Kindly give me a History Lesson...

[HandmaidenOfGod]

As a student of History with a fondness for studying the history, beliefs, and customs, of different religions, I have a question for the board.

It is my understanding that the Anglican Church was founded due to King Henry VIII's discontent with Rome's decision not to grant him a divorce -- not because of theological differences or beliefs with the RCC at the time.

That being said, I know that the Anglican Church (forgive me if I am using the wrong name) and the RCC today do have different theological beliefs and practices on different matters. (Women in the priesthood being one example.)

This brings me to my question: when did the Anglican Church's theology start to change from Rome's? Was there more to the split in England then Henry just wanting to leave Rome's sandbox because he couldn't play with his toys nicely with the other children?

Also, it's my understanding that there was a long period of violence after the split through the reins of Mary and Elizabeth I respectively, and there was some iconoclasim where the Anglicans painted over the icons in the Church's that were originally Catholic. What was the casue of this, and are icons (or religious paintings) still frowned upon in the Anglican Church?

Thanks for the history lesson!

In XC,

Maureen

[pmcleanj]

I trust you won't be surprised that you are not the first to ask this question, or to repeat the old canard about Henry VIII having founded our Church. As a result, many people will have seen this re-run before:

The English Church was started in the middle of first century to early in the second century. The Venerable Bede quotes a letter dated 153 making reference to an indiginous Christian Church. This was about a century and a half before the conversion of Constantine, before their was any hierarchy in Rome with any power or imperial connections to extend the influence of the Roman See over other jurisdictions. Oral history in the Isles is that the missionary who founded the church was sent by Saint John the Evangelist. Oral tradition from Lindisfarne is that the missionary in question was Saint Joseph of Arimethea. Either of these traditions would point to the date of the English Church's inception being no later than the latter half of the first century. By the time of the Council of Arles in 314 the English Church was sufficiently stable and had sufficient resources to send three bishops, a priest, and a deacon. This church also sent missionaries to Northern Europe to evangelize their Celtic cousins in those lands.

The Church in Britain thrived for centuries with its own usages and rites. When the Bishop of Rome was finally able to send missionaries to Britain in the fourth century, they found a Church already there. And they came into conflict with the British church, because the ancient usages and rites of that church weren't the Roman use. Probably, in fact, they were more ancient than the Roman use, since in the distant frontier Christians were protected by distance from imperial persecution and were able to practice their religion and celebrate their rites with relative security. The Roman missionaries, however, took the perspective that different was wrong and embarked on a campaign of coercion to bring the British Church into line with Rome.

In the seventh century, the Council of Whitby was called, where a majority of British Bishops agreed to adopt the Roman rite and Roman dating of Easter, for the sake of Christian unity. Bishops in the North dissented and retained the Celtic use. Religious houses were exempt from the ruling of Whitby, and also preserved the ancient Celtic use. And all the Bishops, whether they adopted the Roman liturgy or not, retained their ancient and historic independance.

In 1066, the Bishop of Rome resorted to force of arms to carry his influence into Britain, and sponsored William the Conqueror's invasion of Britain. In William's train came proper Roman clerics, who over the years of Plantagenet rule ousted the abbots and abbesses of the old Celtic religious houses, outlawed the old Celtic order of Canons, and gradually established Roman dominion in Britain. And it was not particularly welcome. Have you never wondered why fat, rich abbots featured so prominently among the Norman villians that were opposed by the Saxon Robin Hood? (Or don't children read Louis Rhead any more...)

In 1215, the Saxon barons rose up against their papally-sponsored hated Norman overlord, and forced King John to sign the Magna Carta that included the famous line "The Church in England always shall be free." Disestablishmentarians would argue that this declaration referred to the King's influence over the church, not to the Church's freedom from foreign influence. But in fact the King himself was a foreigner, and his affairs were so tangled in his relationship with Rome that there was very little difference between the two.

The House of Tudor gained the throne by marrying into the distaff Plantagenet line, but Henry VII also claimed descent from the Celtic kings, and based on that claim he was able to position himself as the people's King, rather than a foreigner. When his son had a falling out with the Bishop of Rome, three local English bishops were able to step up and remind Henry VIII of the English Church's historical independance. Henry's own Celtic and British roots were fuzzy at best, but he could see for himself the weakness of Rome's claim to authority over Britain.

In taking the power of the Pope to himself, Henry acted completely outside the tradition and temperament of the Celtic church. His illigitimatized-and-relegitimized-alternately-commoner-and-noble daughter Elizabeth, however, had a much stronger understanding of the people she ruled. She never reinstituted her father's Act of Supremacy that her Roman Catholic sister had revoked. Elizabeth's Act of Supremacy declares her NOT the "supreme head of the church" but rather "supreme governor of the realm" and makes very clear that no other person, no foreign power, no prelate from another See, has the right to wield power over Britons, temporally or spiritually.

[gtsecc]

Legend has it that Joseph of Arimathea founded the Church in England. It is likely that it was founded late 1st century or early second century. I suppose you could look at our founding as the day of our excommunication from Rome, but that would be like saying the Eastern Church being founded in 1054.

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Thanks for the history lesson! Much appreciated!

[Lumieredelune]

Elizabeth's Act of Supremacy declares her NOT the "supreme head of the church" but rather "supreme governor of the realm" and makes very clear that no other person, no foreign power, no prelate from another See, has the right to wield power over Britons, temporally or spiritually.


Thank you for that beautiful post. I never realised how ancient the Anglican church is. Truly awesome!
:clap:

[Lilium]

:thumbsup:

[HandmaidenOfGod]

pmcleanj,

Would you happen to know about the whole "white-washing" of the icons bit?

Also, some say prior to 1054 we were all part of the Universal Church, and that it was just one Church with different practices, regardless of the local Church's subscription to Rome.

Does the Anglican Church see itself as being seperate, or does it hold true to this belief?

Thanks for your help!

[gtsecc]

pmcleanj,


Does the Anglican Church see itself as being seperate, or does it hold true to this belief?


Some part would claim to be simply Western Orthodox.
Some parts deny most all of the things I find essential to Christianity.

[gtsecc]

Also, some say prior to 1054 we were all part of the Universal Church, and that it was just one Church with different practices, regardless of the local Church's subscription to Rome.



I have been told by Eastern Orthodox folks that they consider us to be fully Orthodox until 1066.
Walsingham is simultaneously a Marian Shrine for all 3 branches of Christianity, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox.

[Philip]

Two questions which I may or may not have asked before:

When did the Filioque make it to England?
Are there extant copies of the pre-Roman liturgy?

[Bonifatius]

Two questions which I may or may not have asked before:

When did the Filioque make it to England?
Are there extant copies of the pre-Roman liturgy?

Hi Philip,

the filioque made it to England when it made it to the rest of Western Christendom. There have been attempts to delete it from the Creed and the latest round of talks between the Anglican Communion and the Ecumenical Patriarchate ended by suggesting to omit the filioque. Mysteriosly it reappeared in the new C of E liturgy "Common Worship" when it came out in 2000.

What exactly do you mean by pre Roman liturgy? Sarum rite (mediaeval) or Celtic? There are versions of both.

Best
Boni

[Philip]

the filioque made it to England when it made it to the rest of Western Christendom.


But this was a gradual process that took several hundred years.


What exactly do you mean by pre Roman liturgy? Sarum rite (mediaeval) or Celtic? There are versions of both.


Are they available on the web?

[Bonifatius]

Also, it's my understanding that there was a long period of violence after the split through the reins of Mary and Elizabeth I respectively, and there was some iconoclasim where the Anglicans painted over the icons in the Church's that were originally Catholic. What was the casue of this, and are icons (or religious paintings) still frowned upon in the Anglican Church?

Dear Maureen,

a very warm welcome to the Anglican forum, I hope you find the answers to your questions here!

Penny has explained how it came to the breach between Rome and Canterbury (better than I ever could!!)

The history of the English church since 1534 is very complicated and - as you mentioned - in times even violent. After the Act of Supremacy in 1534 several attempts were made by English divines to bring the English church under the influence of continental Protestant reformers. Henry himself did not like this idea very much and favoured rather the idea of a Catholic church minus the pope. After his death during the reign of his son Edward these changes towards a more Protestant shape of the English church were put into pracitice by divines like Thomas Cranmer (then Archbishop of Canterbury) and Martin Bucer (a German Protestant from Strasbourg living in exile in Cambridge). Cranmer brought out the first Book of Common Prayer in 1549, the liturgical language changing from Latin to the vernacular. The contents still were very close to the mediaeval rite, but the Protestant party was not very happy with it, so the second Prayer Book came out in 1552 which was far more Protestant than its predecessor. It was in use only for about one year before Mary Tudor became Queen and the liturgy was moved back to the Roman mass. In 1559 under Elizabeth the Prayer Book was renewed, but already the first changes to the very Protestant form were made to make it more acceptable to the Catholic party in the church.

It was this period in the reign of Edward and Elizabeth that saw the biggest change in the ordering of churches. For fear of idolatry the walls were whitewashed and limed, the images and statues taken away, the altars destroyed, stained glass removed. Services became much simpler. Instead of stone altars there was a wooden communion table ("holy table") somewhere in the chancel which was moved to the centre of the chancel for the celebration of communion, the people sitting in the chancel around the table (although it was required by the rubric in the Prayer Book that they should receive the Holy Communion kneeling). There were no candles on the table nor a crucifix, the table was only covered with silk and a plain white cloth for the celebration of the sacrament. In fact in many churches the old eucharistic vestments were used for this purpose as the priests only were allowed to wear black cassocks with white surplices with scarf and hood.

The years between 1559 and 1604 were the most Protestant in liturgical terms and in terms of the ordering of buildings. In fact the churches had lost their Eucharistic centre (the altar). Most churches were divided into two sepearte rooms by a screen. Mattins and the antecommunion were being read from the pulpit and the reading stalls in the nave, then the people who wanted to receive communion retired to the chancel where the communion was celebrated (the priest standing at the North end of the table - a practice that only died out in the 19th century!).

Instead of the former images and crucifixes there were the royal arms or crests in prominent places in the church. On the east wall above the communion table there were wooden panels with the 10 commandments and parts of the service that had to be said by the people like the creed. It soon became practice not to move the table for communion anymore but to leave it at the east end of the chancel and surround it by communion rail for people to receive commuion kneeling. This was the practice under the Laudian divines in the early 17th century. They started to read the whole of the antecommunion from the communion table which made it look more like the old mass, they also began to adorn church buildings again with ornaments and marble.

The second wave of iconoclasm happened during the civil war from 1644 to 1649 and during the republic until 1659. The Anglican Church was abolished, the liturgy forbidden, buildings destroyed. After the Restauration in 1660 the Prayer Book in its latest form was published (1662) being very much like its predecessor from 1559. Although there were no major liturgical changes there was a tendency to abandon the old austere style. The time of the restauration was also the time of Sir Christopher Wren who built some of the most beautiful churches in London. But still churches were relatively simple in terms of liturgical ordering with wooden communion tables, the panels with the ten commandments above them, a communion rail and a triple decker pulpit (for preacher, reader and precentor or cantor).

The next major step in changing the face of Anglican churches began in the late 18th century. There were three major streams of influence: Medieavalism, Romanticism and the Catholic Movement. Whereas the first two were rather aesthetic in outlook, the last one changed the Anglican church from its roots. There have always been catholic tendencies in Anglican belief and practice, but it was the Oxford movement led by Newman, Pusey, Froude and Keble which reinterpreted much of the Anglican tradition and liturgy in a Catholic sense. Inspired by this the ordering of churches changed once again and became very much what you can see today. The altar became the centre again, adorned with reredos, crucifix, candles etc. There are images, votiv candles, statues, tabernacles with the blessed sacrament and so on. Although the liturgy of the Prayer Book in most places remained unaltered it was now celebrated now with incense, sanctus bells, bowings, genufexions, crossings, processions, robed choirs etc. Not all of these things had completely died out in the centuries before, but they clearly had not been common practice among Anglicans.

Since 1850 the Catholic movement among Anglicans has influenced the ordering of churches as well as the celebration of the liturgy deeply so that nowadays in many places it would be difficult to tell from the building and the way the liturgy is celebrated if this is a Roman Catholic or an Anglican church.

Hope this helps a bit. It's become a rather lengthy history lesson. I hope it did not bore you...

Best
Boni

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Thanks Boni, this answers my question. :)

Is there a good online source where I can read the history of Anglicanism?

Also, I know in the U.S. some ECUSA Churches look practically Protestant in their liturgy and structure. When did this come about?

Thanks,

Maureen

[Bonifatius]

Are they available on the web?

Hi Phil,

I don't know about the Celtic rites, but the Sarum Liturgy can be found here: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Sarum/index.htm

[PaladinValer]

It is my understanding that the Anglican Church was founded due to King Henry VIII's discontent with Rome's decision not to grant him a divorce -- not because of theological differences or beliefs with the RCC at the time.

Wrong unfortunately on two points:

Anglicanism was always seperate from Rome.
Henry VIII didn't want a divorce but an annulment. There's a rather big difference between the two.That being said, I know that the Anglican Church (forgive me if I am using the wrong name) and the RCC today do have different theological beliefs and practices on different matters. (Women in the priesthood being one example.)

Women's ordination is a discipline, not a doctrine.

This brings me to my question: when did the Anglican Church's theology start to change from Rome's?

It never really did. Not in it's traditional and historic practice and nature at least.

Was there more to the split in England then Henry just wanting to leave Rome's sandbox because he couldn't play with his toys nicely with the other children?

There was no "split."

Also, it's my understanding that there was a long period of violence after the split through the reins of Mary and Elizabeth I respectively, and there was some iconoclasim where the Anglicans painted over the icons in the Church's that were originally Catholic.

Originally Anglican. There are no "natural" Vatican Catholic parishes in England until after Henry VIII's action.
There was no iconoclasm; that's a hoax. While there was some iconoclasm among some laity, it was only ordered by Henry to ensure the seperativeness Anglicanism from VCism. It had absolutely nothing to due with doctrine. Henry VIII loved statuary and icons. Same with the monastic orders...they never actually left; Henry VIII held them to their oaths until their deaths.What was the casue of this, and are icons (or religious paintings) still frowned upon in the Anglican Church?

It was never frowned upon. As for today, monasticism, iconery, and statuary are common.

[PaladinValer]

Actually, the ECUSA if anything is more "Catholic"-orientated than most of the Anglican Church.

Far more, in fact. The Presiding Bishop, ++Griswold, is a member of Affirming Catholicism.

[gtsecc]

Also, I know in the U.S. some ECUSA Churches look practically Protestant in their liturgy and structure. When did this come about?
What does the Bible say?

Matthew 13:27 And the servants of the householder came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?' 28 He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?'

[Bonifatius]

Thanks Boni, this answers my question. :)

Is there a good online source where I can read the history of Anglicanism?

Also, I know in the U.S. some ECUSA Churches look practically Protestant in their liturgy and structure. When did this come about?

Thanks,

Maureen

Hi Maureen,

I do not know about a good history of Anglicanism on the web, but a good starting point to explore the Anglican Church is www.anglicansonline.org (http://www.anglicansonline.org)

There are Anglican churches that did not follow the Catholic revival in the 19th century but decided rather to keep the more Protestant style of Anglicanism from earlier times. The Anglican tradition in its comprehensiveness offers room for both interpretions of the Christian faith and liturgical style - not always without tension though ... ;)

Best
Boni

[Bonifatius]

There was no iconoclasm; that's a hoax. While there was some iconoclasm among some laity, it was only ordered by Henry to ensure the seperativeness Anglicanism from VCism. It had absolutely nothing to due with doctrine. Henry VIII loved statuary and icons. Same with the monastic orders...they never actually left; Henry VIII held them to their oaths until their deaths.


Hello my dearest Paladin,

have you ever read Eamon Duffy's wonderful book "The voices of Morebath" that tells the story of one rural Parish during the whole period of Reformation?? It offers incredible insight in what was actually going on in a local parish. I don't know whether you'd call it iconoclasm or not, but the order to remove all statues, altars, images etc. comes very close to it. And there was certainly iconoclasm in the time of the Civil War (though not carried out by "Anglicans" but by Presbyterians and Congregationalists).

Best
Boni

[pmcleanj]

Another re-run, regarding Celtic worship:

The Celts were a largely oral culture. Although there is evidence that they had writing (the Celtic "empire" spanned from Yugoslavia to Britain in a great arc covering the whole of Northern Europe, and endured for over a millenium with arts and technology that were the epitome for their age, many remnants of that culture showing runic writing, such as many social anthropologists consider essential to maintaining such a broad-flung pattern of trade) much of the cultural aspect of life was passed orally from teacher to disciple.

Alas, when an invading foreign power intends to supress an indiginous culture, oral transmission makes that indiginous particularly vulnerable. You can bury books as you can other artifacts to preserve them for your descendents, but once you bury the Storyteller, the story is lost -- except for the memories of those who have heard it. And without the rigourous practice and testing and collaboration of a formal network of Storytellers, the story itself drifts.

After the Council of Whitby, which urged the Romanized date of Easter onto the British Christians and also urged the Gregorian Mass onto the Britons, the Celtic forms of worship began to decline; and under the Normans following their papally-sponsored invasion of Britain, the Celtic forms were largely outlawed. Some remnants of those ancient rites were preserved in abbeys and in isolated Bishoprics that did not accept the findings of Whitby. And thanks to a liberally-minded Norman baron who commanded a liturgist to create a liturgy for his new Cathedral at Salisbury that incorporated the best of both Celtic and Gregorian use, we have the Sarum Use that provides tantalizing glimpses of those Celtic elements. It was the legally mandated usage in Britain or parts of Britain during different parts of the post-Norman period. Cranmer turned to the Sarum Use, and to the preserved practices of various abbeys, in his creation of the Book of Common Prayer.

Of course, even what was preserved in abbeys had been subjected to considerable Romanization. The ancient celtic form of religious life was the canonical community -- male and female religious living together, in individual dome-shaped hermitages within a religious community. These were obviously vulnerable to attack when the pagan Angles invaded, and more traditional abbeys with strong defensive walls became the norm. But Canonical communities survived in isolated areas until the Norman invasion, when they were finally eliminated by the new overlords who did not recognize Canons
religious. Celtic abbeys, which were structured around the social institution of the extended family, were given new Norman Abbots or Abbesses, who restructured them along the more institutional lines of Norman praxis. They abolished the custom of joint Abbeys, where an Abbess or Abbot ruled over both a men's house and a women's house with the independent authority of an Abbot/Bishop. What remained of the Celtic rites in these religious houses would be whatever the Norman Abbot chose to preserve.

[Colabomb]

I have been told by Eastern Orthodox folks that they consider us to be fully Orthodox until 1066.
Walsingham is simultaneously a Marian Shrine for all 3 branches of Christianity, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox.
So baptists aren't a branch of Christianity.

Imperialism is getting to me lately!

[Naomi4Christ]

Since 1850 the Catholic movement among Anglicans has influenced the ordering of churches as well as the celebration of the liturgy deeply so that nowadays in many places it would be difficult to tell from the building and the way the liturgy is celebrated if this is a Roman Catholic or an Anglican church.

Hope this helps a bit. It's become a rather lengthy history lesson. I hope it did not bore you...

Best
Boni

You've stopped rather short. This does not describe the Church of England today.

[Naomi4Christ]

So baptists aren't a branch of Christianity.

Imperialism is getting to me lately!

:prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer:
When we hold on to petty differences in the practice of our faith, and fail to show the unity of your family. Father be merciful: forgive us and help us.
:prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer:

[Bonifatius]

Actually, the ECUSA if anything is more "Catholic"-orientated than most of the Anglican Church.

Far more, in fact. The Presiding Bishop, ++Griswold, is a member of Affirming Catholicism.

And so ist the Archbishop of Canterbury, but this does not make the C of E "anglocatholic", does it? ;)

[Bonifatius]

You've stopped rather short. This does not describe the Church of England today.

What would you like to say about it??

Best
Boni

[Naomi4Christ]

And so ist the Archbishop of Canterbury, but this does not make the C of E "anglocatholic", does it? ;)

Bishops are politicians as much as they are clergyman. They have to embrace all sides of the church, even if the worship and theology go against their own personal tastes. In addition, there is a goal of balancing the Synods to reflect what is going on in the parishes. Evangelicals may be under-represented at the moment, but they are not generally very political, and it takes time to work through the system.

I think our Bishops in England do a reasonable job of operating outside of their own comfort zones - the Bishop of London said wonderful, warm and sincere words at the institution of Nicky Gumbel as vicar of HTB recently, for example.

I don't think that ordinary folk base their views on their distant bishop, but on the members of their own church family.

[Naomi4Christ]

What would you like to say about it??

Best
Boni

Plenty!

But given that the OP asked about a very specific period in history, perhaps we can leave the current situation to another thread. :)

[gtsecc]

So baptists aren't a branch of Christianity.

Imperialism is getting to me lately!
Certainly they are Christian.
However, they are not a member of the visible Church by their own choice.

[ContraMundum]

Pamela has taught me that Catholic and Protestant are not opposites. I agree.

[gtsecc]

Kalistos Ware has taught me they are often opposite sides of the same coin.
He does have a point.
Many things which are protestant, are a reaction to percieved Roman Catholicism.

[ContraMundum]

Kalistos Ware has taught me they are often opposite sides of the same coin.
He does have a point.
Many things which are protestant, are a reaction to percieved Roman Catholicism.

I have often thought that Kallistos Ware's statement was a reaction to a percieved Protestant-Roman Catholic dialogue. It's Newton's Law of theology- for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Anyway, much of Protestantism is indeed a reaction to Catholicism, as understood in the 16th Century. This was no mere misconception of Catholicism, but as it truly was. The modern day apologists for Rome seem to forget that things were different then,and try to tell us that the way things are now is the way it always was. They're dreaming, of course, but then again they're whole ideology of the Church is a fantasy not shared by their own hierarchy, thank goodness.

I would glady have become a Protestant in the days of Luther and the Reformers. Communion in one kind, the sale of indulgences, church sanctioned torture, Cardinals younger than my own kids, etc etc. So would you have I think. Too bad Constantinople was so far away and run by a bunch of politically-minded bishops at the time I guess. Oh well, God was in charge and still is. Nothing happened without His permission.

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Thanks again for the info guys! Much appreciated!

I get the sense by some of your comments that Church seems to be politically divided (for lack of a better term) between "Catholics" and "Evangelicals."

Is this true?

Also, what is the Anglican definition of "Catholic" and "Evangelical"?

I ask because when I hear the word "Catholic" I think of Rome. When I hear the word "Evangelical" I think of Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Dr. James Dobson and the like.

How do you guys see it?

Thanks,

Maureen

[higgs2]

Thanks again for the info guys! Much appreciated!

I get the sense by some of your comments that Church seems to be politically divided (for lack of a better term) between "Catholics" and "Evangelicals."

Is this true?

Also, what is the Anglican definition of "Catholic" and "Evangelical"?

I ask because when I hear the word "Catholic" I think of Rome. When I hear the word "Evangelical" I think of Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Dr. James Dobson and the like.

How do you guys see it?

Thanks,

Maureen

My experience with the Episcopal Church in the US is that many if not most churches are "broad church" with elements of both.

[gtsecc]

It is more like 3 churches: Evangelical, Catholic, & Liberal. Even that has limits, but ti is a useful start.

[higgs2]

It is more like 3 churches: Evangelical, Catholic, & Liberal. Even that has limits, but ti is a useful start.

Evangelical, Catholic, and Normal you mean. :P

[HandmaidenOfGod]

But how do you define these terms?

[Naomi4Christ]

But how do you define these terms?

Here's a good summary of the various churchmanships:

http://www.christ-the-king.co.uk/churchmanship1.htm

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Thanks!

Based on this website, it appears that these terms could apply to members of just about any denomination, but the Anglican Church has allowed individual parishes to modify thier worship in accordance with the parishes beliefs.

Thanks for the info!

In XC,

Maureen

[Ebor]

Good evening, I think that we Anglicans have the variety because people aren't cookie-cutter copies. We have the Book of Common Prayer as our pattern and guide and on that frame work we can have plain and simple services or "pinned to the ceiling" high services or ones in the middle.

In the over 30 years that I'm been Anglican I have experienced all of these and never have a I seen anyone looking askance because someone else did or did not do something like cross themselves or stand/kneel to pray.
Some things are needful and others have some room for variety.

Ebor

[Naomi4Christ]

Thanks!

Based on this website, it appears that these terms could apply to members of just about any denomination, but the Anglican Church has allowed individual parishes to modify thier worship in accordance with the parishes beliefs.


The Church of England has a duty to minister to all residents in England, therefore it has to be accessible to all. This accessibility leads to a wide range of worship styles. It's not a case of being allowed to worship in certain ways, but rather a duty to be accessible, meaningful and relevent to people in their lives today. We don't say take us or leave us - we modify to give people what they need, in keeping with the 39 Articles of Faith.

This means that in any given deanery, you will have different parishes offering different types of worship and mission.

[Naomi4Christ]

Good evening, I think that we Anglicans have the variety because people aren't cookie-cutter copies. We have the Book of Common Prayer as our pattern and guide and on that frame work we can have plain and simple services or "pinned to the ceiling" high services or ones in the middle.

In the over 30 years that I'm been Anglican I have experienced all of these and never have a I seen anyone looking askance because someone else did or did not do something like cross themselves or stand/kneel to pray.
Some things are needful and others have some room for variety.

Ebor

Welcome to CF and STR, Ebor :)

[julian the apostate]

What does the Bible say?

Matthew 13:27 And the servants of the householder came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?' 28 He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?'


you have gotta be kidding,
saying this about our more protestant oriented anglicans is absolutely nutty

[Chrystabelle]

I am so glad to know how old the Anglican church actually is. As a Roman Catholic we were taught that the Anglican church only came about as a result of Henry VIII's lust. This had the effect of making us not take the Anglican church too seriously. I am so, so glad that that particular piece of RC information was incorrect.

Long live the Anglican Church.

[gtsecc]

I am so glad to know how old the Anglican church actually is. As a Roman Catholic we were taught that the Anglican church only came about as a result of Henry VIII's lust. This had the effect of making us not take the Anglican church too seriously. I am so, so glad that that particular piece of RC information was incorrect.

Long live the Anglican Church.

Absolutely, if your roots aren't deeper than the 16th century - how can you have the Bible?

[Chrystabelle]

Absolutely, if your roots aren't deeper than the 16th century - how can you have the Bible?

As a Roman Catholic child I was taught that the church in England was Roman Catholic before Henry VIII split with Rome. When I asked which church was in England before the Roman Catholic church, I was told that before the Roman Catholic church, the religion in England, was pagan.

My perception of the Anglican church was, therefore, distorted. I thought that it was, originally, a Roman Catholic church which was stolen from Rome and that, with Henry VIII as its founder and first leader, it must, obviously, be corrupt and invalid.

[Ebor]

Welcome to CF and STR, Ebor :)

Thank you for the welcome. :)


Ebor

[HandmaidenOfGod]

As a Roman Catholic child I was taught that the church in England was Roman Catholic before Henry VIII split with Rome. When I asked which church was in England before the Roman Catholic church, I was told that before the Roman Catholic church, the religion in England, was pagan.

My perception of the Anglican church was, therefore, distorted. I thought that it was, originally, a Roman Catholic church which was stolen from Rome and that, with Henry VIII as its founder and first leader, it must, obviously, be corrupt and invalid.

I must confess, this is what I was taught in Public School. That is why my view of the AC was skewed.

Thanks again!

[pmcleanj]

I am so glad to know how old the Anglican church actually is. As a Roman Catholic we were taught that the Anglican church only came about as a result of Henry VIII's lust. This had the effect of making us not take the Anglican church too seriously.
I have often suspected that that was the intent of that particular characterization of the Anglican Church. It seems to be everywhere in Roman Catholic circles; and we get proportionally as many Roman Catholics coming here to ask "why belong to a church started for the sake of a divorce", as Roman Catholic discussion boards get congregationalist Christians visiting to ask "why do you worship Mary".

You might want to take into account, that other information you have received from RC sources may be skewed by a particularly RC perspective.

And of course, other sources have their own perspective that skews their transmittal of information, too -- even Anglican sources.
Of course, Anglicans have the benefit that, if you as ten Anglicans, you will get eleven slightly different perspectives, which helps to round out the information you receive.

[HandmaidenOfGod]

To be fair to the RCC, it's not just RC circles that paint the AC with the "Divorce brush" per se.

But alas, it wouldn't be the first time secular teaching got Christian teaching wrong. :)

After all, most Westerners think that Orthodoxy is just for Russians. :)