Anglican/Episcopalian vs Methodist

[boswd]

All of that was illegal in the Church of England until sometime in the 19th Century.

If you want to be authentically Anglican in it purest 39 article sense then burn your vestiments, melt your gold, break your stained glass windows, whitewash your walls, and turn the table to face north.

What we today call Anglo-Catholic is entirely inconsistent with the notion of Anglicanism as it existed from the time of Cranmer. In earlier times you would have been executed for this.

might as well just become Baptist

 

[Albion]

All of that was illegal in the Church of England until sometime in the 19th Century.

If you want to be authentically Anglican in it purest 39 article sense then burn your vestiments, melt your gold, break your stained glass windows, whitewash your walls, and turn the table to face north.

"North enders" are 'neither here nor there' with me. The original Anglo-Catholics were North enders, and the church you are desirous of joining places its altars so that the congregation can see "the action"-- the same thinking that produced Anglican services with the officiant standing at the North side of the table.

And there never was a time when vestments were not a part of Anglican worship. In short, there's a lot here that doesn't seem to me to add up, meaning that any additional information or specifics you would care to give would be welcome.

 

[Secundulus]

It is from JRH Moorman's book, A History of the English Church. Here is an excerpt from pg 185.

The year 1550 opened with an Act against Books and Images, which led to further iconoclasm in the parish churches. Again the church wardens’ accounts reveal the extent of the damage, for at Great St. Mary’s in Cambridge there is a record in this year of a big sale of plate and vestments which denuded the church of many of its rich treasures. Ridley now succeeded Bonner as Bishop of London and immediately issued injunctions to his clergy to remove all stone altars from their churches, while the priest is not to counterfeit popish mass in kissing the Lord’s board, washing his fingers after the Gospel shifting the book from one place to another, licking the chalice . . . showing the Sacrament openly before the distribution, ringing sacring bell or setting any light upon the altar’; and Ridley himself commanded the lights on the altar at S. Paul’s to be put out before he would enter the choir. Meanwhile John Hooper, ‘the father of nonconformity’, was causing considerable difficulties for, having been appointed Bishop of Gloucester, he had refused to wear a surplus and cope at his consecration, declaring that he would countenance no ceremonies but such as could be justified by the New Testament.
​

 

[Secundulus]

From the same book, pg 186.

Copes and Eucharistic Vestaments were made illegal by the gov't in 1553.

and from the same page.

The Churches were denuded to an extent not seen since the Viking raids.

 

[Albion]

It is from JRH Moorman's book, A History of the English Church. Here is an excerpt from pg 185.

The year 1550 opened with an Act against Books and Images, which led to further iconoclasm in the parish churches. Again the church wardens’ accounts reveal the extent of the damage, for at Great St. Mary’s in Cambridge there is a record in this year of a big sale of plate and vestments which denuded the church of many of its rich treasures. Ridley now succeeded Bonner as Bishop of London and immediately issued injunctions to his clergy to remove all stone altars from their churches, while the priest is not to counterfeit popish mass in kissing the Lord’s board, washing his fingers after the Gospel shifting the book from one place to another, licking the chalice . . . showing the Sacrament openly before the distribution, ringing sacring bell or setting any light upon the altar’; and Ridley himself commanded the lights on the altar at S. Paul’s to be put out before he would enter the choir. Meanwhile John Hooper, ‘the father of nonconformity’, was causing considerable difficulties for, having been appointed Bishop of Gloucester, he had refused to wear a surplus and cope at his consecration, declaring that he would countenance no ceremonies but such as could be justified by the New Testament.
​

OK, I am comfortable with all of that, but I don't see anything there about "authentic" or 39 Articles Anglicanism requiring
whitewashed walls, allowing no vestments at all, melting your gold, or etc.

You seem to have gone beyond what Moorman reported.

 

[Secundulus]

pg 182.

. . . the progressives, filled with iconoclastic zeal, steadily and systematically began the spoilation of the parish Churches. . . . In every parish Church the country treasures of the past were taken out and men gave a few pounds for works of art which the Victoria and Albert Museum would now give many thousands of pounds to recover.

 

[Secundulus]

Whitewash:

Here is an example from an English Church's website. Black Bourton Church, England


Black Bourton's parish church was built in a Transitional style at the end of the 12th century, with wall paintings and some minor remodeling done the late 13th century.

The murals were whitewashed after the Reformation and remained hidden until a Victorian vicar, Canon James Lupton, uncovered and preserved them in 1866. But while he was away in London, his curate and a churchwarden covered them with whitewash again.

The vicar was furious, but the paintings remained covered until E.W. Tristram uncovered them again in 1932. Their long existence beneath whitewash accounts for their preservation, although they are still quite faded and patchy in some areas.

 

[Albion]

pg 182.

. . . the progressives, filled with iconoclastic zeal, steadily and systematically began the spoilation of the parish Churches. . . . In every parish Church the country treasures of the past were taken out and men gave a few pounds for works of art which the Victoria and Albert Museum would now give many thousands of pounds to recover.

and that doesn't say what you did, either.

Whitewash:

Here is an example from an English Church's website. Black Bourton Church, England


Black Bourton's parish church was built in a Transitional style at the end of the 12th century, with wall paintings and some minor remodeling done the late 13th century.

The murals were whitewashed after the Reformation and remained hidden until a Victorian vicar, Canon James Lupton, uncovered and preserved them in 1866. But while he was away in London, his curate and a churchwarden covered them with whitewash again.

The vicar was furious, but the paintings remained covered until E.W. Tristram uncovered them again in 1932. Their long existence beneath whitewash accounts for their preservation, although they are still quite faded and patchy in some areas.

Here's the essence of my objection, Secundulus. You claimed that "authentic (i.e. Prayerbook) Anglicanism" was X. Some of what you claimed as the church's norm isn't apparently true at all. You wouldn't have to burn your vestments, for example, although it would be right to say that wearing the typical Roman vestments was not standard.

But worse, what you are pointing to with these excerpts are abberations that are on record. They are what overzealous mobs did or individuals brought about in this parish or that one--NOT what the Church stood for, did, required, or was characterized by. The idea that to be an "authentic Anglican" you'd have to do all that you said, or even part of it, is just not true.

 

[Albion]

From the same book, pg 186.

Copes and Eucharistic Vestaments were made illegal by the gov't in 1553.

and from the same page.

Surplices, Cassocks, and stoles are just as much "vestments" as those typically Roman Catholic vestments.

The Churches were denuded to an extent not seen since the Viking raids.

Why so? And was it the law? You cited the law in making the charge about vestments, so what was the law, exactly requiring denuded churches? Don't you see that the church passed through a violent period in which many bad things occurred temporarily and in a spotty fashion but that this does not represent what you said--that to be an "authentic Anglican" you'd have to adopt all the worst of these mistakes?

 

[ebia]

...this does not represent what you said--that to be an "authentic Anglican" you'd have to adopt all the worst of these mistakes?

Unless Anglicanism is defined by its mistakes

 

[Secundulus]

Surplices, Cassocks, and stoles are just as much "vestments" as those typically Roman Catholic vestments.

I agree. The point I was trying to make, albiet clumsily, is that what is today seen as Anglo-Catholicism, or Affirming Catholicism, or maybe by a few other names, (The majority today) is by the standards of Reformation Anglicanism a recent development whose practice in earlier years would have gotten one jailed, or worse. This is important insofar as the Church is liturgical and the way the Church worships reflects its beliefs.

 

[Timothy]

"North enders" are 'neither here nor there' with me. The original Anglo-Catholics were North enders, and the church you are desirous of joining places its altars so that the congregation can see "the action"-- the same thinking that produced Anglican services with the officiant standing at the North side of the table.

It's different theology, though. Liturgically correct north-enders, as I understand it, were at the north end of a standard east-facing altar... thus facing half-towards Christ and half-towards the congregation, thus emphasising Christ as the Chief Celebrant at His Table, rather than the Catholic pro-populus position which emphasises the celebrant as representing Christ.

 

[ContraMundum]

All of that was illegal in the Church of England until sometime in the 19th Century.

If you want to be authentically Anglican in it purest 39 article sense then burn your vestiments, melt your gold, break your stained glass windows, whitewash your walls, and turn the table to face north.

The Articles don't make such assertions, and you know it.

What we today call Anglo-Catholic is entirely inconsistent with the notion of Anglicanism as it existed from the time of Cranmer. In earlier times you would have been executed for this.

You should read up a little on that before you say such things. Anglo-Catholicism changes with the whims of the public just like the RC liturgy. Let's get real here- liturgy changes with the times- that's a simple fact of history, consistant in all traditions throughout all ages. On this basis alone, liturgical change could be regarded as part and parcel of the Catholic Faith.

 

[ContraMundum]

and the church you are desirous of joining places its altars so that the congregation can see "the action"--

AKA - the "can I take your order sir? Ummm hmm....yes....would you like wine with your host? Because we don't usually do that, and it's extra" altar position.

 

[Secundulus]

The fact that many Anglo-Catholic Churches have a tabernacle on the altar and lift up the wine and bread during the Prayer of Consecration is contrary to the 28th article and demonstrates a different understanding of what the sacrament becomes. This is more than a simple change of liturgy. It is a change of belief.

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

​

 

[Healed_IHS]

There is not one thing wrong with those who wish to worship in a high church setting with smells and bells. Those who insist that their "low" church setting is the only genuine setting are guilty of participating in holier than thou thinking.

 

[Albion]

It's different theology, though. Liturgically correct north-enders, as I understand it, were at the north end of a standard east-facing altar... thus facing half-towards Christ and half-towards the congregation, thus emphasising Christ as the Chief Celebrant at His Table, rather than the Catholic pro-populus position which emphasises the celebrant as representing Christ.

Well, that was intended as a quick comment, but what I know of the details runs something like this. The Reformation-era north-enders (a colloquialism) celebrated at an altar set up in the aisle so that all the action could be seen by the congregation. This proved to be very confining. Later on--including for those presbyters who do it this way still today--the altar is in its usual position but the officiant operates from the north side of it. This is for the same reason, though. The presbyter is not to turn his back on the congregation.

What the so-called liturgical reformers of the last two generations did was to have the priest face the congregation from behind the altar in the mistaken notion that this is how it was done in Apostolic times. That theory has since been shown to be inaccurate, but of course the Roman Church still does it this way.

 

[Albion]

There is not one thing wrong with those who wish to worship in a high church setting with smells and bells. Those who insist that their "low" church setting is the only genuine setting are guilty of participating in holier than thou thinking.

If you were reading the earlier posts, you know that it was a criticism of low church ritual that started us off, not the other way around.

I don't know of anything that can be called wrong with low church services, so long as the rubrics of the BCP are followed. But a lot of high church worship utilizes additions and subtractions to the BCP and can run the risk of having so much pageantry as to focus the congregation's attention on either the priest himself or on unsound doctrine. Those would be, it is often remarked, real wrongs.

 

[Albion]

I agree. The point I was trying to make, albiet clumsily, is that what is today seen as Anglo-Catholicism, or Affirming Catholicism, or maybe by a few other names, (The majority today) is by the standards of Reformation Anglicanism a recent development whose practice in earlier years would have gotten one jailed, or worse.

Yes, that's true.

This is important insofar as the Church is liturgical and the way the Church worships reflects its beliefs.

I'm not sure I follow that completely. The church is liturgical whether we worship in a typically high church way or a low church way. The way the liturgy is tinkered with does, yes, reflect its beliefs, but the particulars here make all the difference. I think you oppose some because they squelch certain doctrinal implications while I'd applaud the same ones for the same reason.

 

[Secundulus]

I'm not sure I follow that completely. The church is liturgical whether we worship in a typically high church way or a low church way. The way the liturgy is tinkered with does, yes, reflect its beliefs, but the particulars here make all the difference. I think you oppose some because they squelch certain doctrinal implications while I'd applaud the same ones for the same reason.

I wasn't really trying to oppose or confirm here as I didn't think it the proper place to start a debate over theology. I am only saying that High Church liturgy and accouterments reflect certain beliefs that cannot be reconciled to the 39 articles.