Why did the Anglican Church Break off from the Catholic?

[Lilac]

:wave: Greetings Friends in Christ---Hello all you scholars out there!

I would appreciate so much learning some facts here if you have the time or the inclination to reply.

I am in the midst of such a spiritual journey--and I would really like to know the main differences between the Anglican and the Catholic Churches. I know King Henry VIII was upset because the RCC wouldn't grant him his divorce from his wife, then how did the Anglican Church come about????? Why are they separated in the first place from the RCC? They seem almost identical --from what I've seen in their worship services. Just how are their doctrines different?

Someone please help me in simple terms. One paragraph-------I have so many questions---but I want and am so desperate to find out-------

God Bless You All~ You are surely ministers to me admist my journey in the faith~~~~

:priest: :pink:

[PaladinValer]

The English Church has long since been a bit different from the rest of Christianity. Originally, they were somewhat connected with the rest of Christdom thanks to the Roman Empire, especially when Christianity was given official status. In fact, Christians from England participated in a few of the Ecumenical Councils, signifying their growing numbers.

Unfortunately, when Rome fell, the connection between England and the rest of the British Isles with continential Europe was destroyed greatly. This was due, for obvious reasons, to the fact that the British Isles are exactly that; islands. Travel to and fro wasn't a numerous now than Rome was gone, so the English Christians slowly developed "partially away" from the rest of Christendom.

Because of this, many different local influences affected the English Church. With various conquests and invasions, old traditional beliefs, and local historical events, partually with the Magna Carta, the English Church was enriched with some unique qualities that differed from those in Rome and Constantinople. Even when the Church split again into Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (the Oriental Church had long since been split), the English Church, although fully Catholic, was flavored by its own uniqueness.

Many of these elements conflicted with Rome's more standard beliefs. Relationships between England and Rome weren't static; they came and went like the tide. Eventually, the differences became too much by the time of King Henry VIII. His desire for an annulment (not a divorce; remember that the Catholic Church doesn't approve of divorces under any circumstances) was the spark that resulted in Canterbury spliting from Rome. However, it wasn't really until Queen Elizabeth I that the Church of England became what we classically conceive it to be; a rich blend of Catholicism and Protestantism, to which it waved but returned to with the Oxford Movement.

Sorry for not giving too many details, but you wanted it to be brief, and I'm sure others will post corrections and more details to what I've layed down for them.

[Polycarp1]

Long story, but I'll try to hit on the key points here.

First, be aware that the modern centralization of authority in Catholicism is not representative of the tradition even within post-Reformation Catholicism. The early church was organized on the basis that there was a metropolitan church in every large city, with affiliated churches in outlying areas near to that city. The chief pastor of that metropolitan church became the bishop to whom the priests of the other churches looked for direction and authority. These were united under five patriarchs in major cities where the metropolitan church had been founded by an apostle (or in one case St. Mark the Evangelist). The chief among these five was the Patriarch of Rome and the West, heir to Peter as chief of the Apostles.

As time went by and the barbarian nations were evangelized, new national churches in communion with Rome and the other Patriarchates sprung up, and were organized under Primates -- Archbishops who were top authority within that nation, subject to Councils and, as authority centralized in him, to the Pope. For reasons not germane to this discussion, divisions sprung up between the four eastern Patriarchates and Rome, culminating in a mutual excommunication in 1054, which was rescinded and then put back in place in the early 1400s.

Following the settling of what is now England and southern Scotland by the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, Pope Gregory the Great sent St. Augustine of Canterbury to England to evangelize them and found a national church there. That church has existed ever since, under the Archbishop of Canterbury, but was in communion with the Pope until 1570, well after Henry VIII's time.

So it's not that the Church of England sprang into existence with Henry VIII -- it dates back to the 500s AD.

There were a lot of political maneuverings between Pope, Emperor, and Kings, during most of the Middle Ages, and regularly the Emperor or a King would overturn decisions of the Pope, the Pope would respond with excommunications and sometimes interdicts, the problem between them would eventually get resolved, and unity would be restored. Part of the problem was that Bishops had quite a lot of political power, and much of what's today civil law was then canon law. The wardship of orphan heirs, the inheritance of property, and even criminal trials of people who could read and write was the province of the church courts. So it was not a case of whether the Pope could appoint a bishop to a given city as their spiritual leader -- that Bishop had a great deal of political power in the parliaments of the time as well.

And any devout Catholic who knows his history will tell you that there were major abuses based in superstition on which unscrupulous clerics capitalized during the late Middle Ages.

Henry VII, father of Henry VIII, had come to the throne in 1485 by conquest, as the last survivor of the bloody civil wars called the Wars of the Roses. He tried to bolster his rather shaky throne by marrying the heiress on the other side, and made treaties with almost anybody who could constitute a threat. One such treaty was with newly-united Spain, under Ferdinand and Isabella, and part of the deal there, as with many political treaties during this period, was that his eldest son, Prince Arthur, would marry their daughter Catherine, which he duly did.

Arthur, however, was a sickly boy, and died almost immediately after the marriage, apparently without having consummated it. Faced with this breaking of the treaty with Spain, Henry renegotiated that his surviving son, Prince Henry, would marry the young widow, and arranged for a dispensation from the Pope to make that marriage possible, since canon law prohibited marrying your brother's widow.

In due time, Henry VII died and Prince Henry took the throne as Henry VIII. And he and Catherine attempted to have children, but had several stillbirths, and the only child that lived past infancy was Princess Mary.

Meanwhile Luther had begun the Reformation over on the Continent, and Henry, a devout Catholic, wrote a book denouncing Lutheranism, for which a grateful Pope gave him the title Defensor Fidei, "defender of the faith." But Henry was a bit superstitious, and badly in need of a male heir, since the Tudor Royal Family consisted in its entirety of him and little Mary, and England had not yet had a ruling queen (the peculiar case of Matilda mother of Henry II 400 years before to one side). Henry convinced himself that he had sinned in marrying his brother's widow, dispensation or not, and that God was punishing him by refusing him an heir. At the same time, his eye was turned by one of Catherine's ladies in waiting, Anne Boleyn. And Anne was not prepared to fornicate, even with the King, but would willingly marry him if he were free to marry.

Accordingly, Henry sought to have his marriage with Catherine annulled -- not divorced -- as being a violation of canon law -- which conveniently would leave him free to marry Anne. Such annulments had been granted for politically arranged royal marriage in the past. But there was a problem. Catherine's older sister Joanna, who was insane, had married Maximilian of Hapsburg, who was heir in his own right to Austria, Hungary, the Low Countries, and much of Italy. And their son Charles was now King of Spain, Archduke of Austria, King of Hungary, King of the Low Countries, Holy Roman Emperor, and, thanks to Columbus and those who followed after him, proprietor of most of the New World as well. Charles had a large garrison in Rome, and was not at all pleased at the idea of his aunt being cast aside. And the Pope, quite likely influenced by Charles and his troops, refused Henry the annulment.

So Henry resorted to the standard Emperor/King trick, of denying the Pope's authority to rule on matters affecting his kingdom, as had been done in many countries any number of times before. And having gotten Parliament to pass a law making him and not the Pope head under Christ of the Church of England, Henry petitioned the Archbishop of Canterbury, who owed his job to Henry, for the annulment. The archbishop, being rather fond of the idea that his head and body should remain connected, was pleased to grant the king's petition.

So the English Church was outside Rome's authority for the moment, as the German Church had been under Frederick II 300 years before, and as French kings had done from time to time. But it remained a schismatic piece of the Catholic Church, and Henry would not countenance Protestantism in his kingdom. And things stayed this way through the remainder of Henry's reign, with four more wives for the king for one reason or another (two committed treason, one he was married to by proxy for political reasons and found repellent when he met her, one whom he loved died, and one survived him). He ended up with one daughter Elizabeth by Anne Boleyn and a son Edward by his third wife, Jane Seymour.

However, Thomas Cranmer, the last Archbishop of Canterbury whom Henry appointed, was secretly a disciple of the Reformer Martin Bucer, who believed in much of Catholic tradition and liturgy but despised the Medieval corruptions in Catholicism. Much of the traditional Prayer Book was the product of Cranmer's pen. And when Henry died, his son and heir Edward was only nine years old, and the Seymour family, who became his regents, were likewise Protestant. Under Edward the Church of England became largely Protestant, while preserving the Apostolic Succession and the Sacraments as Cranmer and Bucer believed right. But Edward died at age 15, unmarried, and his heir was Mary, daughter of Henry and Catherine of Aragon. And she was a strict Catholic. She married Philip II of Spain, son of Emperor Charles, and went about restoring England to Catholicism. However, they had no children, and when she died, the thone then went to Elizabeth, daughter of Henry and Anne Boleyn. And at that point it shifted back to the "bridge church" stance it has always held to, with variations in emphasis, ever since, preserving Catholic tradition within a Reformed framework, and with a theology with one foot in each camp.

England had not yet heard the last of Philip II, though, as he was as sincere a Catholic and anti-Protestant as his late wife. And he claimed the throne of England "by the crown matrimonial" -- since he was the husband of the late heiress of the throne, it should go to him, at least in his opinion. Hence the Spanish Armada. But with Elizabeth reigning over a realm that was schismatic and arguably heretical by Catholic standards, it was easy for Philip to convince the Pope of the time, in 1570, to excommunicate Elizabeth and those who paid allegiance to her, favoring orthodox Catholic Philip's dubious claim to the throne. And that is effectively where matters have stood ever since. It's interesting to note, however, that Henry himself and his heirs were not excommunicated until that politically motivated step 40 years after the annulment-from-Catherine incident.

[Polycarp1]

Nice job, Paladin -- looks like we had much the same idea of what to answer at about the same time!! :)

[Lilac]

Thanks so much Polycarpi and Paladin for all the info!

I've always wondered why the Church of England and the Catholic Church had and still have so much similarity, yet why they are divided even today.

I see the history Polycarpi--wow you're so knowledgeable! But why today is the Church still separated on so much? Is it just because of their long history and past differences still present today? Hasn't there been a movement to reconcile the Anglican and Catholic Churches over the past 500 years? Do you know?

Sp speaking of today, this 21st Century what are the main differences between these churches? Few questions-----

1) Do the Episcopalian/Anglican Bishops recognize the Pope? If not, why not?

2) Does the Anglican Church recognize the Magisterium?, If not, why not?

3) Does the Anglican/Episcopal Church then write their own doctrines?

4) What is the name of their doctrine/statement of faith--do you know their website where I may go to see their Church doctrine in a nutshell?

5) Do they still hold the same 7 sacraments as do the Catholics?

6) Why can they get married but not Catholic Priests?

WHERE can I go to see the rules of the Anglican Church?

Please provide me with a good website for this--

I am most grateful for your info.

God Bless~~

[TomUK]

5) Do they still hold the same 7 sacraments as do the Catholics?

Anglicans are closer to protestants on this issue. While we recognise the seven Catholic sacrements, we only actively practice two (baptism and the eucharist) as necessary for salvation.

[PaladinValer]

1) Do the Episcopalian/Anglican Bishops recognize the Pope? If not, why not?

We recognize the Catholic Pope as a bishop in God's One Holy Catholic (which means, in this context, Universal) Church. We are not however under his authority although many of us listen with great care and interest with what he has to say. We believe Rome's abuses were enough, along with the beforehand said things, for us to break. As such, the Pope is just another bishop and nothing more.

2) Does the Anglican Church recognize the Magisterium?, If not, why not?

If by "Magisterium," you mean the Catholic Pope, the Cardinals, and other Catholic officials, then no. We are not Catholics.

3) Does the Anglican/Episcopal Church then write their own doctrines?

Our doctrines are expressed in (and in no particular order):

1. The Seven Ecumenical Councils
2. The Three Great Creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and St. Athanasius')
3. Other official creeds and lists of anathemas which were the result of the Ecumenical Councils
4. The Holy Bible
5. Orthodox writings and sayings of the saints, martyrs, and Church Fathers
6. That which is found in the catechism in the Book of Common Prayer.
7. The official canons of the Church (each Province has its own canons, which are usually similar but, of course, will have differences).

I'm sure others will add/edit to the list I've given.

4) What is the name of their doctrine/statement of faith--do you know their website where I may go to see their Church doctrine in a nutshell?

CF has it; it is the Nicene Creed :)

5) Do they still hold the same 7 sacraments as do the Catholics?

This is one thing that all the Provinces of the AC will agree upon, I believe. There are two Great Sacraments: Baptism and the Eucharist. The other sacraments, Holy Matrimony, Confirmation, Unction, Reconciliation of a Pentient, and Holy Orders, impart Grace unto the receiver.

High Church Anglicans/Episcopalians, however, often view all seven to be equally great.

6) Why can they get married but not Catholic Priests?

Because to be honest, the Holy Bible says nothing about priestly celibacy. Nor is it Holy Tradition; the Catholic Church in fact never enforced celibacy until after the Great Schism of 1054. So these are, perhaps, the key reasons why Anglican/Episcopal deacons, priests, and bishops may marry and have children if they so desire. In they want, they may even live a celibate life, but it is up to the priest in question.

WHERE can I go to see the rules of the Anglican Church?

Each Province will likely have very similar but yet some different rules. I do not know of a website and could not find such a site of the Episcopal Church USA Canon Laws. However, I'm certain if you visited the official Episcopa Church's website and asked them for such information, they'd be more than happy to help you.

[Lilac]

Each Province has its own canons, which are usually similar but, of course, will have differences).

Each Province will likely have very similar but yet some different rules.
:wave: Hello Paladin!

You see this is where I'm having trouble in attempting to discern which church I should join--Catholic or Anglican. Shouldn't the Church, God's One Holy and Apostolic Church on earth that He left us 2000 years ago have just ONE set of stuff? One set of rules to follow here? Why all the differences? This seems to leave man in charge to interpret as he pleases! Have you ever contemplated all these interpretations? What conclusions have you drawn Paladin?

God Bless~~

[PaladinValer]

Because IMO, the Catholic Church has continued to declare many of their Councils as Ecumenical Councils since the last one that declared iconoclasm a heresy. It is the view of Anglicans, as well as others (especially the Eastern Orthodox), that this is a betrayal of the word "ecumenical" and do not recognize them at all, even if they agree or disagree with anything decided upon. It is one thing I don't like the Catholic Church.

And mind you that the Catholic Church itself its split into two main rites: the Roman Rite (which is why the Catholic Church is almost always called the Roman Catholic Church, which is a 100% mistake) and the Eastern Rite. The Eastern Rite itself is really a general term for a number of small Rites that, while in Full Communion with Rome, are not required to have their services like that of the Latin (Roman) Rite. For example, they are free to use their own liturgies, their priests can marry, and may include elements from the churches (usually Eastern Orthodox) that they had before. So even a Catholic would have to argue that nothing is 100% straight and narrow. In fact, the Catholic Rites are, function-wise, almost the same thing as the Anglican idea of Provinces.

I know this brings you right back to square one, but it is something you should know about.

[Polycarp1]

Re: the Magisterium: We accept and understand the Magisterium as the Orthodox would define it -- the authority of the Bishops of the church to teach, and of the Ecumenical Councils to teach definitively. Unfortunately, as Paladin Valer noted, the "Ecumenical Councils" after the first seven excluded Catholic, and from Trent on, Anglican and Lutheran bishops. So we don't buy into the Magisterium of the Catholic Church as they'd define it in OBOB, but we definitively buy into an ongoing teaching authority, which is what the term means.

We recognize the Catholic Pope as a bishop in God's One Holy Catholic (which means, in this context, Universal) Church. We are not however under his authority although many of us listen with great care and interest with what he has to say. We believe Rome's abuses were enough, along with the beforehand said things, for us to break. As such, the Pope is just another bishop and nothing more.
I'd go a step further and say that, like the Orthodox, we recognize him as properly Patriarch of the West. But we don't give him teaching authority over us (rather obviously).

Re: Sacraments: As with many such issues, we take a middle ground between Catholicism and Protestantism. With the Methodists, Nazarenes, Presbyterians (IIRC), and some others, we hold that there are only two Sacraments the keeping of which was directly commanded by Christ in the Gospels: Baptism and the Eucharist. (It might be worth noting that like the Orthodox we chrismate at Baptism.)

But with the Catholics, we hold that the proper use of the other five rites that we and they call Sacraments is an important part of the ministry of the church. And all five of them are available through any Anglican church. My wife, as a Franciscan Tertiary, is vowed to private auricular confession at least once annually, for example. (Our rule on making private sacramental confessions is short and sweet: "All can; some should; none must.") Sacramental marriage with the priest pronouncing God's blessing over the couple in the name of Jesus Christ and the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is part and parcel of our tradition. All adolescent and adult members of our church are encouraged to enter into a course of study with their priest or a trained layman leading to sacramental Confirmation and its equipping of the confirmand with the gifts of the Holy Spirit for one's ministry as a layman or laywoman. Holy Orders in the Apostolic Succession is vitally important to us; it's part, along with Scriptures, Creeds, and Sacraments, of the four elements of the Lambeth Quadrilateral that define the terms on which we will reunite with other churches. And many parishes have regular healing services at which Anointing of the Sick is administered, as well as its being available privately when the priest visits any member who is ill.

[nicodemus]

His desire for an annulment (not a divorce; remember that the Catholic Church doesn't approve of divorces under any circumstances) was the spark that resulted in Canterbury spliting from Rome.

I don't raise this question to be inflammatory, but could someone please explain the difference to me between annulment and divorce? I understand the literal difference in the defintions of the words, but I can't see how there's really much difference.

[PaladinValer]

Not inflammatory whatsoever! :)

An annulment of a marriage is when the priest states that the marriage was never valid in the first place.

A divorce of a marriage is a simple discontinuing of a marriage. Validity is not in question.

[Polycarp1]

I don't raise this question to be inflammatory, but could someone please explain the difference to me between annulment and divorce? I understand the literal difference in the defintions of the words, but I can't see how there's really much difference.
It's a pretty minor point, to be sure, but like the press calling Patriarch Bartholemew "the spiritual leader of Orthodoxy" (yeah, I saw the TAW thread on that!) it's one of those details that misstatement rankles.

Essentially, a divorce is the legal dissolution of a valid marriage. An annulment is a declaration that what appeared to be a marriage actually was not a marriage at all. If you've ever run into the series of jokes based on the single guy who gets drunk and wakes up the next morning in bed with a woman who claims he married her last night, you see a perfect example of an invalid "marriage" -- he was clearly not consciously and intentionally committing to marriage. While old King Henry's motivations were not of the best, what he was asking was that his apparent marriage to Catherine be annulled on the grounds of consanguinity, a valid basis for so doing, not for a divorce just because he didn't want to be married to her any more. It's something of a finicky detail, but of such is history made.

[Rising_Suns]

6) Why can they get married but not Catholic Priests?

hi :)
I would like to just note that Catholic Priests are not forced to live celibate, but it is rather a choice they make in the pursuit of their lifes vocation. If I remember correctly, celibacy became a tradition, in part because the Catholic monks were practicing it, many of whom became priests. It's a great sacrifice for many, but it reflects a vow to imitate Christ in all respects, who neither gave Himself to marriage nor the pleasures of this world. This is also reflective of heaven, in which marriage does not exist (*matt 22:30), and to those who desire to further imitate Christ also imitate life in heaven.

This is why you find many of the Saints remained celibate as well. They wanted to devote everything they had to God, and so gave up their desires for human love completely. Paul recommends that we remain celibate, and they took his words to heart.


"He who marries does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (cor 7:38).


"Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (cor 7:27-34).

*At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." matt 22:30

[Polycarp1]

hi :)
I would like to just note that Catholic Priests are not forced to live celibate, but it is rather a choice they make in the pursuit of their lifes vocation. If I remember correctly, celibacy became a tradition, in part because the Catholic monks were practicing it, many of whom became priests. It's a great sacrifice for many, but it reflects a vow to imitate Christ in all respects, who neither gave Himself to marriage nor the pleasures of this world. This is also reflective of heaven, in which marriage does not exist (*matt 22:30), and to those who desire to further imitate Christ also imitate life in heaven.

This is why you find many of the Saints remained celibate as well. They wanted to devote everything they had to God, and so gave up their desires for human love completely. Paul recommends that we remain celibate, and they took his words to heart.


"He who marries does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (cor 7:38).


"Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (cor 7:27-34).

*At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." matt 22:30


I have a strong lack of desire to argue with a Catholic about Catholic doctrine, but it's my understanding that priestly celibacy is a Law of the Church, applicable only to the Roman Rite, not a theologically required matter. If the Pope so wished, he could lift the prohibition on married priests tomorrow. And he has granted a number of exemptions from that law, particularly where married clergy with valid vocations have converted to Catholicism. The original purpose behind priestly celibacy was the tendency of married priests to leave their "living" -- the title to the revenues of the church -- to their children, who might not have valid vocations and would make poor priests; the difficulty of married clergy in balancing family and parish obligations is a major contributing factor to keeping it in place.

In our church, the explicit teaching is that the clergy are not barred from marrying, but may choose the married or single state "as best conduces to godliness." And unlike Eastern Rite Catholicism and Orthodoxy, our bishops as well as priests may marry. (The two priests serving my parish are husband and wife, in a team ministry. Our retired rector and a priest member of the parish whose primary work is teaching at N.C. State cover for them when they take time off -- which they understandably do together.)

[PeterPaul]

Hey guys! Am I crazy or did all of you get your own forum? If so, then congratulations! Love you all!

[Rising_Suns]

Am I crazy or did all of you get your own forum?both. ;)

[BAChristian]

I have a strong lack of desire to argue with a Catholic about Catholic doctrine, but it's my understanding that priestly celibacy is a Law of the Church, applicable only to the Roman Rite, not a theologically required matter. If the Pope so wished, he could lift the prohibition on married priests tomorrow. And he has granted a number of exemptions from that law, particularly where married clergy with valid vocations have converted to Catholicism. The original purpose behind priestly celibacy was the tendency of married priests to leave their "living" -- the title to the revenues of the church -- to their children, who might not have valid vocations and would make poor priests; the difficulty of married clergy in balancing family and parish obligations is a major contributing factor to keeping it in place....and I don't think Brother Dave was trying to argue...just stating our beliefs as an FYI to our Anglican brothers on this topic, since, after all, we are alike in so many ways...and of course, to provide perspective to all of you...which I think is a good thing.

This is an interesting topic -- one that I will be commenting on shortly in my blog, and one that I was talking about tonight with my fellow RCIA team members. I believe that the Church will allow priests to marry, and I think this will happen in the next thirty years. I believe that there are a number of ways to spin this off...

a) Associate pastors, that is, ones who are not running the parish, will be able to be married and serve the community, which then gives us more priests, and thus, more parishes can stay open.

b) It will be structured much like the Diaconate, where currently married men must take a vow of celibacy should their wife pass away.

I think it would be a good thing, obviously. And I say this, not because I'm biased, since I'm discerning my calling, but because we have a valid need for priests...

Regardless, you're right -- it's not doctrinal teaching -- it is a tradition, that is backed by Scripture anyway, and I don't see anything wrong with that -- it's good to dedicate your life solely to God and lead his flock...

I think it's a wonderful sacrifice.

Anyhoo...just my $0.02... (as you can tell, I love this topic...sorry for the short novel...game on!)

:)

[BAChristian]

I would like to just note that Catholic Priests are not forced to live celibate, but it is rather a choice they make in the pursuit of their lifes vocation....but Brother Dave, it is forced. Sure, you make a vow, out of your own free will, but if you want to practice as a Priest, you're going to have to make that vow.

And sure, Priests going into seminary know that they are going to have to take that vow, and they're ok with it, so you can argue that it's not "forced". But I can argue that it is, just based on the sheer amount of priests that are eligible to practice as Priests, yet know they can't because they are married. And of course, we could debate about them leaving the Church over this, and not being obediant, and whatnot, but I don't wanna derail our Anglican brothers and steal their thread any more than we already have...for that, I apologize... :)

(Obviously, once you are ordained, you're always a Priest or Deacon...but you get my point, I'm sure...)