/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>782691

OP here, obviously I have nothing to do with Anglicans but afaik Her Majesty is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England making her the highest authority technically.

But like basically any sot of authority that the monarch has in the UK it's largely symbolic.

So…. maybe?

Anglicans are mostly either dying off, or leaving the Church. The ones leaving are either low church anglicans going to evangelical churches, or high church anglicans going to the catholic church.

No there's really no justification for being an anglican. The reason it exists is because for a large portion of english history, it was illegal to be anything other than anglican.

High Anglican convert to Orthodoxy.

Anyone who stays in Anglicanism is fooling themselves, they had 400 years to be tested and it got burnt up in the flames. Face it, Anglicanism lost its apostolicity and cannot claim to be a true Church.

>>782696

>>782729

What is this high church / low church meme?

Is Orthodoxy growing in England?

>>782841

High church means you embrace the Catholic side of Anglican liturgy.

Low Church means you tend to shy away from that and prefer evangelical protestant side.

>>782729

They have one great legacy. The massive collection of well translated texts (KJV, along with many Church fathers and Pseudipigrapha). The Orthodox church still benefit from all of this. Not as much the others, I guess.

>>782689

I'm not Anglican, but I've been looking into the ACNA(one of the branches of the Anglican Church that's free from faggotry) for awhile so I know a little about it. The main draw for me personally is that it still upholds a great deal of Christian tradition without falling into all of the doctrinal errors that Catholic and Orthodox churches have. While the Church of England and the Episcopal church may have gone to the other extreme and fallen into modern degeneracy, there are still many forms of Anglicanism that are able to walk the tightrope between the two pits quite well, such as the ANCA.

Also, the notion that the Anglican Church exists only because Henry VIII wanted a divorce isn't correct. The Church of England may have initially broken away from the Roman Catholic Church over matters of jurisdiction, it later became doctrinal as well as Reformed theology began to spread among the English clergy thanks to the freedom from persecution that the split from Rome allowed for.

I do find the the Episcopalian thing pretty funny. What do you do when you think the Church of England is divinely guided but your country declares independence?

>>782920

Come home to Rome anon

>>782920

Take care Anon, yours is a hard situation but your intentions are noble.

>>782940

No one is denying that it's own theology didn't develop later on but the split itself was 100% socio-political and was initiated by Henry so I don't see what's your point here when you yourself just agreed to that conclusion by saying theological developments are a later thing.

>>782940

>>783060

in addition to "socio-political history", it's a matter of fact that Lutherans and Zuinglian's were in Britain trying to buy off the King (one of the machinations was getting Henry VIII to marry a German Prot. Princess), it's easy to see that Anglican theology were swayed by sects rather than anything organic or " thanks to the freedom from persecution that the split from Rome allowed for"

>>783122

That I agree on, it's really aesthetic_native_faith.jpg, it's incredibly British too, it might as well be the native faith given how national it is in it's nature.

>>782689

High church Anglican.

>what's the draw to the Church of England

I'm drawn to God and…

>how come one can consider it the legitimate Church of Christ

The Anglican church has valid apostolic succession and is a 'living church' thanks to the Holy Spirit.

>Do people adhere to it just out of a sense of comfort?

I don't. Some might.

>Is there a sort of "national/native faith" draw to it?

This element was present among some but I doubt it's so relevant anymore but I do have that sense a little bit.

>What are your thoughts on recent developments in the Church of England?

Horrifying. We must be in the worst shape of any church. It's at the point where I'm in despair sometimes. I can't even go to a lot of Anglican churches simply because they have women larping as priests. I have an understanding of sacraments that's more in line with Catholicism and Orthodoxy than, say, evangelicals and if women don't make valid priests then their sacraments aren't valid either. I fear that female bishops will become normalised in my country (not USA) and start 'ordaining' clergy at which point we'll need a register just to know whose orders are valid. Or else we'll lose succession forever. I know I'm 50 years too late for this issue. My excuse was I wasn't alive in the 70s.

>are there doctrinal differences between the RCC and Anglicanism that evolved over time

I don't want to presume to know how doctrine works in Catholicism but haven't there been plenty of things that became doctrinal since the Reformation? There have been differences since the beginning anyway. Obviously we don't have a pope. Mostly Anglicans have a variety of beliefs on things that are considered 'non essential' and this is really where the differences lie. Most Catholic/Orthodox beliefs are allowed to be held by Anglicans. For example, Anglicans are supposed to believe that holy communion/the eucharist is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace" but Anglicans are allowed to hold a variety of beliefs on what "this is my body" means as long as we believe that it involves a real bestowal of grace. As far as I'm aware, pure memorialism isn't condoned but catechesis is so poor in Anglican churches that I wouldn't be surprised at anything. There are also parishes that I've been to that are far more evangelical than they should be to still call themselves Anglican. Basically the biggest difference is that the Anglican church places fewer doctrinal demands on the laity or that's how I understand it.

>>782691

>Do you Anglicans do it out of loyalty to the crown?

No. I've never heard anyone say this.

>the crown is the supreme pope of the CoE

False. The crown was made the governor of the church specifically because Elizabeth I could not as a woman be the head of the church. We have no pope. I keep hearing this from Catholics all the time. Here's a brief history. Henry VIII (ho had been previously given the title 'Defender of the Faith') has a spat with the pope and breaks away. Next king is Edward VI who's a teenager and has hard line reformer advisors. He doesn't last long though and dies of illness. Mary I is next who immediately bring England back under the pope. She burns so many people at the stake, she gets the nickname 'Bloody Mary' but she dies after about four years. Finally comes Elizabeth I who inherits a country torn apart by this whole situation. She makes a sort of a compromise in the name of stability and tells the hard line Puritans to winnie the pooh off. Most importantly she lives long enough for most people to get used to it. This is exactly why the CoE has fewer essential doctrines.

And now for the question you didn't ask.

>Why am I still an Anglican?

I look around and I see the many of same problems in other churches. You guys might not be as bad as we are but it's still there. I don't believe that running away will fix anything. Modernism will spread. There's no place to hide, we can only fight back. I still hope and pray that God will preserve us through this trial. Unfortunately, I don't know what I can do to help.

I'm not a Catholic for the simple reason that I don't believe the bishop of Rome has all the authority he claims he does. I'm not Eastern Orthodox for reasons that perhaps aren't as good. It seems quite alien to me and there's also the consideration that I don't live in a country where Orthodox churches are widely available. Also I don't know as much about it and the few churches I've walked past have never been open like Catholic and High Anglican churches are.

>>783128

OP here, thanks a lot for the detailed answer friend may your faith stay strong.

What are your thoughts on Henry VIII if I might ask?

Also as an Orthodox inquirer in a Euro country that has less than 10 churches I would say it's definitely worth a look at the very least just purely from a theological standpoint, it's not an ethnic cult really, pick up the Orthodox Study Bible and browse online a bit if you're interested and have the time friend, take care.

>>783132

He had less than admirable reasons for his actions. He's not very important for Anglicanism though. A lot of people seem to believe that he was some kind of founding figure like Luther was for Lutheranism but it's not the case.

One of my old churches invited an Orthodox priest to talk about Marian tradition in Orthodoxy after mass. That's about been my only exposure other than reading online.

>>783153

Well I certainly never thought he was viewed as the George Washington of the C of E or something like that so good to have that reinforced.

Inviting a priest from an other denomination to hold a talk seems weird but I hope he wasn't one of those Heterodox GOARCH kind of priests.

>>782691

Anglican here. The monarch has a symbolic role in the CofE. She cant change doctrine but she is used a lot in high chuch theology. When we eventually rejoin Rome id like the British monarchy to have their place respected as part of the Anglican Patrimony.

>>78268

I'm a High Church Anglican and i do believe that the Church of England is part of the legitimate body of Christ. We have valid apostolic succession (apart from the few """"bishops"""" who are w8men). I adhere to Anglicanism because it is /aesthetic/ and because i was raised Anglican. There is definitely a nationalist element to it but its a distinctly English Expression of nationalism. We call it High-Toryism, and its a reason the CofE is known as the Tory party at prayer, upholding values of God, King and country in an increasingly secular Britain. For example have a read about the Society of King Charles the Martyr. In quite lucky to live rurally but everyone I know is universally opposed to the inner city plebs ruining our national inheritance. As far as theology goes I have to confess i'm ignorant. I know in Anglicanism the Eucharist is professed to be the (literal) body and blood of Christ despite the 39 articles but its somehow different to transubstantiation?

>>783380

>When we eventually rejoin Rome

Do you think that's still possible?

With the sucession problems(both Rome's objection, and the new women bishops), the high/low church divide, and a ton of other problems, i frankly don't see that happening.

t.orthodox

>>783413

Fairly likely i'd say. As far as timescales go however this could be 40-50 years away. The only reason the CofE exists is because it is the national church. When you had young Anglican seminarians being asked whether they were Catholic or Protestant they would reply "Established". Once you remove this vital aspect of the church there is no reason for it to exist, lest we become 'just another' protestant denomination something I think Anglicans would recoil in horror at the thought of (more so than popery, a phobia which has almost died out). Disestablishment is coming, i don't know when but I know the reaction will be fierce. I reckon there will be massive pressure to re-join Rome under the ordinate from the Catholic/High Church wing which has resisted modernisation fairly well. But you are right, it will be quite a job trying to close Pandora's box. Obviously I cannot see the evangelicals agreeing to join so a schism is likely but I honestly don't see the pope rejecting Churches that are quite often (owing to novus ordo and other liturgical protestantism) more Catholic than the Catholics.

>>783157

Can you explain more about GOARCH heterodoxy? Is this about ecumenism which I've heard is seen as a problem?

>>783454

I can see the high churches and evangelical churches splitting up as the broad churches die out. What makes you think there would be such a desire to join Rome at this point though? All the divisions currently between us would still be there.

>>783748

Sure, I'm 783157 in case I had an ID change.

The GOARCH stands for Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Of America, they do promote ecumenism to some extent but that's not the foremost issue with them.

Those under GOARCH are Americans of course, and they're infamous for being very liberal and badly catechized, if you encountered those Orthodox statistics being posted all the time as an argument here these are the kind of people they are asking.

When I mean GOARCH kind of I mean basically anyone like GOARCH laity, badly catechized, way too liberal and someone who often expresses Heterodox views aka, views that aren't in line with the Orthodox Church's views.

>>783991

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261908/Hes-future-Defender-Faith--does-Prince-William-church-handful-times-year.html

It doesn't look good either. He's a mere cultural christian.

>>783954

It would be rather strange if we didn't believe our clergy were validly ordained. One might ask what on earth we're doing in that case. The response to Leo XIII by the archbishops of Canterbury and York shows pretty clearly that there was no doubt over the validity of Anglican orders. If you're interested, you can read it at the following link.

http://anglicanhistory.org/orders/saepius.pdf

My purpose in bringing this up is not so much to argue details about the form and intention in consecration but to demonstrate that co-consecration with Old Catholic bishops is another matter entirely and was not done because we suddenly got cold feet about our apostolic claim. In fact is was done decades after Apostolicae Curae was issued and, more importantly, after Old Catholics determined for themselves that our orders were valid. This was done as part of a reconciliation process that began prior to AC.

But regarding your last sentence, it is, as I said, a fear that certainty will turn to uncertainty. I think we will get through it by the grace of God since the gates of hell will ultimately not prevail against the church but that doesn't mean we aren't in for a very rough time in the meantime. It's probably going to get worse before it gets better.

>>784532

>I've joined the one true faith, Independent fundamentalist KJV only Baptist.

So, you left your church to join the thrice-removed offshots of anglicanism?

>>784541

Behold, the mind of a person who gets their theology and Church history from 8ch infographs.

>>784590

>the joke

>your head