ease, simplification, and structure at the cost of losing the greater mystery that makes spirituality comprehensive and ineffable. And Anglicans, in general, tend to be more comfortable with honest uncertainty, than with inaccurate simplifications.

So, no. You probably won't find a cut-and-dried outline of the faith that Anglicans do believe. It's enough for us to believe in Jesus.

higgs2

13th November 2005, 09:17 PM

Food and drink.

Not any particular food and drink, of course. But we generally agree that food and drink should be adjunct to any worship service, ministry, or internet board discussion. Haven't you noticed?
That's so true. We're all about the "coffee hour". Not that we agree that coffee should be served at the coffee hour, but still...

PaladinValer

13th November 2005, 09:31 PM

Lost Article of Religion 40: "Coffee Hour is the 8th Sacrament" :)

AngylBelle

13th November 2005, 10:08 PM

Well I got quite a discussion rolling didn't I? ^_^

I don't have anything to ask right now, I was just popping in to see what I missed and say hello!

:wave:

CSMR

13th November 2005, 11:49 PM

Second, an "outline of the faith" necessarily simplifies and structures that which is complex and unstructured. It provides easy -- or at least easier -- answers to the very complex questions that disturb us about spiritual matters.
I believe that the Episcopal "outline of the faith" could certainly be improved by being more lenghty, precise and complex, but I do also think it would benefit more simply from a few "not"s thrown in here and there.

Letalis

14th November 2005, 12:52 AM

So, no. You probably won't find a cut-and-dried outline of the faith that Anglicans do believe. It's enough for us to believe in Jesus.

Thank you for your answer. So in Anglicanism, there is no 'right' belief? That is to say, in Anglicanism an anglo-Catholic's beliefs are no more important or right than a reformed Anglican's beliefs?

Fish and Bread

14th November 2005, 01:53 AM

Thank you for your answer. So in Anglicanism, there is no 'right' belief? That is to say, in Anglicanism an anglo-Catholic's beliefs are no more important or right than a reformed Anglican's beliefs?

Well, obviously, there is a right belief and a wrong belief on every issue, we just don't make judgements as a church on a lot of them. We agree to agree on the essentials and agree to disagree on the non-essentials. :) It's enough for us to all know that we love Jesus, can recite the contents of the Nicene and Apostles creed in good faith, hold sacred the same scripture, and that we agree to certain matters of church order needed to keep order from a practical perspective, in order to be members of the same organization and to share in communion with each other. We're one in Jesus Christ, as all baptised Christians are, and ultimately that oneness is more important than disagreements on, say, the morality of jaywalking. :)

John

Simon_Templar

14th November 2005, 04:03 AM

Alright, so you have an outline of the faith, but you don't believe it? Is there an outline of your faith that you do believe?

LOL whew... you hit that one on the head. I just finnished trying to point this out myself in a couple of other threads.

whenever people come in here and ask what Anglicans believe there are a few, generaly "Anglo-catholics" who spout all this stuff about the Anglican church being catholic, and orthodox, and you have to affirm this and that, and affirm the creeds, and the seven councils, etc.

The problem is that the church has apperently forgotten that there is a difference between affirming a statement (half the time with your fingers crossed behind your back) and actually believing it.

Its all well and good to call yourself orthodox, and talk about how the Eastern Orthodox church has correct theology, but in most cases the same people, were they actually in the Eastern Orthodox church would be excommunicated as heretics.

There is alot of talk about the anglican church being reformed to the pre-1066 state of affairs but the truth is that the english reformation had its elements of extreme protestantism which were strongly ingrained into the church until relatively recently. Thomas Cranmer came close to being burnt at the stake by the church of england because he was too catholic... and a couple of his friends actually were burnt at the stake for being too catholic. The anglo-catholic movement within the Anglican church is relatively recent in terms of Anglican tradition. Its only in the 1830's (noticably this corresponds to the time that institutionalized discrimination against catholics was finally ruled against by the government) that the oxford movement began this trend and even today it would be a huge stretch to define the entire Anglican church, especially the ECUSA (in my experience) as part of this "Anglo-Catholic" tradition. Yet they routinely define all of the Anglican tradition in their own image.

The sad thing is I wish you guys were right, I wish the Anglican church was orthodox and catholic to the degree you like to imagine it is. The fact, however, is that a large percentage of the church won't affirm what you claim to be the "anglican tradition" and even of those who do affirm it, many don't believe it. Belief is defined by actions and deeds, not words.

karen freeinchristman

14th November 2005, 08:52 AM

Aside to all with quirky sense of humour: the pastor today was on an evangelical rant, counting the number of times that different words are used in the KJV, and using that to justify various claims about the attributes of God. Dear husband leaned over and whispered in my ear "have you noted how many times 'a' and 'the' are used in the Bible? Surely such an emphasis on the Articles indicates God's recognition that Anglicanism is the truest surviving manifestation of the One Church!"

^_^

karen freeinchristman

14th November 2005, 08:53 AM

LOL whew... you hit that one on the head. I just finnished trying to point this out myself in a couple of other threads.

whenever people come in here and ask what Anglicans believe there are a few, generaly "Anglo-catholics" who spout all this stuff about the Anglican church being catholic, and orthodox, and you have to affirm this and that, and affirm the creeds, and the seven councils, etc.

The problem is that the church has apperently forgotten that there is a difference between affirming a statement (half the time with your fingers crossed behind your back) and actually believing it.

Its all well and good to call yourself orthodox, and talk about how the Eastern Orthodox church has correct theology, but in most cases the same people, were they actually in the Eastern Orthodox church would be excommunicated as heretics.

There is alot of talk about the anglican church being reformed to the pre-1066 state of affairs but the truth is that the english reformation had its elements of extreme protestantism which were strongly ingrained into the church until relatively recently. Thomas Cranmer came close to being burnt at the stake by the church of england because he was too catholic... and a couple of his friends actually were burnt at the stake for being too catholic. The anglo-catholic movement within the Anglican church is relatively recent in terms of Anglican tradition. Its only in the 1830's (noticably this corresponds to the time that institutionalized discrimination against catholics was finally ruled against by the government) that the oxford movement began this trend and even today it would be a huge stretch to define the entire Anglican church, especially the ECUSA (in my experience) as part of this "Anglo-Catholic" tradition. Yet they routinely define all of the Anglican tradition in their own image.

The sad thing is I wish you guys were right, I wish the Anglican church was orthodox and catholic to the degree you like to imagine it is. The fact, however, is that a large percentage of the church won't affirm what you claim to be the "anglican tradition" and even of those who do affirm it, many don't believe it. Belief is defined by actions and deeds, not words.
"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Simon again!"

gitlance

14th November 2005, 09:04 AM

LOL whew... you hit that one on the head. I just finnished trying to point this out myself in a couple of other threads.

whenever people come in here and ask what Anglicans believe there are a few, generaly "Anglo-catholics" who spout all this stuff about the Anglican church being catholic, and orthodox, and you have to affirm this and that, and affirm the creeds, and the seven councils, etc.

The problem is that the church has apperently forgotten that there is a difference between affirming a statement (half the time with your fingers crossed behind your back) and actually believing it.

Its all well and good to call yourself orthodox, and talk about how the Eastern Orthodox church has correct theology, but in most cases the same people, were they actually in the Eastern Orthodox church would be excommunicated as heretics.

There is alot of talk about the anglican church being reformed to the pre-1066 state of affairs but the truth is that the english reformation had its elements of extreme protestantism which were strongly ingrained into the church until relatively recently. Thomas Cranmer came close to being burnt at the stake by the church of england because he was too catholic... and a couple of his friends actually were burnt at the stake for being too catholic. The anglo-catholic movement within the Anglican church is relatively recent in terms of Anglican tradition. Its only in the 1830's (noticably this corresponds to the time that institutionalized discrimination against catholics was finally ruled against by the government) that the oxford movement began this trend and even today it would be a huge stretch to define the entire Anglican church, especially the ECUSA (in my experience) as part of this "Anglo-Catholic" tradition. Yet they routinely define all of the Anglican tradition in their own image.

The sad thing is I wish you guys were right, I wish the Anglican church was orthodox and catholic to the degree you like to imagine it is. The fact, however, is that a large percentage of the church won't affirm what you claim to be the "anglican tradition" and even of those who do affirm it, many don't believe it. Belief is defined by actions and deeds, not words.

We have hope that one day ALL Anglicans will indeed believe as we do, upholding the ancient faith of the Church as we strive to do.

Remember, there has always been a remnant of the faithful. After the first Nicene Council, almost every bishop in the Church was deceived by arianism... but there were a few who remained and fought -- and orthodoxy eventually triumphed!

We don't live in a pipedream -- we live in a world where we recognize the shortcomings evident in some areas of the Communion, but we live and work to see the eventual triumph of orthodoxy in Anglicanism yet again. And I am convinced that it will one day happen.

karen freeinchristman

14th November 2005, 09:18 AM

Remember, there has always been a remnant of the faithful.
You see, this is what causes the problems. I can respect the reverence held for the early Church Fathers and accept that this is the preference for some people in the Anglican communion. But when you say "there has always been a remnant of the faithful", that is bound to upset people. It's bad terminology. It is saying that the rest of us aren't faithful, and everyone here would be perfectly right in saying that isn't true. We all have faith in God, in Jesus, and in the Holy Spirit. Just because we don't all put our faith 100% in the early church fathers doesn't mean we are not faithful. It is statements like these that put people on the defensive, sounds extremely arrogant, and turns people off your cause of living and working "to see the eventual triumph of orthodoxy in Anglicanism yet again."

karen freeinchristman

14th November 2005, 10:43 AM

Excerpts from Being Anglican, A. Redfern (2000):

Loose ends are acceptable

Anglican tradition holds together a wide range of theological stances. It recognises that much learning comes from comparing experiences and exploring differences positively. This approach values intuition as well as logic, faith as well as formulas and process as well as context.

Thus being Anglican involves living with a certain amount of untidiness.

Comprehensiveness
Being Anglican is not about the kind of comprehensiveness that brings everything together in a single system. The comprehensiveness of the Anglican system tries to bear witness to the comprehensiveness of God.

The importance of order
Being Anglican is based on the notion of order. Creation works by order emerging from chaos, as the gift of God. Order is essential for Christian believing and thus doctrine provides a vital framework for the individual experience of grace. Similarly, order is important in worship and this is achieved by having common forms and texts. In ministry there is a structure of bishops, priests and deacons who are responsible for the authenticity of word and sacrament. In fact all human living requires order, and the Church therefore offers a sequence of offices to mark and monitor key moments.
However, this kind of order and structure is not infallible. Article 21 of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion says that councils can and do err...
Hooker recognised that the structures for Church life may need to change.
Anglican tradition recognises that order is essential but that its particular forms may change.

Ambiguity and provisionality are important
Being Anglican involves exercising a reluctance to push too hard to make boundaries that exclude. All good things can contribute to the coming of the Kingdom, even if on the surface they seem to raise contradictions and tensions.
The making of church, the living of the Christian life, the understanding of the Gospel and the requirement of order - all these things must be 'provisional' in this life. The Anglican tradition has always recognised the variety of ways in which these issues can be explored, and the reality that new things can only be received by those willing to accept change and development.

gitlance

14th November 2005, 10:52 AM

You see, this is what causes the problems. I can respect the reverence held for the early Church Fathers and accept that this is the preference for some people in the Anglican communion. But when you say "there has always been a remnant of the faithful", that is bound to upset people. It's bad terminology. It is saying that the rest of us aren't faithful, and everyone here would be perfectly right in saying that isn't true. We all have faith in God, in Jesus, and in the Holy Spirit. Just because we don't all put our faith 100% in the early church fathers doesn't mean we are not faithful. It is statements like these that put people on the defensive, sounds extremely arrogant, and turns people off your cause of living and working "to see the eventual triumph of orthodoxy in Anglicanism yet again."

I am not directing this comment to you or anybody in particular on this board. Regardless of wheter you are Anglo-Catholic, broad Church, or evangelical, EVERYONE believes that there is a correct point of view -- therefore everyone else is unfaithful.

What I am simply saying is that there were teachings proclaimed unanimously by the Church in her councils, and teachings almost unanimously agreed upon by the Fathers. These men and women died for the faith, and I refuse to dishonor them by rejecting that faith which they fought so hard for.

There are absolute truths, and the Catholic faith contains them. I think we would all agree here that if someone were to deny the Trinity, their salvation could be at stake. What about those who deny all the other pronouncements of the same councils that defined the Trinity? It is a non-sequitor and an illogical stance to accept some teachings of the councils, but not all. There is no authoritative basis on which to pick and choose. Either you accept all the decisions of the councils, or you accept none of them.

karen freeinchristman

14th November 2005, 10:58 AM

It is a non-sequitor and an illogical stance to accept some teachings of the councils, but not all. There is no authoritative basis on which to pick and choose. Either you accept all the decisions of the councils, or you accept none of them.
I guess I will have to come to terms with the fact that I take an illogical stance then.

higgs2

14th November 2005, 01:10 PM

You see, this is what causes the problems. I can respect the reverence held for the early Church Fathers and accept that this is the preference for some people in the Anglican communion. But when you say "there has always been a remnant of the faithful", that is bound to upset people. It's bad terminology. It is saying that the rest of us aren't faithful, and everyone here would be perfectly right in saying that isn't true. We all have faith in God, in Jesus, and in the Holy Spirit. Just because we don't all put our faith 100% in the early church fathers doesn't mean we are not faithful. It is statements like these that put people on the defensive, sounds extremely arrogant, and turns people off your cause of living and working "to see the eventual triumph of orthodoxy in Anglicanism yet again."
I agree and I'm getting a little sick of hearing these pompous proclamations that only a minute portion of a minute portion of a small portion of Christians are "right"! I think we should feed the hungry and clothe the naked and comfort the sick and quit worrying about how many times we cross ourself during a church service or what the church parents thought about chewing the host.

:(

Rant over. That said, I do enjoy just about everyone here and I'm glad we can all be part of this community even though we disagree on some issues.

karen freeinchristman

14th November 2005, 01:16 PM

Rant over. That said, I do enjoy just about everyone here and I'm glad we can all be part of this community even though we disagree on some issues.
awww.... shucks, higgs!
group hug...:groupray:

higgs2

14th November 2005, 01:17 PM

awww.... shucks, higgs!
group hug...:groupray:
:)

IowaLutheran

14th November 2005, 01:33 PM

Rant over. That said, I do enjoy just about everyone here and I'm glad we can all be part of this community even though we disagree on some issues.

Good point. The Lutheran forum has largely disintegrated because of an inability to do what you guys do here in the Anglican community, i.e., talk (relatively) civilly about differences.

gitlance

14th November 2005, 01:59 PM

I agree and I'm getting a little sick of hearing these pompous proclamations that only a minute portion of a minute portion of a small portion of Christians are "right"! I think we should feed the hungry and clothe the naked and comfort the sick and quit worrying about how many times we cross ourself during a church service or what the church parents thought about chewing the host.

We should do both.

And as a matter of fact, out of 2 billion Christians, 1.5 billion or so are of the Catholic faith.

Eastern Orthodoxy - 240 million adherents
Roman Catholicism - 1 billion plus adherents
Anglican Communion - 80 million adherents
Old Catholics - 400,000 adherents
Philippine Catholics - 2 million adherents
Coptic Orthodox - 60 million adherents
(Total of about 1,382,400,000 adherents.)

Protestantism - 500 million adherents

Do you see my point? Catholicism is not as much a "minority" as some think.

gtsecc

14th November 2005, 02:04 PM

We should do both.

And as a matter of fact, out of 2 billion Christians, 1.5 billion or so are of the Catholic faith.

Eastern Orthodoxy - 240 million adherents
Roman Catholicism - 1 billion plus adherents
Anglican Communion - 80 million adherents
Old Catholics - 400,000 adherents
Philippine Catholics - 2 million adherents
Coptic Orthodox - 60 million adherents
(Total of about 1,382,400,000 adherents.)

Protestantism - 500 million adherents

Do you see my point? Catholicism is not as much a "minority" as some think.

In addition, only 2 of these have some confussion amoungst members as to "What is the Church?"
Protestants, and some Anglicans.

Naomi4Christ

14th November 2005, 02:12 PM

We should do both.

And as a matter of fact, out of 2 billion Christians, 1.5 billion or so are of the Catholic faith.

Eastern Orthodoxy - 240 million adherents
Roman Catholicism - 1 billion plus adherents
Anglican Communion - 80 million adherents
Old Catholics - 400,000 adherents
Philippine Catholics - 2 million adherents
Coptic Orthodox - 60 million adherents
(Total of about 1,382,400,000 adherents.)

Protestantism - 500 million adherents

Do you see my point? Catholicism is not as much a "minority" as some think.Are you saying that protestants don't affirm the same creeds and say that they believe in the holy catholic church?

What about Anglicans, like me, who are very definitely protestant - where do we fit in in your neat list?

karen freeinchristman

14th November 2005, 02:22 PM

In addition, only 2 of these have some confussion amoungst members as to "What is the Church?"
Protestants, and some Anglicans.

Out of two billion Christians, I can't help but think there must be quite a few people who are not 100% clear on what the Church is. I would guess off the top of my head that probably only about 20% of church-goers actually make the effort to learn what their Church stands for, and they become members of their church either because they like it (aesthetics or style), or it is a proximity thing.
I think it is a rare thing for a high proportion of a congregation to know or even to want to know about what it means to hold the catholic faith. Obviously we are taught some of it in sermons, in the bible, and in other Christian writings. But there are a lot of church-goers who don't pick up the bible much, never mind other Christian writings, unfortunately. And the teaching we receive through sermons is mixed.

gtsecc

14th November 2005, 03:02 PM

Are you saying that protestants don't affirm the same creeds and say that they believe in the holy catholic church?

What about Anglicans, like me, who are very definitely protestant - where do we fit in in your neat list?
Some protestants affirm the creeds, but change what the words mean to fit their new model. For example: They say Catholic means Universal, and Apostolic means sent out. I would notfor a minuet question that they are Christian. And, they may be right in understanding the creeds this way. However, this is a NEW understanding, and so far, the entire Church has not responded by accepting it.

higgs2

14th November 2005, 03:33 PM

We should do both.

And as a matter of fact, out of 2 billion Christians, 1.5 billion or so are of the Catholic faith.

Eastern Orthodoxy - 240 million adherents
Roman Catholicism - 1 billion plus adherents
Anglican Communion - 80 million adherents
Old Catholics - 400,000 adherents
Philippine Catholics - 2 million adherents
Coptic Orthodox - 60 million adherents
(Total of about 1,382,400,000 adherents.)

Protestantism - 500 million adherents

Do you see my point? Catholicism is not as much a "minority" as some think.

So out of 1.5 billion, 80 million is about 5%, and of that 80 million, how many are anglo-catholics who are praying for the church to return to it's so-called pre-1054 roots?

Out of 2 billion total, 80 million is less than 4%.

Do you see my point?

gtsecc

14th November 2005, 03:42 PM

So out of 1.5 billion, 80 million is about 5%, and of that 80 million, how many are anglo-catholics who are praying for the church to return to it's so-called pre-1054 roots?

Out of 2 billion total, 80 million is less than 4%.

Do you see my point?

I think you missed the point.
I can't remember a time since I was 6 when it was't perfectly clear to me that we Anglicans are praying and working for reunification with Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox. I thought ALL Anglicans believed this. When did this fundamental tenant of the Anglican faith change?

Naomi4Christ

14th November 2005, 03:46 PM

Some protestants affirm the creeds, but change what the words mean to fit their new model. For example: They say Catholic means Universal, and Apostolic means sent out. I would notfor a minuet question that they are Christian. And, they may be right in understanding the creeds this way. However, this is a NEW understanding, and so far, the entire Church has not responded by accepting it.

That's what we mean in our church and we are Anglican (and the bishop loves us).

gtsecc

14th November 2005, 03:49 PM

That's what we mean in our church and we are Anglican (and the bishop loves us).
Name him.
I will personally write him a letter asking him what he thinks it means.
Where did he go to Seminary?

Naomi4Christ

14th November 2005, 03:56 PM

Name him.
I will personally write him a letter asking him what he thinks it means.
Where did he go to Seminary?

LOL - any guesses?

gtsecc

14th November 2005, 03:58 PM

LOL - any guesses?
Wycliff Hall Bible College?

Naomi4Christ

14th November 2005, 04:13 PM

Wycliff Hall Bible College?

LOL,no idea - it would be best to figure out his name before coming up with a CV!

higgs2

14th November 2005, 11:15 PM

I think you missed the point.
I can't remember a time since I was 6 when it was't perfectly clear to me that we Anglicans are praying and working for reunification with Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox. I thought ALL Anglicans believed this. When did this fundamental tenant of the Anglican faith change?
Well you're certainly not addressing the same point that I was addressing, so maybe you missed the point. :)

gtsecc

14th November 2005, 11:38 PM

Well you're certainly not addressing the same point that I was addressing, so maybe you missed the point. :)
The point is that if 4% of Anglicans, and ALL Roman Catholics, and ALL Eastern Orthodox NOW and ALL Christians in the entire world prior to the reformation believe something, you have to be intellectually dishonest with yourself to think you have discovered a new and more correct belief.

CSMR

14th November 2005, 11:48 PM

We should do both.

And as a matter of fact, out of 2 billion Christians, 1.5 billion or so are of the Catholic faith.

Eastern Orthodoxy - 240 million adherents
Roman Catholicism - 1 billion plus adherents
Anglican Communion - 80 million adherents
Old Catholics - 400,000 adherents
Philippine Catholics - 2 million adherents
Coptic Orthodox - 60 million adherents
(Total of about 1,382,400,000 adherents.)

Protestantism - 500 million adherents

Do you see my point? Catholicism is not as much a "minority" as some think.
It seems the gate is not as narrow as it was first thought.

trooper

15th November 2005, 01:51 AM

I have just started to read Newman. Which frankly, as a high Church Anglican, is a hard thing to do. How is it that the Church Catholic can be founded on a State question (Erasmus). It isn't playing out in my head at all.

I want to be open enough to say that I don't know, and that I wish us all the peace that only Jesus can give. But. I wonder now, to paraphrase Newman, if you take away all the wishes and replace them with the "is" what our Church actually plays out to be.

We wish that people held to: Real Presence, the Communion of Saints. the Theotokos, the ecclesiology of The Faith. But most don't. (Statistically) So, the dream is not real and we have to deal with what is.

I really wish that this weren't so. But, the scales are beginning to fall.

Read ++Newman and let me know what you think.