High Anglican and Catholic Differences and Similarities

[Albion]

Were they really?

FWIW, I don't think that they actually were what we'd call High Church.

Now I guess we'll have to ask for specifics.

 

[Destiny2015]

Are there Methodist congregations out there today somewhere where they are actually like high-church Anglicans with billowing clouds of incense and the like?

Methodist here, and that's quite unlikely. As someone who's lived all over the country, though, I do believe it's location-dependent. The upper Midwest UMC church I grew up in was nearly indistinguishable from the Episcopal church I attend now - minus quarterly communion. Both UMC congregations in my current area bill themselves as "traditional" but seem like what I would imagine a Baptist church to be. No vestments, no UM hymnals in the pews, sit for the Gospel, and I wouldn't be surprised if they have a memorial view of communion, although I can say that is contrary to the official teaching. The immediate previous UMC church I attended, about 500 miles away, has one service that is much closer to the liturgical UMC, but it was lightly attended.

 

[Mockingbird0]

The Wesley brothers, the founders of Methodism, were high-church Anglicans

Were they really? What in the world happen to the Methodist church in the in the United States then? … I thought John Wesley was all about taking the services out of the churches and into the workers in the fields and the factories and stuff, which seems to imply an informal cast to things, relative to high-church Anglican worship.

The Wesley brothers were raised in the high-church tradition by their high-churchman father. John Wesley (and Charles, so far as I know) always had a view of church and sacrament that were in agreement with high-church theology. (Only when it was clear that the bishops would not support him did John begin appointing elders for the Methodists on his own.) For much of his career, Wesley taught his followers that they were to attend their parish churches and receive the sacraments there. In practice, however, the Methodists ignored this part of Wesley's teaching and became non-conformists.

 

[Albion]

The Wesley brothers were raised in the high-church tradition by their high-churchman father. John Wesley (and Charles, so far as I know) always had a view of church and sacrament that were in agreement with high-church theology. Wesley taught his followers that they were to attend their parish churches and receive the sacraments there.

That, however, doesn't address the issue that was in question ('billowing clouds of incense and the like'). In other words, were the Wesleys "ritualists" (or cermonialists) in the modern sense of the term "High Church?" I don't think so, but I am not familiar with how their father saw things.

 

[Mockingbird0]

So basically High Church Anglicans favor a "higher" Liturgy...?

It is a common mistake to confuse the high-church position with an appetite for ceremonialism. High-church is a theological position about how much weight to place on church tradition. It has its roots in Richard Hooker's defense of the Prayer Book, though the term "high church" was not used until much later.

Ceremonialism is a possible corollary to the high-church position, but not a necessary one. High-church worship in 1710 (the year a London mob shouted "High church and Sacheverell!") would have been relatively unadorned, but it was still high-church. Now, as then, high-church worship need not be ceremonious.

 

[Albion]

It is a common mistake to confuse the high-church position with an appetite for ceremonialism. High-church is a theological position about how much weight to place on church tradition. It has its roots in Richard Hooker's defense of the Prayer Book, though the term "high church" was not used until much later.

Ceremonialism is a possible corollary to the high-church position, but not a necessary one. High-church worship in 1710 (the year a London mob shouted "High church and Sacheverell!") would have been relatively unadorned, but it was still high-church. Now, as then, high-church worship need not be ceremonious.

Just the opposite of what the words mean today.

Be that as it may, however, the question that was asked concerned the Wesleys and ceremonialism.

 

[Liberasit]

It is a common mistake to confuse the high-church position with an appetite for ceremonialism. High-church is a theological position about how much weight to place on church tradition. It has its roots in Richard Hooker's defense of the Prayer Book, though the term "high church" was not used until much later.

I find myself disagreeing with this assessment.

Anglicanism has a diversity of worship styles, separate from a diversity of churchmanship.

Worship style can be low --> high, and churchmanship evangelical, broad, catholic (scripture, reason, tradition). While there is a strong correlation between churchmanship and worship style, it is far from 100%. You will find evangelical fellowships that are halfway up the candle, as well as catholic fellowships forgoing some of the trappings.

Big fellowships, like the one I belong to, will inevitably have more than one worship style under one churchmanship. We are evangelical with low to middle worship style depending on the congregation. On a given Sunday, we will have two traditional services, and two modern ones. They will all have the same teaching, but they will appear different. The vicar will start off in robes, remove them but keep the dog collar, and then simply an open necked shirt. We will have a robed choir in one service, and a band in the others. The verger will be busy in two of the services, and sit back in the others. The language changes as we move from one service to another.