2 Questions for High Church Anglicans

[PaladinValer]

True, but High Church IMO is = to Anglo-Catholic in that sense.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Tricky questions.

I've only really just come to terms with the ideas, having gone through a passage of faith more or less on my own, but in a way I have always believed in the idea of transubstantiation - a reason why we Catholics don't allow non-Catholics to take communion in our churches.

The majority of High Church Anglicans tend to be quite liberal in their interpretation of scripture, on the other hand there are some, known as Anglo-Catholics who take the Roman line on biblical teaching.

Really, there's not much difference between folk calling themselves High Church and folk calling themselves Anglo-Catholic. They're divided into two main groups - the Forward in Faith types, who oppose women priests and form strategic alliances with evangelical groups, and the Affirming Catholicism types who form strategic alliances with liberal groups. Main bones of contention are women priests and homosexuality.

Of course there are folk stuck in the middle - accepting of one but not the other of these bones of contention.

 

[pmcleanj]

They're divided into two main groups - the Forward in Faith types, who oppose women priests and form strategic alliances with evangelical groups, and the Affirming Catholicism types who form strategic alliances with liberal groups.

Not entirely fair. There are also those who simply prefer chanted liturgy, copious quantities of acolytes, luxurious vestments, detailed ceremonial, incense, stained glass, votive candles and all the other sensual panoply of high ceremonial. In fact I would argue that liturgical style is a much greater factor in how Anglicans self-identify, than is church politics and doctrine.

As one of my favourite Anglican jokes goes:

"Anglicans are people who are tolerant in matters of doctrine and faith, but will resist to the last man any attempt to introduce a new hymn."

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Yes, this is very true. I was thinking (a) more of the leadership than the punters in the pews, and (b) more of the ones likely to write letters to the Church Times.

 

[TomUK]

"Anglicans are people who are tolerant in matters of doctrine and faith, but will resist to the last man any attempt to introduce a new hymn."

 

[garydench]

lol

 

[Lilac]

Yes, transubstantiation is real--it's awesome--the real thing --and it's totally Scriptural!!!! most fundamentalists don't know this!!!! They're missing out!!!!

And no Sola Scriptura is not practical, not historical and not biblical. It's only something I think Fundamentalists believe--I don't know how people could ignore Tradition and the Church Fathers but they do!!!



God Bless!!!!

 

[bfoos]

Greetings all.

I am new here, so please forgive me if I commit some mortal sin of internet protocol.

The question of transubstantiation and sola scriptura are common for the Anglican, reflecting the difficulty that many have had in understanding Anglican doctrine, including many Anglicans. Some of this difficulty, I believe, is evidenced in a reading of the posts following the question.

At the risk of repeating some good insights already stated, I will try to give my two cents.

Transubstantiation is a doctrine of the medieval Church, as already stated. It has to do primarily with Aristotle's view of the world and his parameters of thought. So, accident and substance are the primary words that have to be understood to understand the medieval doctrine. Accidents are the "thing's" outward, viewable, sensible (as in the senses) characteristics. Substance refers to the essence of what a thing is.

For Aristotle, one is going to be able to understand the substance by the accidents, or at least be guided in the general direction. The medieval concept of the presence of Christ in the sacrament built upon Aristotle's terms but used them in a way that Aristotle would not have. The accidents (bread and wine) remain the same (look, taste, etc. like bread and wine), but the substance changes (becomes the physical/corporeal body and blood of Christ).

This of course, is considered a great mystery--and indeed, it is. However, the problem is that the early Church does not, arguably, hold to this view. The English Reformers were about being Catholic, not Roman. In other words, they rightly saw transubstantiation as a new development in doctrine that goes awry from the Scriptures and the teaching of the Church Catholic.

Therefore, to condense this discussion a bit (lest I go on forever), the Anglican doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ is most definitely not transubstantiation (nor for that matter, is it consubstantiation--the Lutheran view), but it is a strong belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We believe that Christ is present just as much as the Roman churchman does; we just don't pretend to say more about how Christ is present than Christ or His apostles did.

Regarding Sola Scriptura. It is hard to imagine a more mangled doctrine today. The teaching of the Reforming Catholics (the first generation of reformers who sought to be Catholic) was and is a wonderfully ancient teaching of the Church on the authority of Scripture in the life of the Church.

Today, that teaching has degenerated to "me and my Bible" Christianity, which is hardly worthy of the name. The teaching that says I can interpret the Bible on my own without any guidance from the Church is a direct contradiction of the biblical text itself, not to mention the teaching of the Church for the last 2000 years.

So, is the Anglican view of the Scripture a view that recognizes the doctrine termed in the 16th century "sola scriptura"? Yes. But to understand what was meant by sola scriptura, one has to read those Reforming Catholics. Sola Scriptura means that the Scripture is the final authority, not the only authority. It also was always understand that you had to have an authoritative interpretation of that authoritative document. That authoritative interpretation has always been given by Christ's Church.

What is to be believed regarding the faith of the Church? That which has been believed everywhere, always and by all (St. Vincent of Lerens). That is the faith of the Church Catholic which is most obviously stated in the three ecumenical creeds, and that principal is the basis for the Church's interpretation of God's Holy Writ. (by the way, Mathison's The Shape of Sola Scriptura is a good modern text on this topic.)

For my money, the Anglican view of the authority of Scripture and the authority of the Church to interpret it is the most Biblical and Catholic view of authority amongst any Church today. Unfortunately, most Anglicans in the States do not understand this doctrine and therefore, have a hard time applying it!!

Thanks for letting me chime in.

bfoos

 

[pmcleanj]

Greetings all.

...(followed by LOTS of good stuff)...

Thanks for letting me chime in.

bfoos

Wow! what a great response, beautifully explained, showing evidence of a solid theological foundation.

Post any time!

And feel free to tell us more about yourself -- I'm a fan already.

 

[bfoos]

Wow! what a great response, beautifully explained, showing evidence of a solid theological foundation.

Post any time!

And feel free to tell us more about yourself -- I'm a fan already.

Well, this was a gracious response. Many Thanks!

I'm not sure anyone else will care, but regarding more about myself, I'm an anglican priest from out here on the left coast of the US with a wife and two little ones. I run a school and parish. Essentially, I would define myself as a classical High Churchman. That means that I follow the doctrinal tradition in the last 500 years that is represented by the English Reformers (Cranmer and Ridley being key), the 17 century divines from Hooker to Laud, the non-jurors, etc.

I'm definitely not a low-churchman, but I am an evangelical. I don't usually refer to myself as an anglo-catholic, but I am a Catholic priest. I am an Anglican because I believe it is the best expression of Biblical Christianity around.

Hope that helps....

bfoos

 

[pmcleanj]

I am a Catholic priest. I am an Anglican because I believe it is the best expression of Biblical Christianity around.

(emphasis pmcleanj's)

And there in two sentences, you have summed up what it means, to me at least, to be Anglican ( with the exception of course that being a priest isn't a requirement )

You can speak for me! I'll just sit back in the pew now and cheer you on

 

[Rilian]

What is to be believed regarding the faith of the Church? That which has been believed everywhere, always and by all (St. Vincent of Lerens).

I think that is truly the first time I've ever seen that famous quote from the Commonitorium of St. Vincent of Lerins applied within the context of Anglicanism. Certainly a note of irony there.

 

[bfoos]

I think that is truly the first time I've ever seen that famous quote from the Commonitorium of St. Vincent of Lerins applied within the context of Anglicanism. Certainly a note of irony there.

It is ironic that Anglicanism is founded upon catholic orthodoxy and most of the American branch of Anglicanism is foundered upon the heterodoxy and heresy of modernity and post-modernity.

Classic Anglican theology and doctrine is all about St. Vincent's famous words. Cranmer's theology was shaped by the same. We could use some reformation about now, though....

 

[Rilian]

the American branch of Anglicanism is foundered upon the heterodoxy and heresy of modernity and post-modernity.

Quite so bfoos. I think this Anglican blog outlines it well - Breaking the captivity to Modernity.

 

[BAChristian]

bfoos...enjoy your stay...may your time here be a blessed one...

 

[PaladinValer]

It is ironic that Anglicanism is founded upon catholic orthodoxy and most of the American branch of Anglicanism is foundered upon the heterodoxy and heresy of modernity and post-modernity.

Classic Anglican theology and doctrine is all about St. Vincent's famous words. Cranmer's theology was shaped by the same. We could use some reformation about now, though....

Which Ecumenical Council denounced this?

 

[bfoos]

By this, I take it you mean modernity and post-modernity?

In response, I guess I am guilty of assuming too much. Modernity and post-modernity both have elements of heretical teaching--i.e. outside the bounds of the Creeds. Both arguably provide fodder for and/or foster some of the classical heresies.

For example: the rationalistic/enlightenment thought of modernity tends to place all important issues in the realm of the mind and as much as modern Christianity has picked up on this (and rationalistic/enlightenment thought is legion in the modern Church) it has tended to become gnostic.

Pax Christi

bfoos

 

[PaladinValer]

I consider myself a "progressive" (ie: a moderate or a liberal), so when you said "modernity" and "post-modernity," I thought you implied moderates and liberals. My apologies if you didn't, as I am quite orthodox in my belief in Scripture, Tradition, and Reason

 

[bfoos]

No apologies needed. This skins are a requirement for priests and mine is probably thicker than most. You consider yourself a moderate or liberal what?? If you are quite orthodox in your beliefs in Scripture, Tradition and Reason, then you must not be a moderate or liberal in the ecclesiastical realm, but rather a conservative.

Post-modernity is actually strangely conservative...or rather, has a conservative side to it as the things of the past are considered valuable, at least to a certain degree.

bfoos