Anglicans and the Catholic Ordinariate?
- Thread starter RadixLecti
- Start date
Albion
Facilitator
c) They are identified as Anglican by the ABC, the CofE, and the Anglican Communion.
Membership in the Anglican Communion doesn't define and never has defined an Anglican. For generations, the forty million Anglicans who don't belong have been considered unaffiliated Anglicans. The only thing that has changed is that a number of tiny and new church bodies have been formed lately, including some that--for the first time--do not appear to be Anglican except for their use of some version of an Anglican liturgy. The Continuing Anglican churches (which predate them) and the Anglican Restoration churches (ACNA, etc.) certainly are not in their category.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
ebia
Senior Contributor
- Jul 6, 2004
- 41,711
- 2,142
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- AU-Greens
By whom?
There is no universally accepted definition. Bostonman correctly identifies the two perspectives. A good number of Communion Anglicans, myself included, would take the Communion as the definition.
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
Oh, well that would be quite a different issue, wouldn't it? I was focusing on what was written here: "But it struck me that to be willing to contemplate denying the Archbishop of Canterbury the bread and the wine one would have to be separated in such a profound way that this might be considered diagnostic to the OP's question."
Upvote
0
ebia
Senior Contributor
- Jul 6, 2004
- 41,711
- 2,142
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- AU-Greens
Definitions are held by people - they don't exist in the abstract.
Non- communion Anglicans presumably have a definition that includes them.
Communion Anglicans often have a definition that is exclusive to the Communion.
In established Anglican countries like England and Australia the general public definition is limited to the national Anglican Church.
Upvote
0
Meaning, then, that John Shelby Spong would not be considered Anglican (since he doesn't hold to the doctrines confessed in the creeds and doesn't believe in creeds in general)?
In Christ,
Fr. John
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
MKJ
Contributor
Well, it might well require an acceptance of the English Church - the question then is, what is the English Church?
For much of the history of Christianity, the English Church was in communion with Rome and recognized the Bishop of Rome as the patriarch of the West. For some time it accepted him as head of the Church Universal.
And I don't think anyone imagines that schism within the English Church would be impossible.
So if we think of Anglicanism as being related to the English Church, it tends to suggest communion with Rome is possible, and that different Anglican groups could be in schism from each other.
Upvote
0
The collection of worshipping believers of Jesus in, or from, England? Mind you, that would include non-Anglicans, which would be an ecumenical matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvvwNR3vF44
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
Gee, I dunno. Despite the prominence of Bp. Spong, you really can'd judge the belief system of any denomination by an occasional rebel IMO. Not unless the church adopted that individual's teachings; but in this case it merely declined to take action against him or condemn his ideas.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I had to look back at the OP to see that the subject is the Ordinairiate.
Those who have chose this route are now Roman Catholics, and under the Latin Rite. They have not even been given the dignity of being recognized as a separate Rite, as was the case with the Eastern churches.
There are many definitions of Anglicans, different depending on country. If one includes these folks, then Roman Catholics in England might also be included.
Obviously, as Roman Catholics, these churches are not supposed to given or take communion from non-members like the ABC. HOWEVER, this would never be an issue, given the strong close relationship between the ABC and the Holy See in the last few decades. Of course, the attitudes of the rank and file is often different. Anti-Catholics are quite common among the laity. Read this board for a day or two to verify this conclusion. But this is often so.
From reading threads here for several years (and elsewhere), I can see that the word "Anglican" means different things to different people and in different countries. I don't how it makes sense to include anyone but THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND in England. In the US, we don't have a national church.
For me, "Anglican" means the Anglican Communion. Otherwise, we would include Methodists (and many Pentecostals) in a broader definition. The US is a somewhat special case. There are two or three groups that are recognized by 50% or more of the Anglican Communion: TEC, ACNA, and the Diocese of South Carolina.
Those who have chose this route are now Roman Catholics, and under the Latin Rite. They have not even been given the dignity of being recognized as a separate Rite, as was the case with the Eastern churches.
There are many definitions of Anglicans, different depending on country. If one includes these folks, then Roman Catholics in England might also be included.
Obviously, as Roman Catholics, these churches are not supposed to given or take communion from non-members like the ABC. HOWEVER, this would never be an issue, given the strong close relationship between the ABC and the Holy See in the last few decades. Of course, the attitudes of the rank and file is often different. Anti-Catholics are quite common among the laity. Read this board for a day or two to verify this conclusion. But this is often so.
From reading threads here for several years (and elsewhere), I can see that the word "Anglican" means different things to different people and in different countries. I don't how it makes sense to include anyone but THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND in England. In the US, we don't have a national church.
For me, "Anglican" means the Anglican Communion. Otherwise, we would include Methodists (and many Pentecostals) in a broader definition. The US is a somewhat special case. There are two or three groups that are recognized by 50% or more of the Anglican Communion: TEC, ACNA, and the Diocese of South Carolina.
Upvote
0
MKJ
Contributor
I think declining to take action, and allowing him to teach as a bishop, is significant though. I realize many people probably thought it was not and that is an important point - it speaks to their intent in allowing it. But there is I think a difference between a lay member who is even radically heterodox but claims membership, and a bishop who is a fundamental component of the Church and holds the teaching authority in his diocese.
In most areas of life we don't just look at what people profess as correct, but what they allow to happen - a man who doesn't profess eugenics but allows it to go on under his authority is not quite the same as one who acts against it, if you get my drift.
The bishop in an episcopal system can be said to represent the most concrete and authoritative position in the Church - not all Anglicans believe that, but it is an orthodox Anglican position. I think allowing views so heterodox they are arguable actually non-Christian in the episcopate is a significant point, and says something about how seriously we take what we say we believe.
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
I agree in a way, but although I don't even consider The Episcopal Church to be an Anglican church anymore, I can't bring myself to link the two ideas. That is to say, the church was woefully negligent in the case of Bp. Spong (and with several notorious predecessors), but negligence or, OTOH, faithfulness--critical as they are--do not define the creed of any church. That's all I'm saying. A Baptistic church doesn't become Wesleyan, for example, merely because it fails to uphold Baptist principles of faith and order.
Upvote
0
MKJ
Contributor
I don't think we really disagree. I could go along with the "woefully negligent" thing. But I guess I'd say, what does it mean when that sort of negligence becomes systematic?
But given that you don't really consider TEC to be Anglican any more, I guess that is the answer for you? To me that says that maybe for you there is a link but not necessarily a causal one: systematic disinterest in the most basic heterodoxy in the episcopate in some way correlates with ceasing to be Anglican and perhaps other factors which contribute to that.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Albion
Facilitator
You're making it very difficult for me to defend TEC further, M.
All these considerations you've raised are serious and I've thought them myself, to be sure.
Well, that's the position of my church. I don't give it much thought myself. However, that's concerned with Apostolic Succession, not what we're discussing here. There are those who insist that the church became apostate as well, but I am reluctant to go there.
You make a good case there, I have to admit.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
