Strange as all the Anglican congregations I've encountered and the one I'm an actual member of have been the opposite, welcoming to other denominations and willing participants at each others congregations. I'm a staunch evangelical in theological outlook so it may be different in more liberal Anglican churches. I don't think it would give anyone the idea that by taking communion at another church would in some way make them all alike, it would however show the diversity of worship that the "Church" has rather than let us all sit in our little bubble world of self appointed superiority where we think we are right and by default all the rest are wrong.
That's interesting, how & ever, as far as I can see traditional Anglicans, for some 1600 years, eschewed the privilege. During the Civil War, the emigres on the continent, didn't commune, as it were ., as far as the various diarists go, Anglicans for the most part refused the offer of inter communion from French protestants, as did the Non Jurors later, even refusing communion with conforming Anglicans! I was criticised for attending my Baptist sister's wedding! I didn't communicate, I was simply present. I can quite understand that you are correct in what you say about modern times, but then I put down our modern troubles within the Anglican Church to this lax behaviour and lack of Church discipline!
Interesting, it has brought back one memory of the time after leaving college when I was part of the ministry team of a Baptist Church in Cleveland, there was a meeting being held at one of the local Anglican churches and I recollect that the minister there wasn't very happy at taking part. Never quite understood why until now! However they were quite liberal doctrine wise if I remember correctly, yet after reading some of the comments here it makes sense. He was always aloof with an air of superiority, always seemed to look down on us for actually believing the scriptures to be true! Personally I believe the problems the Anglican Church has today is down to the failure of both leaders and church members to heed the message of the scriptures, which in turn has led to the church being blown by worldly whims instead of the strong guidance of the Holy Spirit. A return to biblical truth is needed to set us back on the path to the kingdom. Communing with other Bible believing Christians however I see as scripturally sound and a sign of a strong "Church" working together to further the kingdom. Where division is found, there is the adversary, sowing seeds of despair and allowing the Saints to loose faith and unity. May I ask why you were criticised for attending a family wedding? Also seems strange to have communion at a Baptist Wedding, it was never done at any wedding I attended as either an officiating member or as a guest, was it something that the wedding party had asked for? Must hunt out my ministers handbook to check things up!
Hello GB-UK. You wrote: "Personally I believe the problems the Anglican Church has today is down to the failure of both leaders and church members to heed the message of the scriptures, which in turn has led to the church being blown by worldly whims instead of the strong guidance of the Holy Spirit." If I may interject, I think we cannot underestimate the problems that have also been caused by state interference in the Church. Historically the bishops, who are the spiritual leaders of any Church, have always had to contend with Parliament and the Crown, a situation that simply should never have existed, one example being when Parliament vetoed the Prayer Book revisions in 1927 and 1928. Also, if the Church had decided against the consecration of women to the episcopate, the state in all likelihood would have intervened. I can't see the C of E returning to any sort of spiritual health until the chain that binds the Church to the state is formally broken.
The only problem with that of course being that the Anglican church was basically created by the crown and the state for the crown and the state. Though nowadays I don't believe either would hinder the church in the way they have done in the past. I do however think that there are benefits to being the established church even if they are diminishing.
If I remember rightly didn't the PM say that he wouldn't interfere in the outcome of any vote on the ordination of women bishops as it was an internal church matter?
That couldn't be more wrong: the church was created by God, and Anglicans are a branch of it. There can be only one church and if the Anglican one was "created by the crown," then it's a false church and you must never attend it. You've bought into the false attacks on your own branch of the catholic Church, perpetrated by those who hate her and would see her smeared and demonized.
I wouldn't disagree at all about breaking the ties with the State, apart from the later Reformation Monarchs, Eliza, James ,Charles Ist, S.& .M. none of them have been much Cop, as it were , but without Eliza and the Stuarts we would be either Roman or some other type of dissenter!.The present Establishment would not, in my opinion be any better. The present relationship between Church and Crown goes back to Constantine 312 A.D. and the British appeal stems from Saxon Times when it was truly thought that Church and state were one, the Church being the people at prayer.William the Butcher , 1066AD, changed that by introducing the Papacy!
Its a historical fact, if Henry had got his divorce then there would not have been a church of England. Did it then grow into a valid expression of Christianity, yes but that doesn't change the facts surrounding its birth.
"Thus abundantly hath the Church of England vindicated her reformation from all pretence of apostasy from the true, ancient Catholic and Apostolic Church...No new Church was set up; no new articles of faith brought in; no new Sacraments; no new order of Priesthood to minister in holy things... only the old were purged from impurities in doctrine, worship and practice. If we were the Catholic Church before, we are still so, and to better purpose." -William Cave, The Unity of the Catholic Church maintained in the Church of England
Spin of the day, people say a lot to justify why they do things and dress it all up in nice language. The political spin machine goes into action to convince people the of the legitimacy of what ever they are trying to do, in this case the establishment of an English church to meet the demands of the king to rid himself of his wife so as to wed another and provide a royal heir. Did God then go on to use that institution? Clearly the answer is yes, but that doesn't change how it in fact came into being.
I would invite you to go back beyond King Henry's marital issues. the church of england in england existed well before the pretensions of either the popes or the Tudors. the church is first and foremost apostolic, not established.
Here is some more info on this subject from Charles Moore in the book he co-wrote "The Church in Crisis" I think the general gist of the article is that MP's think they are more in touch with the "man in the Pew" than the general Synod.
That may be so but it was the events surrounding the kings marital issues that brought about the separation of what was the Catholic church in England and its transformation into what is the Anglican church we have today through the acts of supremacy enacted by parliament. With the second act basically being the official establishing act for the formation of the Anglican church in England.
you are repeating what non-Anglicans historical have said. The proper Anglican position is that it is a fully catholic Church which was there before the Reformation. You cannot revise our historical opinion just by repeating something enough times. If you claim to be Anglican, then learn the Anglican view.
i certainly appreciate your sentiments brother GB. i have felt that way at one time myself. but i have learned more about the english reformation as well as the pre-tridentine roman church and have learned that the history i was taught was all wrong. henry, for whatever reason, decided to treat the bishop of rome as juat that, the bishop of Rome, not England. Not the vicar of christ. Not the spiritual emperor of all Christendom. It was not until much later on that Rome severed the ties the CofE. Anglicans never left the Catholic faith just reformed it to its original glory.
here is an article on this issues: http://conciliaranglican.com/2014/07/30/ask-an-anglican-are-anglicans-schismatics/
Dear Friend, The Establishment of the Church as the Church in this country stems from Constantine, it happened not only in Britain, but throughout the Roman Empire. It is mentioned in Baeda's History as the Ecclesia Anglicana, or some such. That was approx. 750 AD. In 1215, the Ecclesia Anglicana was again mentioned this time in the Magna Carta. During the Middle Ages, for common use in this country it was the Church and even in the last century the term, 'The Church,' was used in conversation to refer to the ,'Church in England. How&Ever for correspondence abroad the term, or some such , was 'Seinte Eglise Dengleterre ,'. The Holy Church of England, or in England. When in 1570, the adherents of the papacy went into schism there was seen to be a split in the Church and the followers of Rome, took the name ,'Papist', because they followed the Roman Bishop and his new church of Trent. Anglicana simply took the old term Anglican whilst Rome tried like the devil, to get rid of the name papist, having woken up to the fact, it highlighted their abandonment of Catholic responsibility, i.e. their bishops giving up their authority to the papacy.Much later in the next century. The relationship of the Catholic Church in England, to the state was reflected in all European Countries. The Pope, in his position as King, or Governor of much of Northern Italy was Head of the Church, Just as Calvin became head in Geneva, or the Presbyterians in Scotia threw out Mary and established a dictatorship! Charles Ist, K.M. died to preserve the Church! But he was loser in a longer struggle between King & Parliament for who controlled the State? There can only be one winner! Charles fought on two fronts and lost.
Yes it was fully Catholic before the reformation, fully Roman Catholic. With the split from Rome we see the gradual transformation of the English church into the Anglican church of today.