For the conservative anglican/episcopalians

[MrJim]

I have a deep respect for the apostolic churches, all of them, though I do tend to lean a bit toward the EO.

However, it seems that the anglican tradition would be the perfect fit for a western guy like me.

Prob is that the reputation of the american episcopal church is that it is very liberal. I understand that there are exceptions, some that are united with some african diocese and such, but our local congregation is part of the american episcopal.

If you are in US, are you part of the american episcopal or a more conservative body, and if you are part of the ae how are you getting along with the changes and such?

[ContentInHim]

Mr. Jim - I was saved in a charismatic Episcopalian church in Massachusetts. They are in the process of separating from TEC (used to be ECUSA - they thought a name change would fool everyone :( ). They are an oasis of believers in a sea of ... I don't know what to call it. :(

Check the American Anglican Council for the names of churches within the liberal dioceses. Several whole dioceses are conservative - mostly in Florida and Texas. I'm on their mailing list - you can sign up for really good info. Pray for them and the convocation that will be going on shortly.

[MrJim]

Mr. Jim - I was saved in a charismatic Episcopalian church in Massachusetts. They are in the process of separating from TEC (used to be ECUSA - they thought a name change would fool everyone :( ). They are an oasis of believers in a sea of ... I don't know what to call it. :(

Check the American Anglican Council for the names of churches within the liberal dioceses. Several whole dioceses are conservative - mostly in Florida and Texas. I'm on their mailing list - you can sign up for really good info. Pray for them and the convocation that will be going on shortly.

What's the convocation about and is it the AAC or the TEC?

[ContentInHim]

TEC - it's another Windsor meeting. Held regularly every so often. After the last one the Anglican Church said homosexuality disqualified one to be a priest and then the ECUSA voted in Robinson. After that they voted in the new name and the new USA head who states that there are many ways to the Father. She's an apostate, pure and simple. :sick:

So this convocation is to see if the USA TEC can stay in communion, but the Archbishop of Canterbury is a revisionist coward and will speak a good firm conservative game while there and then spend 5 years backpeddling. It's such a sad situation.

OTOH, those churches which are leaving and going under the African Archbishop are amazing. You would be VERY comfy in any of them! :hug:

[ContentInHim]

Here's the link if you did not find it:
http://www.americananglican.org/site/c.ikLUK3MJIpG/b.551235/k.CBA8/Home.htm

[MrJim]

There was a congregation down in the Northern VA area that switched to an African diocese~made a bit of a fuss down here (I live in PA but travel regularly into Northern VA so I keep up on the news a bit).

[MrJim]

Here's the link if you did not find it:
http://www.americananglican.org/site....CBA8/Home.htm

Looks like the AAC has its work cut out for it...I saw a lot of PA parishes listed (though none close)...

[ContentInHim]

It was more than one congregation - it was all the major congregations in Fairfax County, including the one George Washington attended! Only one in Manassas stayed. Of course the Bishop of VA is suing them after the Archbishop of Canterbury made TEC promise NOT to sue them. The issue is property and those properties are worth millions.

The traditional/conservative Episcopal churches in N. VA are wonderful!

Where are you in PA?

[MrJim]

South Central/Franklin County

Chambersburg would be the nearest big town (and internationally shamed thanks to this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292108,00.html) news today)

[Izdaari]

My regular church is Assemblies of God, but I sometimes attend Episcopal services to get my liturgy fix. Yes, TEC is overly liberal for my taste, but still the services are orthodox enough. If I found a conservative charismatic Episcopal church in my area, I might switch to it.

[ContentInHim]

South Central/Franklin County

Chambersburg would be the nearest big town (and internationally shamed thanks to this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292108,00.html) news today)
I know Chambersburg. Most of my dad's family is York County but we ranged further afield on day trips from Wilmington DE where I grew up! :)

[ContentInHim]

My regular church is Assemblies of God, but I sometimes attend Episcopal services to get my liturgy fix. Yes, TEC is overly liberal for my taste, but still the services are orthodox enough. If I found a conservative charismatic Episcopal church in my area, I might switch to it.
I know what you mean. I'm at the NJ shore right now and there's an Episcopal Chapel here in town where the priests come for a month's leave from their home churches. Fortunately for me, the chapel is run by traditionalists and even more fortunate, there's a service tonight at 5:30! Can't wait! :thumbsup:

[Colabomb]

I am in an Oasis within the Episcopal Church. I am part of a Faithful Gospel believing Church in the Diocese of Southern Ohio. My priest is essentially grandfathered in, and someone like him sadly would not be ordained today in this diocese.

[Lel]

Why not the EO? They are certainly liturgical, apostolic, and conservative.

But if you want something more Western, what about the Roman Catholic Church?

[MrJim]

Why not the EO? They are certainly liturgical, apostolic, and conservative.

But if you want something more Western, what about the Roman Catholic Church?

As I said in the OP I do lean toward the EO, and regarding the RCC it seems that there are some real issues there, though I think I could fit in there. I've been to several masses and an Ash Wed mass and just loved it. In the RC/EO conversations I've read in OBOB & TAW I tend to come down on the side of of EO. But I've looked little at the Anglicans, mostly because of the controversal issues. Hence the original question.

[Letalis]

What makes you drawn to the Anglican communion?

[MrJim]

What makes you drawn to the Anglican communion?

More curiousity of the unknown than anything. I've got a pretty good grasp of the RC, bet I can defend it better than some catholics out there;) . I've got a pretty good basic grasp of the orthodox (as best as can be understood academically~they keep telling me it is to be experienced more that learned), and what draws me more toward them is that there is a real sense of mystery, of allowing the fact that there are just some things that are not knowable right now.

But the Anglican is an unknown to me for now. Archbishop of Cantebury, book of Common Prayer, and that's about all I know of it~except that it is apostolic and believes in the presence of Christ in communion .

[Letalis]

How do you feel about liberalism? Can you tolerate it within your own church?

[Albion]

I have a deep respect for the apostolic churches, all of them, though I do tend to lean a bit toward the EO.

However, it seems that the anglican tradition would be the perfect fit for a western guy like me.

Prob is that the reputation of the american episcopal church is that it is very liberal. I understand that there are exceptions, some that are united with some african diocese and such, but our local congregation is part of the american episcopal.

If you are in US, are you part of the american episcopal or a more conservative body, and if you are part of the ae how are you getting along with the changes and such?

I'm part of an independent Anglican Church. As such I am getting along fine since all the changes affect The Episcopal Church, not ours.

BTW, you may be right that you have no conservative Anglican alternative where you live, but I can just about tell you where every conservative Independent/Continuing Anglican parish in the USA and Canada might be or refer you to where you can find out for yourself for sure. Maybe if you want to PM me? Meanwhile, I'l try to figure out where Chambersburg lies and what's near.

I would also suggest that you be sure in your own mind if you would be satisfied to be in a relatively conservative parish still part of an increasingly liberal national church, TEC.

That's the case with joining, for example, a TEC church affiliated with the "American Anglican Council"or the "Anglican Communion Network." For me, that was not sufficient since, for one thing, they are still fighting and fighting while we have for years just been happy Anglicans freed of those endless and losing battles that distract so from worship and damage your peace of mind.

[Albion]

What makes you drawn to the Anglican communion?

According to his OP, he's not. He said that he's interested in Anglicanism, not to the Anglican Communion only. In the USA, that means the liberal Episcopal Church that apparently he would be happy to avoid.

[Albion]

But the Anglican is an unknown to me for now. Archbishop of Cantebury, book of Common Prayer, and that's about all I know of it~except that it is apostolic and believes in the presence of Christ in communion .

Jim, you have conservative Anglicans here, and well-informed ones. Let us help you.

[MrJim]

Jim, you have conservative Anglicans here, and well-informed ones. Let us help you.

Let me ask you, what is the foundational basis of the anglican church? Is there a basic creed or that makes one anglican/episcopal? Does the anglican church believe in the first 7 ecumenical councils? What are the major differences with anglican and eo? I know the rc & eo disagree on the filioque & papal authority~does the anglican church have a lot in common with the orthodox or more with lutheran?

I read someone's sig somewhere that said anglican was both catholic and protestant:scratch:

[Albion]

Let me ask you, what is the foundational basis of the anglican church?

The Church in Britain dates to the first or second century, possibly as early as AD 37. It had no connection to Rome until centuries later. In time, it agreed to conform to the Roman church's calendar, worship style, and etc, but never totally gave up its autonomy, which is a matter of law as well as theology and history. In the early 16th century, she reasserted that autonomy when the church accepted the main elements of the Reformation.

Is there a basic creed or that makes one anglican/episcopal?

We have the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, but to be an Anglican it is necessary only to be baptised and admitted to a local parish.

Does the anglican church believe in the first 7 ecumenical councils?

Some Anglicans do, most don't. The Articles assert that councils are capable of erring and some have. Many Anglicans consider the first four to be true.

What are the major differences with anglican and eo?

The EO would not countenance many of the reformed principles that Anglicanism accepts--Scripture as our supreme guide, salvation by Faith, etc. But we do have a similar polity--governance by bishops in Apostolic Succession but no Pope figure; and autonomous national churches. There is not really any "the Anglican Church" unless you are referring to the original one, the Church of England. Her offshoot churches in every country are self-governing.

I know the rc & eo disagree on the filioque & papal authority~does the anglican church have a lot in common with the orthodox or more with lutheran?

That would be hard to answer and could be hotly debated by Anglicans, I think. Maybe 50-50.

I read someone's sig somewhere that said anglican was both catholic and protestant:scratch:

We say that often, but you have to know what it means. Ours is a reformed church, not new in the era of the Reformation as the Lutheran churches were, but accepting of the Reformation's teachings on scripture, faith, not invoking the saints, against transubstantiation, only two sacraments generally accepted, no purgatory, indulgences, relic veneration, and etc. BUT we retained th Catholic system of church leadership with our bishops and our high view of the sacraments, as well as the liturgy which Lutherans also have but which most Protestants have abandoned.

The easiest thing to do is to get a copy of the Book of Common Prayer online or from a library and read it through. Preferably, read the 1928 edition which the conservative Anglican bodies have retained in the USA.

[MrJim]

The Church in Britain dates to the first or second century, possibly as early as AD 37. It had no connection to Rome until centuries later. In time, it agreed to conform to the Roman church's calendar, worship style, and etc, but never totally gave up its autonomy, which is a matter of law as well as theology and history. In the early 16th century, she reasserted that autonomy when the church accepted the main elements of the Reformation.

We say that often, but you have to know what it means. Ours is a reformed church, not new in the era of the Reformation as the Lutheran churches were, but accepting of the Reformation's teachings on scripture, faith, not invoking the saints, against transubstantiation, only two sacraments generally accepted, no purgatory, indulgences, relic veneration, and etc. BUT we retained th Catholic system of church leadership with our bishops and our high view of the sacraments, as well as the liturgy which Lutherans also have but which most Protestants have abandoned.

The easiest thing to do is to get a copy of the Book of Common Prayer online or from a library and read it through. Preferably, read the 1928 edition which the conservative Anglican bodies have retained in the USA.

References to the reformation are interesting. Is the anglican church calvinist as far at theology goes~?

The church dates back to the 1st/2d century in England, sharing a common thread with the rc/eo, yet they don't really have much in common with reformation churches. Was the early church reflecting reformation theology?

Can you flesh this out?

[Lel]

Go find a conservative Anglo-Catholic Anglican and ask them the same questions. The answers will be very, very different.

[MrJim]

Go find a conservative Anglo-Catholic Anglican and ask them the same questions. The answers will be very, very different.


:scratch:

[Albion]

References to the reformation are interesting. Is the anglican church calvinist as far at theology goes~?

That would probably be inaccurate to say. But the church did agree with much of what Luther and Calvin had argued, when it comes to salvation, scripture, the sacraments, eliminating Medieval abuses all around, etc. But Anglicanism has also always had a range of belief that many other churches do not permit. Therefore, we have Anglicans tending towards being reformed Catholics and others who are definitely Protestant but still retaining their bishops and liturgy.

The church dates back to the 1st/2d century in England, sharing a common thread with the rc/eo, yet they don't really have much in common with reformation churches. Was the early church reflecting reformation theology?

The Anglican churches DO have much in common with the Reformation era churches, but much less with the Protestant churches that came later and are known for infrequent communion, no liturgy, no vestments, no church calendar, dispensationalism, pre or post tribulationism, charismatic worship, etc.

[Albion]

Go find a conservative Anglo-Catholic Anglican and ask them the same questions. The answers will be very, very different.

Different from Evangelical Anglicans, yes, but I have been explaining to Jim that there is a range of belief and practice among Anglicans. It would not be helpful to Jim, IMO, to become an advocate for any particular part of the Anglican spectrum when trying to explain our churches to him as an inquirer who is first looking at Anglicanism overall.

If we continue on, I am sure Jim will lead us with his own questions dealing with the smaller or more specific issues.

[Colabomb]

References to the reformation are interesting. Is the anglican church calvinist as far at theology goes~?

The church dates back to the 1st/2d century in England, sharing a common thread with the rc/eo, yet they don't really have much in common with reformation churches. Was the early church reflecting reformation theology?

Can you flesh this out?


Albion is representing mainly the more protestant minded anglicans.

Anglicanism throughout history have accepted diversity within the Gospel. We have Catholics, Calvinists, Arminians and Protestants all in one body. There is no Central Anglican doctrine except for the Creeds, which bind all Christian people.

Where diversity goes wrong, is when it accepts things outside the Gospel, which is what some episcopalians are doing. THe diversity that the Anglican church has always had is a good thing. The diversity is is beginning to have is dangerous.

[Albion]

Albion is representing mainly the more protestant minded anglicans.

Thank you for turning an inquiry into a demonstration of Anglican factionalism, Colabomb. I'm sure it will help Jim a lot. :scratch:

Jim, if you PM me, I'll be glad to assist you in any way I can, with fairness to the issues you raise. Thanks

[Colabomb]

Thank you for turning an inquiry into a demonstration of Anglican factionalism, Colabomb. I'm sure it will help Jim a lot. :scratch:

Jim, if you PM me, I'll be glad to assist you in any way I can, with fairness to the issues you raise. Thanks

Eh? I wasn't trying to fanaticize anything. I was just trying to flesh out his picture. It just sounded like he was confused as to what Anglicanism was.

You made it seem like a reformed Calvinist Church with Bishops. I didn't mean to offend anyone or "fanaticize" the conversation.

[Albion]

You made it seem like a reformed Calvinist Church with Bishops.

Say WHAT?????

[Colabomb]

Say WHAT?????

I didn't say you meant to, I just think you unintentionally did so.

That's all.

[Albion]

I didn't say you meant to, I just think you unintentionally did so.

That's all.

What I was saying with the probably too cute "say WHAT?" is that nothing I wrote would suggest such a description.

He asked: Is the anglican church calvinist as far at theology goes~?

I answered: That would probably be inaccurate to say.

How that equates to me calling Anglicanism a Calvinist church with bishops seems a stretch if not completely upside down, Cola.

Still in all, this isn't helping our inquirer to have anyone posting jibes that amount to "he's not giving you the straight story" or "some Anglicans would say something very different." All that such comments can do is confuse rather than enlighten an inquirer.

I can assure you that when someone asks about Anglicanism, I respond to the questions asked, and do not try to slant the answers. If he'd said he has an interest in Anglo-Catholicism in particular, I'd have helped him find such a parish or answered any questions as they would.

[Colabomb]

Albion, I just misread a post... really. sorry..... didn't want to start a war.

[Lel]

Albion is representing mainly the more protestant minded anglicans.

Anglicanism throughout history have accepted diversity within the Gospel. We have Catholics, Calvinists, Arminians and Protestants all in one body. There is no Central Anglican doctrine except for the Creeds, which bind all Christian people.

Where diversity goes wrong, is when it accepts things outside the Gospel, which is what some episcopalians are doing. THe diversity that the Anglican church has always had is a good thing. The diversity is is beginning to have is dangerous.

Thank you. I'm trying to be very careful here with what I say but this is a good summary.

What I was saying with the probably too cute "say WHAT?" is that nothing I wrote would suggest such a description.

He asked: Is the anglican church calvinist as far at theology goes~?

I answered: That would probably be inaccurate to say.

How that equates to me calling Anglicanism a Calvinist church with bishops seems a stretch if not completely upside down, Cola.

Still in all, this isn't helping our inquirer to have anyone posting jibes that amount to "he's not giving you the straight story" or "some Anglicans would say something very different." All that such comments can do is confuse rather than enlighten an inquirer.

I can assure you that when someone asks about Anglicanism, I respond to the questions asked, and do not try to slant the answers. If he'd said he has an interest in Anglo-Catholicism in particular, I'd have helped him find such a parish or answered any questions as they would.

Someone leaning towards the EO and looking for an Apostolic church would probably have more interest in the Anglo-Catholic side of things than the more Protestant side of things, I would think.

If someone such as myself, who has only a very basic knowledge of different groups in Anglicanism, can see the slant in the answers given, it's very prominent. It would be quite helpful to have one of our more conservative Anglo-Catholics take a stab at answering these questions also.

The Church in Britain dates to the first or second century, possibly as early as AD 37. It had no connection to Rome until centuries later. In time, it agreed to conform to the Roman church's calendar, worship style, and etc, but never totally gave up its autonomy, which is a matter of law as well as theology and history. In the early 16th century, she reasserted that autonomy when the church accepted the main elements of the Reformation.

More Anglo-Catholic Anglicans would likely emphasize a greater general continuance of the Church throughout the centuries.

We have the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, but to be an Anglican it is necessary only to be baptised and admitted to a local parish.

The 39 Articles are hardly binding and reflect a more solely Protestant time for Anglicanism. There is absolutely no need to give any credence to the 39 Articles for an Anglican.

Some Anglicans do, most don't. The Articles assert that councils are capable of erring and some have. Many Anglicans consider the first four to be true.

Anglo-Catholics would hardly interpret the Councils in light of the Articles. Most Anglo-Catholics would accept the first seven councils from my knowledge of such, but hopefully it can be more fleshed out.

We say that often, but you have to know what it means. Ours is a reformed church, not new in the era of the Reformation as the Lutheran churches were, but accepting of the Reformation's teachings on scripture, faith, not invoking the saints, against transubstantiation, only two sacraments generally accepted, no purgatory, indulgences, relic veneration, and etc. BUT we retained th Catholic system of church leadership with our bishops and our high view of the sacraments, as well as the liturgy which Lutherans also have but which most Protestants have abandoned.

Unless you're Anglo-Catholic, in which case invoking the saints is common, there is more veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, etc. Again, I can only hope someone more Anglo-Catholic can give a good view of what the differences are.

[MrJim]

Wow, looks like there is something of a big swing withing the anglican tradition~even amongst conservatives.

So how did that happen-that there is a "reformed protestant" side and an "anglo-catholic" side. (I use the word "side" not to imply polarity but because I'm too lazy to figure something out another word.)

[Colabomb]

Yes there is diversity even amongst us Cons. You will find Conservative Catholics, Conservative Protestants, and people like me who end up somewhere in the middle.

I am not exactly sure how it happened, but I am glad it did. We can call each other brothers in the Gospel, and celebrate the Same Sacraments at the same table, despite our differences. I find that beautiful.

[Albion]

If someone such as myself, who has only a very basic knowledge of different groups in Anglicanism, can see the slant in the answers given, it's very prominent.

LOL


More Anglo-Catholic Anglicans would likely emphasize a greater general continuance of the Church throughout the centuries.

Yeh, I suppose had we been dealing with a doctoral dissertation covering everything under the sun that relates to our heritage there would have been room for a lot of things that weren't directly asked about. Or shall I say didn't have the opportunity to get to in due course?

The 39 Articles are hardly binding

No one, including me, said that they are.

But we were asked if we have any such creedal statement; this is the only one, like it or not, and if you are thinking of the Nicene Creed, etc., it is included in the Articles.

and reflect a more solely Protestant time for Anglicanism. There is absolutely no need to give any credence to the 39 Articles for an Anglican.

I see. Your own biases are pretty clear and strong for one who has no personal stake in the church. It makes me the moderate for trying to balance the presentation.


Again, I can only hope someone more Anglo-Catholic can give a good view of what the differences are.

And if Jim had asked, that might be reasonable. But hey, why don't you just answer the question that wasn't asked yourself? You admit to not knowing about OUR church, but that didn't stop you from being a self-appointed cheerleader for one faction and offering your own analysis of what we should be believing and doing.

As a matter of fact, the OP didn't ask for everyone to sound off, did it? No it asked conservative Anglicans for their view.

[ContentInHim]

Wow, looks like there is something of a big swing withing the anglican tradition~even amongst conservatives.

So how did that happen-that there is a "reformed protestant" side and an "anglo-catholic" side. (I use the word "side" not to imply polarity but because I'm too lazy to figure something out another word.)
My guess would be that the diversity of the Anglican church resulted from it being the official Church of England at the beginning. An effort to accommodate the bulk of the population.

[Albion]

Wow, looks like there is something of a big swing withing the anglican tradition~even amongst conservatives.

So how did that happen-that there is a "reformed protestant" side and an "anglo-catholic" side. (I use the word "side" not to imply polarity but because I'm too lazy to figure something out another word.)

"Side" is fine.

First, when I said "reformed" I meant the word as it is usually meant, i.e. to reform something. Almost every Anglican will agree that the Medieval church needed reforming on some level, even Catholics will often agree to that. If we were speaking of one of the historically Calvinist churches, we would use the word with a capitalization (Reformed). I suspect that this may have been where Colabomb went wrong.

But as to your question...

There has always been a degree of tension between those in the Church of England and its daughter churches as to whether we should lean more towards our Catholic side or more towards its Protestant side. That's what you get with an established church, unlike our system. In the 1500s the issue was settled, at least for the while, by the adoption of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion. They were considered obligatory in all Anglican churches until recently and still are in many. Especially for the clergy. The Prayer Book I commended to you also was produced at about this same time.

The Articles are a compromise between Catholicism and Protestantism, although those in the church who despise them often say that they were only a statement made by the Church during a period long ago when Calvinists had seized control of the Church machinery temporarily. That's nonsense and historical revisionism, although that'll probably get me called a Calvinist SOB with an axe to grind.

They were a compromise between Puritanism and Catholic theology so that the Church could stabilize itself and incorporate as many Englishmen as possible. It was reasonably successful, as on the one side, only those who insisted upon loyalty to the Pope could not agree, and on the other end, those who wanted nothing to remain that was the way the Catholic church had done things (including bishops) remained opposed. Famously, some of them decided to move to Massachusetts in the early 1600s and set up their own communities so well-known from literature, Salem, and etc.

Then in the 19th century some Oxford professors who were very much Protestant in their worship style, and who were worried over growing secularism, championed the idea that there is a "branch" system in Church history in which the EO, RC, and we are all Catholics at heart and in our history. The idea is ridiculed in RC and EO circles, but they had a point in that the Church--as I told you earlier--did not originate during the Reformation but had roots in the first or second century. This historical perspective is agreed to by many who do not consider themselves Anglo-Catholics, Anglo-Romanists, or Anglo-Papalists, all of which are factions that do exist. Unlike many self-described Anglo-Catholics today, these professors of "The Oxford Movement" did not want to do away with the Articles, but emphasized how they were a compromise that did not preclude many Catholic beliefs and practices, although in reality, most in the Church had not tended to notice that fact. I could give a few examples, but here's one. At one point, the "Romish" doctrines of purgatory and pardons is condemned. Does that mean that there is a place for purgatory and pardons, just not the Roman Catholic Church's particular teaching on the same?

The problem, if that is correct to say, is that some admirers of this movement took so much to heart that they began imitating the Roman Catholics in just about everything, even though church law forbid some of what they did. Their numbers have generally grown over the following years, so that today there are distinct divisions that can be seen at the national, diocesan, and parish level. Yet, I believe that it still is the case that few Anglicans are totally in one camp or the other and that the average parish is somewhere in the middle.

I will be happy to answer any follow-up question from you, and I will comment on any question from anyone else who thinks that something I wrote along the way there is not exactly what they think should be said. I will then either set them straight on what actually was said or, if there is a need for any clarification, I'll do that gladly.

[MrJim]

Great info Albion,

I took a trip through the 39 articles (http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html); question on 19

XIX. Of the Church.
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

What the second part referring to, in context to the first part?

[Albion]

Great info Albion,

I took a trip through the 39 articles (http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html); question on 19

XIX. Of the Church.
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

What the second part referring to, in context to the first part?

It means that when we speak of "the Church" or what constitutes the true church, as people like to speak of, we mean that the true church is wherever the Gospel is properly preached and the sacraments properly administered. This could be in any number of non-Anglican parishes, so we are not saying that we hold that we are the only Christian organization that is genuine or complete, etc.

But you know that some churches DO say that they are the only true church, thanks to allegedly being the organization Christ was supposed to have founded to the exclusion of disciples in other churches. You know what I'm talking about. We don't say that.

As for the second part, we do not hold that inerrancy comes with any particular history, location, or episcopate. All churches can get the Word of God wrong and have done so. Only it is incapable of being wrong.

[MrJim]

It means that when we speak of "the Church" or what constitutes the true church, as people like to speak of, we mean that the true church is wherever the Gospel is properly preached and the sacraments properly administered. This could be in any number of non-Anglican parishes, so we are not saying that we hold that we are the only Christian organization that is genuine or complete, etc.

But you know that some churches DO say that they are the only true church, thanks to allegedly being the organization Christ was supposed to have founded to the exclusion of disciples in other churches. You know what I'm talking about. We don't say that.

As for the second part, we do not hold that inerrancy comes with any particular history, location, or episcopate. All churches can get the Word of God wrong and have done so. Only it is incapable of being wrong.

:thumbsup: got it.

The 39 Articles do carry a somewhat calvinist flavor to them. The link says it was created in 1801 in the US. Was there anything prior other than the three creeds (apostle/nicene/athanasius)?

[Albion]

:thumbsup: got it.

[quote] The 39 Articles do carry a somewhat calvinist flavor to them.

It might be interesting for us to speak in specifics and see. But my feeling is that there is more that is apparently Calvinist than is there in fact. Remember this is a careful compromise. Take the Article on Election and Predestination. Many people say, automatically, that it's Calvinist because of the title. But when you read it, you see that it's actually a denial of Calvin's teachings.

The link says it was created in 1801 in the US.

I can see how a misunderstanding arises there. The American church, i.e. the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA, as it was then known, itself adopted the Articles in 1801. Previous to the Revolutionary War, Anglicans here were part of the Church of England. With tiny exceptions, these are the same articles that were adopted by the CofE in the late 1500s.

Was there anything prior other than the three creeds (apostle/nicene/athanasius)?

Yes, the whole of the Articles as you are reading them.

[MrJim]

XVII. Of Predestination and Election.
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.


For others to see...

[No Swansong]

Thank you for turning an inquiry into a demonstration of Anglican factionalism, Colabomb. I'm sure it will help Jim a lot. :scratch:

Jim, if you PM me, I'll be glad to assist you in any way I can, with fairness to the issues you raise. Thanks
Well I think he could have probably worded his post differently but it is true that there is a broad spectrum of acceptable or allowable belief within Anglicanism. By the way I disagree with the idea that you were presenting mainly the protestant side of things, I think you were doing a good job of being centrist and non-doctrinaire.

Mr. Jim feel free to keep asking questions as my friend Albion has suggested there are many of us here and some of us even know a thing or two. (Albion himself is very qualified to answer your query's but I will try to jump in too.)

[No Swansong]

Oh and if I am going to participate in this thread it is probably important to know that I am unashamedly on the Reformed Protestant side of the spectrum. I do not mention this to imply that one is more or less superior to the other, I only mention it so that those who read my posts will know from which perspective my answer is given.

[Albion]

Well I think he could have probably worded his post differently but it is true that there is a broad spectrum of acceptable or allowable belief within Anglicanism. By the way I disagree with the idea that you were presenting mainly the protestant side of things, I think you were doing a good job of being centrist and non-doctrinaire.

Thank you. Really. You know, I was trying to speak to the basic Anglican answer until Jim indicated that he would like more details in any area. It's no prejudice against any particular variety of Anglicanism that I didn't say everything that that every kind of Anglican might want to throw out for consideration in just the initial couple of exchanges. I tend to feel that when someone begins by saying that they are interested but don't know too much, that it's best to let them show you which areas they want expanded upon. Mr. Jim certainly was able and willing to do that.

[Lel]

The expansion and subsequent posts are more neutral, so please forgive my overreaction and let me best learn by observation.

[Simon_Templar]

MrJim,

One of the great strengths, and also great weaknesses of Anglicanism is its freedom and its spirit of openness.
Within the Anglican tradition you will find people who are virtually identical in belief to Eastern Orthodox, and people who are virtually Identical to Roman Catholic, and you will find people who are more strongly reformed/calvinist, like Albion. In addition to all that, you will find evangelicals, and charismatics.

There are some Anglicans who believe we should uphold all seven ecumenical councils. There are others who think only the first four, etc, and there are some who wouldn't know much about the ecumenical councils at all.

I am a fairly recent arrival to Anglicanism. I joined up about 2-3 years ago. I was raised non-denominational Charismatic. About 3 years ago when I was lead to start learning the real history of the church and the traditional faith I strongly considered both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic. Like yourself I didn't strongly consider Anglican because I knew how liberal the American church was and I wasn't aware of many of the alternatives within Anglicanism.

Personally, I was attracted to many aspects of eastern theology, yet there were many aspects of the western traditions that I was also drawn to.

There were things I liked about both the RCC and the EO but also things that held me back and gave me pause, about both of them.
When I finally discovered that there were conservative, and evangelical, and charismatic Anglican groups I began looking into those and was fortunate enough to find a Local priest who was Evangelical and Charismatic, but also had some high church leanings. Which pretty well describes me :).

I love the freedom and the openness of Anglicanism. I don't believe in closed communion so that was a big thing for me.
I don't believe that the Church is meant to be a monochromatic in terms of style and worship etc. In Ephesians Paul says that through the Church, God reveals his manifold wisdom. The word manifold literally means "many colored". I think the church is supposed to be varied and within Anglicanism there is that freedom and openness to worship in whatever style God has called you to, and to fellowship with believers from any denomination. Another aspect of this I love is the very mission oriented heart of Anglicanism. You can see this especially strong in many of the African provinces and the global south in general.

Obviously the freedom in Anglicanism has been abused. In my opinion, much of the TEC and similar groups are simply apostate. The church always suffers tears growing among the wheat, but where there is true freedom, such things are always able to be more visible.

The TEC and its relationship with the Anglican Communion are in flux at the moment and no one is really sure what will happen. However, one thing is certain. Conservative, traditional Anglicanism will survive.

Something else I have been very interested in is the "convergence movement". This movement is mostly composed of Evangelicals and Charismatics who have rediscovered their roots in the traditional faith and have are trying to merge together the evangelical, charismatic, and liturgical aspects of the faith.



More specifically in terms of defining Anglicanism, probably the most important aspect is the Book of Common Prayer. Anglicanism holds to the creeds and at least the first few councils. The 39 articles historically were put in place after the reformation to enforce the calvinist/reformed trend at that time (which changed with the Monarch of England because the church was still heavily influenced by the beliefs of the king) and are still legally required in England (I believe). However, in the 19th century there was a strong Anglo-catholic movement within the church which has influenced a significant portion of the Anglican church since. The Anglo-catholics are often indestinguishable from Roman Catholics except that they don't accept Petrine supremacy, or papal infallability.
The result is that the 39 articles, at least in their original calvinist intent are held by those who lean reformed, and kind of ignored, or re-interpeted, by those who lean Anglo-catholic (or arminian in Evangelical circles)

[Albion]

Well, I don't really think that I am a Calvinist Anglican at all, but more of a middle of the road one. :) Seriously. "Protestant" works for me, but Calvinist goes too far.

But that's not important. What I wanted to say is this--

I thought you gave a good and valuable overview for our friend's consideration. I hope that he will get back to us now with some follow-up, not that we are expecting a convert, just that we are happy to explain who we are, if only for information's sake.

[Simon_Templar]

Well, I don't really think that I am a Calvinist Anglican at all, but more of a middle of the road one. :) Seriously. "Protestant" works for me, but Calvinist goes too far.

But that's not important. What I wanted to say is this--

I thought you gave a good and valuable overview for our friend's consideration. I hope that he will get back to us now with some follow-up, not that we are expecting a convert, just that we are happy to explain who we are, if only for information's sake.
interesting. I guess I assumed :) Is your church part of the TAC? (Traditional Anglican Communion for those who might not know the abreviation)

[Aymn27]

interesting. I guess I assumed :) Is your church part of the TAC? (Traditional Anglican Communion for those who might not know the abreviation)
lol..one thing you will learn about Anglicanism - it is an alphabet soup religion - TEC, CofE, TAC, AMiA, REC, OAC, CANA, APCK, ACA, ACC, and on and on and on...

[Albion]

interesting. I guess I assumed :) Is your church part of the TAC? (Traditional Anglican Communion for those who might not know the abreviation)

No, it's another Continuing Anglican body, although I once was with a TAC parish. My beliefs haven't wandered very much, although I've known a number of different Continuing churches of different affiliations and have friends in a variety of them. I'm just about totally in synch with the BCP and the Articles. Of course, some say that they are "Calvinistic," but that's more a sneer than a realistic appraisal. There are suggestions of Lutheran and, some say, Zwinglian thought in them as well as a strong dose of the pre-existing Catholicism. For certain, Calvin was very precise on a number of points and I'm far from agreeing to many of them.

[No Swansong]

Simon and Albion you are doing a great job. Either I or AV1611 are probably the most "Reformed" (read Calvinistic) of the Anglicans on the board. I would still be REC (Reformed Episcopal Church) if our parish still existed here.

For the record the TAC is much less "Calvinistic" than many of the other continuing bodies. If I am not mistaken they approached Rome recently with the idea of attempting reunion. I know that more than a few TAC'ers like ContraMundum were not pleased with that. Contra is Arminian and he is TAC I believe.

(did someone say something about Alphabet soup earlier? LOL)

[Albion]

Simon and Albion you are doing a great job. Either I or AV1611 are probably the most "Reformed" (read Calvinistic) of the Anglicans on the board. I would still be REC (Reformed Episcopal Church) if our parish still existed here.

For the record the TAC is much less "Calvinistic" than many of the other continuing bodies. If I am not mistaken they approached Rome recently with the idea of attempting reunion. I know that more than a few TAC'ers like ContraMundum were not pleased with that. Contra is Arminian and he is TAC I believe.

Your impressions of TAC are correct. Not only was there that overture to the Vatican but in their publications, they usually just refer to their people as "Catholics." Or sometimes as "Anglican Catholics" (which iadmittedly is the name of their church in Canada).

BTW, the REC isn't Calvinist anymore, either, although some individual parishes hold out for the original ways.

[No Swansong]

Your impressions of TAC are correct. Not only was there that overture to the Vatican but in their publications, they usually just refer to their people as "Catholics." Or sometimes as "Anglican Catholics" (which iadmittedly is the name of their church in Canada).

BTW, the REC isn't Calvinist anymore, either, although some individual parishes hold out for the original ways.
Actually you are correct about the REC but one thing that remains and we have been assured will always remain is that those who are Calvinistic will be included fully in the life of the Church. No Altar will be denied them based simply upon their Calvinistic bent, no teaching position, no hierarchical position. All in all a good blend if you ask me. It seems to be working nicely. (although I admit that since our Parish dissolved my information is second hand and web based.)

[Albion]

Actually you are correct about the REC but one thing that remains and we have been assured will always remain is that those who are Calvinistic will be included fully in the life of the Church. No Altar will be denied them based simply upon their Calvinistic bent, no teaching position, no hierarchical position. All in all a good blend if you ask me. It seems to be working nicely. (although I admit that since our Parish dissolved my information is second hand and web based.)

That's possibly true, although who can say for sure? I would also note in passing that the REC has worked hard at putting herself into position to merge with other Anglican bodies (all more on the Catholic side) both inside and outside of the Anglican Communion. If that doesn't mean that all bets may be off, in the manner of promises made to employees by firms that then merge with some other company and wash out everything prior as no longer applicable, well....

[No Swansong]

That's possibly true, although who could have imagined that the Calvinists in the REC would be threatened as they are currently being threatened with lawsuits for voicing opposition to the REC's move to the Left? That doesn't strike me as a good sign of a longterm accomodation, but that's just this man's opinion and not one that affects me personally. I would also note in passing that the REC has worked hard at putting herself into position to merge with other Anglican bodies both inside and outside of the Anglican Communion. If that doesn't meant that all bets are off, in the manner of pension benefits promised by firms that then merge with some other company and wash out everything prior as no longer applicable, well....
I hear every word clearly my friend. Let us pray that we do strike that balance.

John

[MrJim]

^_^ Don't you guys ever go to work? :P

Great post Simon, I can see where we have some similarities. It is interesting to see the variances~it's the same as among mennonites & baptists (the other denom groups I've been associated with) where there is a wide spectrum~conservative/liberal and everyone inbetween.

It just sounds like there is such turmoil at the moment within the Anglican body~I know the local episcopal church is TEC, and it sounds like that particular group is really just out there in the UCC/UMC liberal land.

I'm gonna take a peek at the Book of Common Prayer, I'm sure it's online somewhere ;)

***
I just downloaded the whole thing from vulcanhammer (http://www.vulcanhammer.org/anglican/bcp-1662.pdf)

[MrJim]

Do anglicans carry the Book of Common Prayer with their bibles to church?

[Simon_Templar]

^_^ Don't you guys ever go to work? :P

Great post Simon, I can see where we have some similarities. It is interesting to see the variances~it's the same as among mennonites & baptists (the other denom groups I've been associated with) where there is a wide spectrum~conservative/liberal and everyone inbetween.

It just sounds like there is such turmoil at the moment within the Anglican body~I know the local episcopal church is TEC, and it sounds like that particular group is really just out there in the UCC/UMC liberal land.

I'm gonna take a peek at the Book of Common Prayer, I'm sure it's online somewhere ;)

***
I just downloaded the whole thing from vulcanhammer (http://www.vulcanhammer.org/anglican/bcp-1662.pdf)
yes, there is no denying that there is alot of turmoil in the Anglican Communion right now.

Whenever I face situations like that I am reminded of the chinese word for crisis. Many Chinese characters are formed by combining the characters of other words, it provides a very interesting and philosophical insight into their cultural development etc.

The Chinese character for crisis is made by combining the characters for danger and opportunity.

I think the whole church is at just such a crossroads. The Anglican Church with its obvious problems, but the church at large also, because of the confrontation between modern and post modern philosophies.


Anyway, that aside, I think you will like the Book of Common Prayer, BCP.
The Anglican liturgy is very beautiful and elegant in its simplicity (I think). The BCP is full of great prayers and such too. I particularly recommend the morning and evening prayers, or the personal daily devotions which are probably found in the front somewhere.

One of my personal favorite prayer services is Compline. Its simple, and its done at night which is when I usually have the most free time.

[Simon_Templar]

Do anglicans carry the Book of Common Prayer with their bibles to church?
I think most Anglican churches have the BCP in the pews with the hymnals. Infact, I think most have bibles there too.

most of the anglicans I have known locally didn't carry a BCP with them.

[MrJim]

Just scanning through I recognize terms like "matins" and "compline" from RC monastic readings.

Danger + Opportunity, interesting way look at it.

I was reading in the wiki regarding the TEC that there was something of a relationship with the EO:

Like many other Anglican churches, it has entered into full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Old Catholics. The issue of ordination of women broke full communion with the Polish National Catholic Church in 1976 and severed a special relationship with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

What are the thoughts amongst the conservative anglican folks here about the women ordination and effects? And what was the nature of the "special relationship" with the EO?

[Albion]

Just scanning through I recognize terms like "matins" and "compline" from RC monastic readings.

Compline is not in the traditional BCP, but Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer are indeed based upon Monastic usage, each being a combination of two of the offices. The reason for this is that the BCP is intended really to be "Common" Prayer, something that everyone can use privately as well as being used in church. At the time of the Reformation, there were all kinds of prayer books, many not available to the layman, and the BCP was meant to overcome that.

I was reading in the wiki regarding the TEC that there was something of a relationship with the EO:

Like many other Anglican churches, it has entered into full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Old Catholics. The issue of ordination of women broke full communion with the Polish National Catholic Church in 1976 and severed a special relationship with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The PNCC broke intercommunion with TEC when the latter began ordaining women. The special relationship with the EO is more one of mutual regard based upon a mutual aversion to Papal hegemony, for there is no intercommunion; but women's ordination put TEC and some other provinces on the outs with Rome and the EO when this happened.

What are the thoughts amongst the conservative anglican folks here about the women ordination and effects?

It's wrong, of course. The Continuing Anglican churches were founded on opposion to it, calling the TEC decision tantamount to apostasy. Within TEC itself, the practice is generally taken in stride and it plays no part in the current "flap" over homosexuality, CANA, Nigeria, and the tensions inside the Anglican Communion.

[MrJim]

American Anglican Church. (11)
Anglican Catholic Church. (90)
Anglican Catholic Church of Canada. (42) The Canadian counterpart of the Anglican Church in America.
Anglican Church in America. (100)
Anglican Church in the USA. (20)
Anglican Churches of America. (2)
Anglican Episcopal Church. (4)
Anglican Independent Communion Worldwide. (2)
Anglican Orthodox Church. (7)
Anglican Province of America. (76)
Anglican Province of Christ the King. (47)
Christian Episcopal Church. (4)
Diocese of the Holy Cross (19)
Episcopal Missionary Church. (33)
Holy Catholic Church (Anglican Rite). (35)
Orthodox Anglican Church. (11)
Reformed Episcopal Church. (120)
Southern Episcopal Church. (3)
United Anglican Church. (11)
United Episcopal Church of North America. (22)


I was looking in wiki at the "continuing anglican" movement~any chance of these splinter groups forming together or is there differences even there? It's starting to remind me of all the independent fundamenalist groups that won't get together because "we're right" ;) ...

[Albion]

American Anglican Church. (11)
Anglican Catholic Church. (90)
Anglican Catholic Church of Canada. (42) The Canadian counterpart of the Anglican Church in America.
Anglican Church in America. (100)
Anglican Church in the USA. (20)
Anglican Churches of America. (2)
Anglican Episcopal Church. (4)
Anglican Independent Communion Worldwide. (2)
Anglican Orthodox Church. (7)
Anglican Province of America. (76)
Anglican Province of Christ the King. (47)
Christian Episcopal Church. (4)
Diocese of the Holy Cross (19)
Episcopal Missionary Church. (33)
Holy Catholic Church (Anglican Rite). (35)
Orthodox Anglican Church. (11)
Reformed Episcopal Church. (120)
Southern Episcopal Church. (3)
United Anglican Church. (11)
United Episcopal Church of North America. (22)


I was looking in wiki at the "continuing anglican" movement~any chance of these splinter groups forming together or is there differences even there? It's starting to remind me of all the independent fundamenalist groups that won't get together because "we're right" ;) ...

Although many point with scorn at the number of Continuing Churches, it is common for a new religious movement to fragment before coming back together again. The Lutherans, for example, had over 17 major church bodies in the USA as recently as 1960 or so, and then worked them down to about three today that take in over 90% of the Lutherans in this country. For Continuing Anglicans, there are merger moves afoot, with the UECNA and ACC saying they will work for complete unity and asking the APCK to join them, the REC and APA having already pledged themselves to union, and several larger federations recently formed that involve three or more of the churches on this list.

You will note also that although the list seems long, the churches are not of equal strength. Every family of faith has a number of tiny split-offs; that can't be avoided. But on this list, about half of the entries are for churches with fewer than a dozen churches. You can't judge any communion on that basis. Although I used the Lutherans as an example, and you could also do the same for the Methodists. The size of the UMC doesn't mean that there aren't also a number of similarly tiny Methodist bodies few people know about.

[Lel]

Do anglicans carry the Book of Common Prayer with their bibles to church?

The first time I went to an Anglican parish (of the TEC variety in the US), I took my Bible with me. (I grew up Baptist - of COURSE you took your Bible to church.) As I was going out we were shaking hands with the rector.

Rector: "Oh, what book do you have with you?"

*holds up Bible*

Rector: "Oh, the GOOD book!"

Threw me for a loop although I quickly realized that taking the Bible to church wasn't common in Episcopalian circles.

[Lel]

It's wrong, of course. The Continuing Anglican churches were founded on opposion to it, calling the TEC decision tantamount to apostasy. Within TEC itself, the practice is generally taken in stride and it plays no part in the current "flap" over homosexuality, CANA, Nigeria, and the tensions inside the Anglican Communion.

Would opposing women's ordination pretty much put you in the conservative camp in Anglicanism nowadays? Do all conservative Anglicans oppose female ordination?

American Anglican Church. (11)
Anglican Catholic Church. (90)
Anglican Catholic Church of Canada. (42) The Canadian counterpart of the Anglican Church in America.
Anglican Church in America. (100)
Anglican Church in the USA. (20)
Anglican Churches of America. (2)
Anglican Episcopal Church. (4)
Anglican Independent Communion Worldwide. (2)
Anglican Orthodox Church. (7)
Anglican Province of America. (76)
Anglican Province of Christ the King. (47)
Christian Episcopal Church. (4)
Diocese of the Holy Cross (19)
Episcopal Missionary Church. (33)
Holy Catholic Church (Anglican Rite). (35)
Orthodox Anglican Church. (11)
Reformed Episcopal Church. (120)
Southern Episcopal Church. (3)
United Anglican Church. (11)
United Episcopal Church of North America. (22)


I was looking in wiki at the "continuing anglican" movement~any chance of these splinter groups forming together or is there differences even there? It's starting to remind me of all the independent fundamenalist groups that won't get together because "we're right" ;) ...

I've gotten that feeling too - then again that's why I'm inclined to swim the Tiber...

[No Swansong]

Although many point with scorn at the number of Continuing Churches, it is common for a new religious movement to fragment before coming back together again. The Lutherans, for example, had over 17 major church bodies in the USA as recently as 1960 or so, and then worked them down to about three today that take in over 90% of the Lutherans in this country. For Continuing Anglicans, there are merger moves afoot, with the UECNA and ACC saying they will work for complete unity and asking the APCK to join them, the REC and APA having already pledged themselves to union, and several larger federations recently formed that involve three or more of the churches on this list.

You will note also that although the list seems long, the churches are not of equal strength. Every family of faith has a number of tiny split-offs; that can't be avoided. But on this list, about half of the entries are for churches with fewer than a dozen churches. You can't judge any communion on that basis. Although I used the Lutherans as an example, and you could also do the same for the Methodists. The size of the UMC doesn't mean that there aren't also a number of similarly tiny Methodist bodies few people know about.
I echo what Albion has here stated that the continuers are not as "splintered" as they appear at first. Many if not most of them are working towards union with others as Albion pointed out between the REC and the APA. Additionally some of them are forming alliances with the various "southern cone" churches which are sending missionaries to the US. Give me a moment I will find a link for an example. Additionally many of these are almost identical in Doctrine if not Praxis which leaves many of them working together if not entirely united.

[No Swansong]

Here's a helpful linky (http://http://rechurch.org/recus/recus/nigeria.html). The Church is Nigeria is Anglican Communion. ( I think either the largest or second largest Anglican Province actually.)

I wanted to address a question of Lel's. I think that for most conservative Anglicans the idea would be that women should not be ordained; however I know a few who accept that women should be, and a couple more (myself included) who decided years ago to study more on the subject.

[MrJim]

Are there some differences due to ethnic/regional issues?

Are the Africans more conservative than the Americans for some specific reasons?

[No Swansong]

That's a good question Mr. Jim. Give me a little time to ponder an answer?

[Albion]

Would opposing women's ordination pretty much put you in the conservative camp in Anglicanism nowadays? Do all conservative Anglicans oppose female ordination?

Pretty much, yes. I just scanned that list again, and every last one of those Continuing Anglican Churches has a policy against women in orders. Of course, that is the prime reason why the Continuing Movement began in the late 1970s.

But if we speak a little more generally of "conservative" Anglicans, and not "Continuing Anglicans" only, you have some exceptions. Those generally considered to be the conservative opposition within TEC at the moment--see Anglican Communion Network and American Anglican Council--do include women clergy and parishes which have women priests, although not a lot of them. But at least they do not oppose them as a matter of their policy. That is why I had no reluctance a few posts ago in saying that, within TEC, the advent of woman's ordination has been taken in stride.

The conservatives still in TEC are upset with TEC over the homosexual agenda and a generally liberal theology that is growing within their church, but there are conservative woman pastors, and many TEC parishioners who are conservative do not think twice about woman priests. Although it doesn't matter much unless you live there, some of the African churches leading the opposition to the homosexual agenda from within the worldwide Anglican Communion have woman priests and there is no controversy over them in those countries. Their parishes in North America include some with woman priests. This surprises some onlookers who suppose that tribal and cultural mindsets in Africa account for them opposing homosexuality and figure that it would carry over to traditional gender roles in Africa also.

Obviously, if some of the IN-TEC conservatives and some of the OUT OF-TEC conservatives merge in the future, as many hope, something will have to 'give.'

[Albion]

Are there some differences due to ethnic/regional issues?

Are the Africans more conservative than the Americans for some specific reasons?

Take a look at the post I put up just before this one where I touched upon some of that.

There are probably some cultural factors at play, though not as many as some people assume. But my thinking is that the differences owe mainly to the rapidity with which the American and some other provinces have changed from traditional to liberal in their beliefs and policies. Ideas move fast in our society; not so in others. Not too long ago, TEC was a pretty conservative church, easily thought of as like the Roman Catholic Church but differing in using English for the Mass and allowing married priests, etc. Within a few decades, it has become so liberal in many ways that those overseas churches that were their missions originally and in countries where values tend to be more permanent, etc. were aghast at this development.

They tolerated some of it but the homosexual developments were just too immoral for them. They tend to be more forgiving of liturgical variances and administrative changes than matters which go against their moral sense, that which they were always taught is Biblical. I would also note that when TEC began calling them "primitive" and other words denoting backwards, after they (the Africans) had been patiently trying to urge TEC to pull back on some of her new directions, that really tore it for them.

[Simon_Templar]

Would opposing women's ordination pretty much put you in the conservative camp in Anglicanism nowadays? Do all conservative Anglicans oppose female ordination?



I've gotten that feeling too - then again that's why I'm inclined to swim the Tiber...
Not all conservative Anglicans oppose female ordination. All of the continuing churches do (as far as I'm aware), since that is the major reason they left the Anglican Communion in the first place.

Among the more evangelical/charismatic conservatives the issue of women's ordination is more divided. Some groups don't allow it, some allow women to be ordained as priests but not as bishops etc.


MrJim,

Amongst the conservative Anglicans here I think most are probably not in favor of women's ordination. Colabomb, I believe, is in favor of it, jtbdad I'm not sure, Albion, Aymn, and I are opposed, I think, though it might not be as big a deal to Aymn, not sure.

The special relationship with the Eastern Orthodox probably refers to the fact that the Anglican Communion and the EO were in talks headed towards intercommunion and mutual recognition. Things were moving slowly that way but when the AC allowed women's ordination it pretty much blew any possability of intercommunion out of the water.

Of course the Anglicans recognize the EO, and as far as we're concerned they can take communion with us. The issue is them recognizing us.

Most of the RCC and the EO believe that women's ordination invalidates Apostolic Succession and the sacraments as well.

Ordination is primarily about authority. Authority to teach, authority to perform a sacrament etc. That authority comes from God, through the Church. The authority, must ultimately come from God, however, so even if the Church ordains someone without God's approval, the ordination essentially means nothing.

Although the issue is obviously debated, the position of the Church has always been that God does not ordain women, thus even if the church ordains them, they still can't perform the sacrament, or teach with the authority of the church.

this is based largely on Paul's writings in 1st Timothy, but also on the practice of the apostles which was handed down through the succession.

Many of those who are in favor argue on the basis of Junia who was said to be "well known among the apostles" and Pheobe who is called a deacon, both in scripture.
There are numerous problems, however, with this line of argument. First, both words apostle and deacon have meanings other than the office to which they are applied. Just like when they say "John the elder" it doesn't necessarily mean that he held the office of an elder, it could just as easily mean that he was the older of two well known Johns

Apostle, just means "one sent" its latin equivalent is "missionary". Saying that Junia was well known among the apostles, first doesn't mean she was an apostle, it can be understood to mean that she was simply well known to the apostles. Secondly, it can also be understood to mean that she was a missionary or a messanger sent out by Paul, just as we send out missionaries today.

The case with Pheobe is even worse. It is well known in church history that it was relatively common for women to be taken into the church as servants of the church, much like the later concept of nuns. This was especially true with widows. The Church supported them, and they in turn served the Church. The word deacon just means servant and it is applied to anyone who is a servant.
On top of that, it is known in Church history that there were female deacons who were specially appointed to assist women in preperation for baptism because it was inappropriate for men to do this. These female deacons did not receive ordination to Holy Orders. There was a seperate method for appointing them.

My personal opinion is that the ordination of women destroys God's protection on a Church. The authority that God puts in place to teach and discipline the church is a protection against error and as long as its in place, even if there are individuals who go off the deep end and teach falsehood etc, the church as a whole is protected. When it is removed, however, its only a matter of time before the church begins to slide into false teaching and deception.

[No Swansong]

For the record my stance is simply that I decided a couple of years ago to partake in a deeper study of the issue than I have before. Currently I am studying the issue in the light of my own Post-Modern upbringing and education.

[Mary of Bethany]

Just scanning through I recognize terms like "matins" and "compline" from RC monastic readings.

Danger + Opportunity, interesting way look at it.

I was reading in the wiki regarding the TEC that there was something of a relationship with the EO:

Like many other Anglican churches, it has entered into full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Old Catholics. The issue of ordination of women broke full communion with the Polish National Catholic Church in 1976 and severed a special relationship with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

What are the thoughts amongst the conservative anglican folks here about the women ordination and effects? And what was the nature of the "special relationship" with the EO?

Hi, MrJim.

I was in the ACC (Anglican Catholic Church) for 10 years, and my husband still is. I landed there when I realized I could no longer be Southern Baptist, as I had come to believe in the reality of Sacraments. I had no idea what that first "small" change would bring! ^_^

In the late 19th through mid-20th centuries, there was much dialogue between the Anglicans (especially the Church of England) and the Orthodox. Traditional Anglicanism has very much in common with Orthodoxy, and in fact, Orthodox consider the English Church to have been Orthodox until they were finally forced into conformity with the Roman church. We "claim" the Saints of the British Isles as ours, too. C. S. Lewis is as much-loved by the Orthodox as by others, and we consider his beliefs to be very "Orthodox".

Even when (now Abp KALLISTOS) Timothy Ware first approached Orthodox priests about converting back in the '40s, the priests told him he should stay in the Church of England, because there would probably be inter-communion soon. Unfortunately, the shift in the AC towards the left began, and once women's ordination was accepted, the Orthodox broke off talks.

You may know that there is a Western Rite within Orthodoxy (very small but growing number) that is very close to Anglican worship. They keep the western forms of prayer and liturgy, with changes where needed to conform to Orthodoxy.

This is not to discourage you from looking into Anglicanism. If you can find a traditional parish near you, I think you will like it very much.

Mary

[MrJim]

Does the anglican tradition share the same as RC/EO in regard to prayers to saints/angels?

[ContentInHim]

MrJim - the High Episcopal Church with Evangelical and Charismatic leanings (their description :D ) that I attended for 6 months gave sort of respectful lip service to the saints but there was no praying to them. Don't know about any others. They are now in the process of separating from TEC over Gene Robinson and Sciori. Which will be legally difficult but morally and ethically a good thing. We are not called to sink to the level of the world but to be a light to the world.

[Simon_Templar]

Does the anglican tradition share the same as RC/EO in regard to prayers to saints/angels?
As with everything in Anglicanism, you'll find a range of beliefs on praying to saints. Prayer to the saints is much like the use of Icons as well.. it is allowed, but not required, and really not usually stressed or taught on.

The result is that most Anglicans probably don't do it. However, many anglo-catholics probably do.

Praying to saints is done in the context of asking for their prayers on our behalf. Or sometimes saints are used in prayer as an example of a particular virtue that we want God to teach us/inspire in us etc.

The idea of praying to a saint is part of the doctrine of the Communion of the Saints. We believe that all who are in Christ, all who are part of his Church, are joined to us and we to them. We don't believe that this is limited to those who are walking the earth now, but that it also includes all the believers who have gone before.

In scripture something of this idea can be seen in the end of Hebrews 11, and a few verses down in Hebrews chatper 12 where it talks about the city that we have become citizens of through Christ.

[MrJim]

As with everything in Anglicanism, you'll find a range of beliefs on praying to saints. Prayer to the saints is much like the use of Icons as well.. it is allowed, but not required, and really not usually stressed or taught on.

The result is that most Anglicans probably don't do it. However, many anglo-catholics probably do.

Praying to saints is done in the context of asking for their prayers on our behalf. Or sometimes saints are used in prayer as an example of a particular virtue that we want God to teach us/inspire in us etc.

The idea of praying to a saint is part of the doctrine of the Communion of the Saints. We believe that all who are in Christ, all who are part of his Church, are joined to us and we to them. We don't believe that this is limited to those who are walking the earth now, but that it also includes all the believers who have gone before.

In scripture something of this idea can be seen in the end of Hebrews 11, and a few verses down in Hebrews chatper 12 where it talks about the city that we have become citizens of through Christ.

Thanks Simon,

Are there any particulars? I understand the EO don't go for statuary like the RC, and ya don't see many icons in an RC church. You guys go either way?

And what are your personal particulars on this~do you have an icon corner or a favorite saint?

Also, is Holy Water used in Anglican services? And I've heard of an Anglican rosary, though don't know if it's common or even valid.

Thanks:thumbsup:

[No Swansong]

In the Church I attend there are Icons, Stations of the Cross, Holy Water fonts but no statuary. Most of the members however probably couldn't tell you the difference between an Icon and an old looking picture and I know that more than one person has asked about the numbers on the wall.

[Simon_Templar]

Thanks Simon,

Are there any particulars? I understand the EO don't go for statuary like the RC, and ya don't see many icons in an RC church. You guys go either way?

And what are your personal particulars on this~do you have an icon corner or a favorite saint?

Also, is Holy Water used in Anglican services? And I've heard of an Anglican rosary, though don't know if it's common or even valid.

Thanks:thumbsup:
It depends on the individual church.

I've seen a little bit of both in terms of icons and statuary. I would guess that most Anglican churches would probably lean western in their style, either having statuary, or being more limited to crosses and such. Yet I also wouldn't be surprised to find quite a few that have eastern styling as well with icons and such.

Nashotah house is a anglo-catholic/conservative seminary a few hours from where I live, in their chapel they have very traditional catholic styles, including a full Marian alter in the back complete with statues etc.

I haven't seen anglicans locally make alot of use of Holy Water, but there is an anglican ritual for making holy water which is pretty cool :)


Personally, I don't pray to saints, though I don't really have anything against it.
Its somewhat ironic I suppose. Back when I was non-denom protestant, I always felt a draw to the concept of saints, and other aspects of the traditional church. Back then I felt somewhat guilty about this because I had been taught that all such things were idolatry.
Once I actually came to understand what the communion of the saints is really about, it is one of my favorite doctrines and one of my favorite things about the chruch. It reminds me of the rich heretige we have in the faith, and what we are a part of in Christ.
However, I still have never felt comfortable actually praying to a saint formally. I think about them sometimes, in a more informal way I feel a connection to them. As with most disciplines, I think I would be better served if I did this more than I do.

My favorites are St. John the Apostle, St. Patrick, St. Francis of Ascissi (again ironic since I used to think he was a looney :) ) and St. Anselm of Canterbury (oh and St. Polycarp).

John's gospel and his epistles are probably my favorite books in the bible, and I find him a compelling character for several reasons.

I find St. Patrick very inspiring in all respects.

St. Francis, I love his vision of the world and how he saw God reflected in nature and it moved him to praise.

St. Anselm, is a hero for me intellectually. A brilliant mind but driven by spirit and not limited by what I would call 'intellectual short-sightedness'


I like alot of aspects of 'high-church' but at the same time, I think that alot of style elements of both the eastern and western style is way too gaudy for my tastes. I prefer more simple, elegant stylings, which is generally what I find in Anglican churches.

I don't own any Icons but I do have a little 'alter' of sorts in my room which is basically an end table with a table cloth over it, a large illuminated style bible on it and a table top water fountain shaped like a tablet with a cross on it and the Lord's prayer inscribed on the tablet. also I have three candles hung from the ceiling over it.

[MrJim]

Thanks for sharing this with me Simon!!!

[Mary of Bethany]

At the ACC parish I was a member of, they have traditional Icons in the altar area, Stations of the Cross on both sides of the nave, and a holy water font at the entrance to the nave. And a small candle stand at the back. No statuary.

Mary

[Albion]

Does the anglican tradition share the same as RC/EO in regard to prayers to saints/angels?

Ordinarily, no. Our liturgy does not include prayers to the saints and our Articles of Religion condemn the practice. But as Simon is always correct and clear in saying, there are all kinds of Anglicans, including those who would prefer to worship in the manner of Roman Catholics. It varies from parish to parish and diocese to diocese.

[Albion]

Are there any particulars? I understand the EO don't go for statuary like the RC, and ya don't see many icons in an RC church. You guys go either way?

Icons are rare but statues sometimes are seen.

Also, is Holy Water used in Anglican services?

In Anglo-Catholic parishes but not in most parishes.

And I've heard of an Anglican rosary, though don't know if it's common or even valid.

Yes, there are Anglican Prayer Beads, sometimes called "the Anglican Rosary." They've been around for about 20 years. However, unlike the Catholic rosary, the prayers are not directed to the Virgin and normally are selections from the Bible or based closely upon such and are directed to God.

[MrJim]

Seems it would be awkward to have such a wide range on this practice, but even in the mennonite church I was part of there is a wide range (plain suits & women on the right-men on the left during worship to electric guitar charismatic services in cutoff shorts) of seemingly incompatible practices...

[No Swansong]

Indeed that is why some argue that our diversity is both our strongest and weakest attribute.

[Albion]

Seems it would be awkward to have such a wide range on this practice, but even in the mennonite church I was part of there is a wide range (plain suits & women on the right-men on the left during worship to electric guitar charismatic services in cutoff shorts) of seemingly incompatible practices...

That's probably a very apt comparison. While there are extremes that could go too far, within the Mennonite communities the diversity that exists is understood and thought to be, overall, coherent. So also is it, I think, with 95% of Anglican churches. The main themes are there and are distinctive, even with the variances. Although Anglicans talk about being Anglo-Catholic or Evangelical etc. attending a worship service in almost any parish is going to seen natural for any of us. I, for example, feel automatically more at home in the highest of Anglo-Catholic parishes, yet I (a Low Church to Middle Churchman) feel somewhat estranged when at a Roman Catholic Mass, although the average person would think that they're about the same.

[Simon_Templar]

I personally think the church should be diverse (although I cringe using the word because of its liberal conotations).

I think the diversity of the church should be in non-essentials and styles of worship. Ephesians says that God uses the Church to make reveal his 'manifold wisdom'. The word manifold literally means, many colored. The image is like the church being a prism through which God refracts his wisdom.

Thus I think it is good that there are cultural and national styles reflected in the church's worship, as well as differences between high and low church, etc.

Further, unity is far to important to break over non-essential doctrines like statuary or icons, or how much liturgy a church uses.