Branch Theory

[lawndartboy]

Why is the branch theory rejected by EO and RC but not CofE?

 

[buzuxi02]

The CoE invented the branch theory. Infact they invented it about 300 years after they schismed from Rome in the 1800's. Originally the branch theory included 3 branches, the anglicans the romans and the eastern Orthodox, today they usually add the oriental Orthodox as well.

The early Church could never concieve of such a blasphemous concept. The Body of Christ is not divided. As scriptures teach, 'Not a bone of Him was broken'. Thus the Body of Christ which is His Church is not fragmented nor broken up into divisions.

 

[wayseer]

The CoE invented the branch theory. Infact they invented it about 300 years after they schismed from Rome in the 1800's.

By my calculations that would mean, according to you, that the CoE invented Branch Theology this century.

Besides that matter, I would be interested in any reference you might produce to support your thesis. As an Anglican I have never heard of the Anglican Church advocating Branch Theology. Maybe I missed something.

 

[Ignatius21]

By my calculations that would mean, according to you, that the CoE invented Branch Theology this century.

Besides that matter, I would be interested in any reference you might produce to support your thesis. As an Anglican I have never heard of the Anglican Church advocating Branch Theology. Maybe I missed something.

I'd say the math is a little off

Branch theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have discussed this before, actually, with an Anglican who called himself "Anglo-Catholic" or "High Anglican," whose views almost coincided completely with what you might call a slightly westernized Eastern Orthodoxy (had a particular fondness for Augustine). His views were that Anglicanism was indeed one "branch" of the ancient church (and in fact, the one closest to the beliefs of the Apostles) and that the Reformed/Lutheran/Evangelical influences in England caused great harm to the Anglican church by taking it too far from church tradition. He believed that the "Orthodox Church" included Anglicanism in its "true" form (how defined or measured, he didn't say), and as such he felt no need to consider joining either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. He believed Anglican orders were valid and likewise for the other "branches."

He speculated that Jesus' words in John 15 could be taken to support this, "I am the vine, you are the branches." Each "branch" was an apostle who founded a church which then continued as a "branch," and as he could trace the succession of Anglican bishops back to an apostle, he believed that Anglicanism was one of the "branches" spoken of there...I don't know if he was offering just his opinion (I think he was) or if he was presenting some actual element of the "branch theory."

 

[Mary of Bethany]

By my calculations that would mean, according to you, that the CoE invented Branch Theology this century.

Besides that matter, I would be interested in any reference you might produce to support your thesis. As an Anglican I have never heard of the Anglican Church advocating Branch Theology. Maybe I missed something.

I have no evidence, other than hearing that expression while in the Anglican Catholic Church.

Mary

 

[MKJ]

Branch theory was popular in certain types of Anglicanism, and was pretty much as described above. Essentially the idea was that different parts of the Church legitimately developed in different areas, with slightly different expressions. In that sense it is probably ok with EO theology. But they also maintain that these branches have become separated, but all remain part of the Church. So they would accept Catholic, Anglican, and EO all as "real" Churches, unfortunately in impaired communion.

THe idea is a little less popular, or perhaps slightly changed, these days. At the time the theory developed, all these groups really did have geographical regions where they were dominant. Now that is not so much the case, and so people don't quite see it that way - they generally do see that they are in competition as world-views. But many Anglicans would still say the ideal is for these groups to reconcile in a meaningful way, while maintaining their legitimate distinctive cultural expressions.

But a person who tended to believe in this might, for example, say that rather than moving EO churches into the UK, the appropriate thing would be to restore really British, Orthodox churches, with a British expression. Or to bring already existing Orthodox and Anglican and Roman churches into a correct relationship again.

The reason the Anglicans accept this is pretty much that they believe that it is possible for the Church Militant to appear to have parts which are impaired communion, while the EO doesn't and so would say it was impossible, or perhaps some might say that it is impossible to positively identify at what point these other groups cease to be part of the Church, and so they are very conservative.

But one might say that the interest in Western Rite Orthodoxy addresses some of the same concerns that branch theory does.

 

[Michael G]

I guess the Anglicans have forgotten the violence with which the Reformation was faught, especially in England? The Anglicans are a branch of Catholicism that less than 400 years ago fought to destroy the Catholic Church? Seems odd to me.

 

[MKJ]

I guess the Anglicans have forgotten the violence with which the Reformation was faught, especially in England? The Anglicans are a branch of Catholicism that less than 400 years ago fought to destroy the Catholic Church? Seems odd to me.

I'm not sure what you think is being forgotten by the branch theorists, in a way that would affect branch theory? I don't imagine anyone forgot the nastiness of the English Reformation, but I also don't know that characterizing it as an attempt to destroy the Church is really accurate.

The early Anglicans understood themselves essentially as part of the Catholic Church. Later on the Reformers wanted a Reformed Church, and a compromise was made, but the understanding was even then that the CofE was catholic, a continuation of what had come before.

The Anglicans that subscribed, or subscribe now, to this idea tend to think of the reformed aspect of Anglicanism as being the response to errors in the Roman Church, and a return to a more truly Catholic understanding. Although many also would say some influences of the Reformation would be better off dropped from Anglicanism.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

Branch theory was popular in certain types of Anglicanism, and was pretty much as described above. Essentially the idea was that different parts of the Church legitimately developed in different areas, with slightly different expressions. In that sense it is probably ok with EO theology. But they also maintain that these branches have become separated, but all remain part of the Church. So they would accept Catholic, Anglican, and EO all as "real" Churches, unfortunately in impaired communion.

THe idea is a little less popular, or perhaps slightly changed, these days. At the time the theory developed, all these groups really did have geographical regions where they were dominant. Now that is not so much the case, and so people don't quite see it that way - they generally do see that they are in competition as world-views. But many Anglicans would still say the ideal is for these groups to reconcile in a meaningful way, while maintaining their legitimate distinctive cultural expressions.

But a person who tended to believe in this might, for example, say that rather than moving EO churches into the UK, the appropriate thing would be to restore really British, Orthodox churches, with a British expression. Or to bring already existing Orthodox and Anglican and Roman churches into a correct relationship again.

The reason the Anglicans accept this is pretty much that they believe that it is possible for the Church Militant to appear to have parts which are impaired communion, while the EO doesn't and so would say it was impossible, or perhaps some might say that it is impossible to positively identify at what point these other groups cease to be part of the Church, and so they are very conservative.

But one might say that the interest in Western Rite Orthodoxy addresses some of the same concerns that branch theory does.

The bolded part would be the Orthodox way, but of course it doesn't happen overnight, as we are well aware of in America, Australia, Canada, etc.

I like this quote:
'Britain will only become Orthodox when she once again begins to venerate her Saints.' - St Arsenios of Cappadocia

And that is happening.

Mary

 

[MKJ]

The bolded part would be the Orthodox way, but of course it doesn't happen overnight, as we are well aware of in America, Australia, Canada, etc.

I like this quote:
'Britain will only become Orthodox when she once again begins to venerate her Saints.' - St Arsenios of Cappadocia

And that is happening.

Mary

THat's interesting you say that. My impression has been that this is actually somewhat controversial in the Orthodox world.

 

[Michael G]

I'm not sure what you think is being forgotten by the branch theorists, in a way that would affect branch theory? I don't imagine anyone forgot the nastiness of the English Reformation, but I also don't know that characterizing it as an attempt to destroy the Church is really accurate.

The early Anglicans understood themselves essentially as part of the Catholic Church. Later on the Reformers wanted a Reformed Church, and a compromise was made, but the understanding was even then that the CofE was catholic, a continuation of what had come before.

The Anglicans that subscribed, or subscribe now, to this idea tend to think of the reformed aspect of Anglicanism as being the response to errors in the Roman Church, and a return to a more truly Catholic understanding. Although many also would say some influences of the Reformation would be better off dropped from Anglicanism.

A response to the errors of the Catholic Church that included the pillaging and destruction of monasteries and brutal torture and death of people on both sides of the divide. My study of English history while earning my BA in European History tells me there was in deed an attempt on the hard core protestant side to destroy Catholicism in England. And now the Anglicans want to consider themselves part of the very Church they wanted rid of?

 

[MKJ]

A response to the errors of the Catholic Church that included the pillaging and destruction of monasteries and brutal torture and death of people on both sides of the divide. My study of English history while earning my BA in European History tells me there was in deed an attempt on the hard core protestant side to destroy Catholicism in England. And now the Anglicans want to consider themselves part of the very Church they wanted rid of?

This doesn't really seem to make sense unless you equate the Roman Church with the Catholic Church.

The monasteries were dissolved under Henry, who didn't have any patience for the Reformers. As far as he was concerned, the dissolution of the monasteries was not an attack against the Catholic Church - because the English Catholic Church was already in England. It was an attack on the political power of Rome, and a rude gesture to Rome, and a convenient solution to the problem of funds. Most of the Protestant influence on the CofE was under Elizabeth, later on.

I'm not sure what you mean by "and now", since the CofE under Henry was some time ago, and the Tractarians were around a while ago too. The idea of the CofE as Catholic is arguably older than the idea of it as Protestant, and it certainly isn't younger.

Yes, there were Reformers in England who had no appreciation for the idea of a Catholic Church, and tried to destroy it and the whole idea. They were unsuccessful - they either went to America (or elsewhere), or accepted the Elizabethan settlement.

 

[Michael G]

Regardless of the angle you take with the English Reformation, I find it amazing that Anglicans consider themselves Catholic?

The branch theory sounds like a very weak attempt at claiming something the Anglicans don't have: Apostolic succession.

 

[buzuxi02]

By my calculations that would mean, according to you, that the CoE invented Branch Theology this century.

Besides that matter, I would be interested in any reference you might produce to support your thesis. As an Anglican I have never heard of the Anglican Church advocating Branch Theology. Maybe I missed something.

Didnt the Anglicans schism in the early to mid 1500's? Meaning the branch theory was invented 300 years later. Regardless this branch theory which is basically the ecclesiology of the WCC (but inclusive of all its members) is a heresy. Any belief that the Body of Christ is fractured into subdivisions is false.

 

[Michael G]

This doesn't really seem to make sense unless you equate the Roman Church with the Catholic Church.

The Roman Church IS the Catholic Church. Yes there are the eastern rites, but most of them didn't even come into the Catholic Church (from the East) until the 17th C at the earliest...

 

[Livindesert]

Regardless of the angle you take with the English Reformation, I find it amazing that Anglicans consider themselves Catholic?

The branch theory sounds like a very weak attempt at claiming something the Anglicans don't have: Apostolic succession.

Didn't the EP valididate their Apostolic succession in the early 1900s?

 

[Michael G]

Didn't the EP valididate their Apostolic succession in the early 1900s?

No. The Anglicans do NOT have Apostolic succession. The head of their church is a monarch, not a bishop.

 

[wayseer]

Didnt the Anglicans schism in the early to mid 1500's? Meaning the branch theory was invented 300 years later. Regardless this branch theory which is basically the ecclesiology of the WCC (but inclusive of all its members) is a heresy. Any belief that the Body of Christ is fractured into subdivisions is false.

I was having a little play with your sentence construction. '300 years after 1800' - the subject of 'after' is 1800, not 1500. So 300 years 'after' 1800 = 2100. Sorry - small point.

Anglicans are really rather well insulted from all sort of mud that gets thrown at them from time to time - which makes Anglicanism quite appealing. It really doesn't have too many axes to grind.

 

[buzuxi02]

LOL , Oh ok. I guess branch theory wont be discovered till 2100. Now who invented the invisible church on earth theory?

 

[Livindesert]

No. The Anglicans do NOT have Apostolic succession. The head of their church is a monarch, not a bishop.

What is your opinion on this?

In the 20th century there have been a variety of positions taken by the various Eastern Orthodox Churches on the validity of Anglican orders. In 1922 the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized them as valid. [34] He wrote: "That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders." Succeeding judgments, however, have been more conflicting. The Eastern Orthodox churches require a totality of common teaching to recognize orders and in this broader view find ambiguities in Anglican teaching and practice problematic. Accordingly, in practice Anglican clergy who convert to Orthodoxy are treated as if they had not been ordained and must be ordained in the Eastern Orthodox communion as would a lay person.-wikipedia