As a Catholic looking in, do you guys ever feel trapped in the middle?

Discussion in 'Navigating Through Church Life' started by NextElement, Jun 16, 2014.

  1. NextElement

    NextElement New Member

    Posts:
    7
    Likes Received:
    8
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Roman Catholic
    Hello! I am a young Roman Catholic man from the United States. I am very interested in Christianity and Theology as a whole, and I have been researching the Anglican Communion and Episcopal Church here in the United States. I am actually planning on attending anEpiscopal mass next Sunday! That being said, I had a question for Anglicans that has been bugging me:

    Do you feel like you're caught in the middle? For me, when I look, the Anglican Communion seems to be liberal on some issues (gay and female ordination) and conservative on others (liturgy, presence in Eucharist). From an outside perspective, it appears like you have some traditionalist Anglicans who are disappointed in the liberal aspects of the Church and may be considering a move to Roman Catholicism. On the other end of the spectrum, it seems like there are ultra-liberal Episcopalians that may not really believe in Jesus or the Church, but are there for the cultural and community sense. Do you feel a constant pull between these two pressures, especially being surrounded by the more conservative RCs and more liberal non-denominational Christians?

    Has Anglican membership in Western countries shown this divide?

    Thanks!
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  2. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    724
    Likes Received:
    718
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    High-Church Laudian
    Hello NextElement.

    I am a recent convert to Anglicanism from Orthodoxy, so we have a lot in common. Yes, Anglicanism is quite diverse, and that was very difficult for me to process when I was first considering converting. I am in the ACNA, which is more traditional and conservative than the Episcopal Church. Personally, I would have a hard time joining the Episcopal Church for the reasons you mention, but I also have to deal with hyper-Calvinists in the ACNA, which is problematic for me.

    Fortunately not all members of the ACNA are Calvinists, and like Anglicanism historically, there are several streams in both the Episcopal Church and the ACNA theologically. As bad as the Episcopal Church is (in my opinion), there are still good parishes in it, and I hope you find one.

    It is a transition for me; when I was Orthodox I would have no problem telling a person what Orthodox Christians believe. If someone were to ask me today what Anglicans believe I would only be able to speak for myself. There is a large range of opinions among Anglicans. Of course most Anglicans think that what they believe is Anglicanism is the "real" Anglicanism, but even before the modernist and liberal revisions this diversity existed. There was never a time when all Anglicans believed exactly the same things; just read the history of the Church of England.

    All that being said, I find in Anglicanism a tradition that works for me, and I appreciate both the idea of it as being a Via Media, as well as the three-legged stool metaphor of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

    Peter
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  3. NextElement

    NextElement New Member

    Posts:
    7
    Likes Received:
    8
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Roman Catholic
    Thanks for your reply, Peter. I will be honest, I like the Anglican idea of the Eucharist being offered to all Christians, and a little more liberal stance on transubstantiation. To be honest, my main concerns are ordination of women and active homosexuals. I have nothing against these groups, I love them as humans, but there is a point where we have to look at Scripture and make tough decisions.

    That being said, does the Anglican Communion believe in Sola Scriptura? I would love to find an ACNA parish, but the only available parishes in my area are Episcopal, and although they are rather conservative, they are still under the governance of a local female bishop, and of course the bishop of the American Episcopal church is a woman.

    Advice?
     
    Kammi, Peteprint and Lowly Layman like this.
  4. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    724
    Likes Received:
    718
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    High-Church Laudian
    What area do you live in NextElement?

    I would not be in a diocese with a woman bishop, or attend a parish with a woman minister; I feel very strongly about that. I too love these groups, but I feel that scripture is clear on the matter of women's ordination and homosexuality. There are other options than the ACNA for more theological conservatives when no ACNA parish is nearby.
     
  5. NextElement

    NextElement New Member

    Posts:
    7
    Likes Received:
    8
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Roman Catholic
    As of right now I live near Indianapolis, Indiana. However, I will be moving to Lexington, Virginia in about three weeks for college. I've looked into Episcopal churches in both areas.
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  6. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    724
    Likes Received:
    718
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    High-Church Laudian
    NextElement and Lowly Layman like this.
  7. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    I'm on the Anglo-Catholic end of the Anglican spectrum. And, while I can only speak for myself, I see that as a far cry from the Roman church. While outwardly it may appear that we have much in common with the RCC, I believe the Communion is much more in tune with the oriental and eastern orthodox churches both in faith and order. But having said that, Anglicanism is not a bridge church, it's not the pit-stop between RCism and Presbyterianism. Those who view it that way, they do themselves and this faith a dis-service. Anglicanism is a unique form of Christianity and isn't "in the middle" of anything. In fact, I would suggest that it is its distance from the middle and its "insular" quality that has shielded it from much of the cultishness and extremism of the continental Reformation and Counter-reformation.

    Anglicanism is Reformed Catholicism. I think Lancelot Andrewes gives a good summary of what is Anglicanism's sources of doctrine: "One canon reduced to writing by God himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period – the centuries that is, before Constantine, and two after, determine the boundary of our faith." The Anglican reformers sought to return the Church of England to the deposit faith once delivered to the saints in the primitive church and to, as High Churchman would say, "weed the garden" of the medieval accretions and innovations of Rome. The result of their hard won reforms were the Book of Common Prayer which to give us a common expression of worship, the retained historic Episcopacy which gives us a godly common church order, the established 39 Articles which gives us a common confession, and the translated King James Bible which gives us a common witness and revelation. Certainly, there is a broadness to our Communion with a lot or room for following one's conscience. Sadly, in some provinces, that inclusiveness has been co-opted and manipulated to serve a liberal even secularist agenda. But that, historically, is not a hallmark of Anglicanism. And I hope it will soon pass.
    Some here will likely disagree with me, but I do not think that Anglicans have ever believed in the principle of Sola Scriptura, meaning "by scripture alone". Rather I would posit that Anglicans believe in Prima Scriptura, or "scripture above all". Scripture may not be the only source of authority to an Anglican, but it is the Ultimate and Sufficient source. The Articles speak thus: "Holy Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation". We read the Scripture in the light of Reason and Tradition, in accordance with Hooker's rule.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2014
  8. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    ps: welcome aboard NextElement. may God bless your time here
     
    highchurchman and Peteprint like this.
  9. NextElement

    NextElement New Member

    Posts:
    7
    Likes Received:
    8
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Roman Catholic
    Wow, thanks for the replies everyone! I may have to stop in and pay a visit to St. Paul's ACC in Lexington when I arrive!
     
    Peteprint likes this.
  10. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    724
    Likes Received:
    718
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    High-Church Laudian

    Dear Lowly,

    That is the view that I have as well regarding the Church. My heart is with the Caroline divines. I would have to disagree though with one thing that you mentioned: "The Anglican reformers sought to return the Church of England to the deposit of faith once delivered to the saints in the primitive church and to, as High Churchman would say, "weed the garden" of the medieval accretions and innovations of Rome."

    The weeds did need to be removed from the garden, but as far as I can tell Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer and some others, were closer to the Continental Reformers than the ancient Church, and were engaged in a major re-landscaping project. They desecrated churches, even breaking stained-glass widows, and replaced altars with communion tables. Thank God that Edward's reign didn't last any longer than it did, or they would have Calvinized the Church of England over time.

    The Elizabethan Settlement stabilized things somewhat, and the Caroline divines began the process of returning the church to its roots in the undivided Church, a movement that was set back by the civil war. You and I are on the same page and have the same vision of Anglicanism, but the early reformers were going too in their reforms after Henry VIII passed away. I can only imagine what the Church would have looked like if Cranmer and the others had retained power for another 10 years or so.

    Perhaps my use of the term "Via Media" was inaccurate, but unfortunately (from my perspective) there is still a strong and vocal Protestant voice to be found in Anglicanism that opposes the Anglo-Catholic position on a regular basis.
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  11. Spherelink

    Spherelink Active Member

    Posts:
    545
    Likes Received:
    246
    Religion:
    Unhinged SC Anglican
    That's what I have always understood SS to mean, in the anglican tradition. By advocating the normative principle we say that the church can teach affirmatively many doctrines not directly in Scripture, as long as they can be based upon Scripture.
     
    Peteprint likes this.
  12. Spherelink

    Spherelink Active Member

    Posts:
    545
    Likes Received:
    246
    Religion:
    Unhinged SC Anglican
    I think you may be projecting our modern chaotical landscape onto the past. Whenever I have found myself adrift in the sea of modern opinions, I've found comfort in the 39 articles and the prayerbook. I believe that's what they were intended for. The problems I think arise when we interpret our own formularies through the lens of other churches, and then the mind-games begin of guessing where and how our beliefs are like somebody else's. Instead I've found it helpful to erase all modern theology out of mind when reading the formularies (especially the articles). Our Reformers never quoted modern theologians as authority when formulating them, so, I think we are safe in ignoring modern theologians when reading them. In their pure pristine state the articles and the Prayerbook are incredibly worthwhile and holy works of the church, and I don't think any sincere unpartisan Christian (say, for example, any church fathers) could disagree with them.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2014
    Peteprint likes this.
  13. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    724
    Likes Received:
    718
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    High-Church Laudian
    That is a good point Spherelink.

    I am in the process of trying to get a better grasp of the Articles. They do seem to be written in an ambiguous manner to appeal to different shades of opinion, and I think that was intentional, since the original forty-two (adopted during the most Reformed period under Edward VI) were trimmed to thirty-nine after Elizabeth came to the throne, and the Lambeth Articles, which had been drawn up to clarify Anglican doctrine in a more Calvinist way were suppressed by the Queen.

    Elizabeth originally would not allow Article XXIX, which was added later. Obviously the Articles never satisfied every party in the Church, and there was the interference of the Crown involved, so it is difficult for me to take them as dogmatically as some do; their existence and structure went back and forth, as did the King's Book, the Bishop's Book, and Henry's Ten Articles. I can't base my theological beliefs on the whims of whoever was in power at a given moment in the 1500s.

    Cranmer promulgated the Ten Articles in 1536:

    1.That Holy Scriptures and the three Creeds are the basis and summary of a true Christian faith.

    2.That baptism conveys remission of sins and the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, and is absolutely necessary as well for children as adults.

    3.That penance consists of contrition, confession, and reformation, and is necessary to salvation.

    4.That the body and blood of Christ are really present in the elements of the eucharist

    5.That justification is remission of sin and reconciliation to God by the merits of Christ; but good works are necessary.

    6.That images are useful as remembrancers, but are not objects of worship.

    7.That saints are to be honored as examples of life, and as furthering our prayers.

    8.That saints may be invoked as intercessors, and their holydays observed.

    9.That ceremonies are to be observed for the sake of their mystical signification, and as conducive to devotion.

    10.That prayers for the dead are good and useful, but the efficacy of papal pardon, and of soul-masses offered at certain localities, is negatived.

    We have to ask ourselves; did he do this only because they were acceptable to Henry VIII, or at the time did he believe them? Did his views later change, and if so, would they have continued to evolve if Edward had not died?

    I see the formularies as more of a guide than as dogmatic statements, since they were constantly changing, and they have continued to be modified by the various provinces of the Communion over the years.
     
    MatthewOlson and Lowly Layman like this.
  14. Spherelink

    Spherelink Active Member

    Posts:
    545
    Likes Received:
    246
    Religion:
    Unhinged SC Anglican
    Putting aside Cranmer's life and times we can say that the church had adopted the articles in its own way, on its own merits, in 1562. Then they have remained, as they were then, for the last 450 years, unchanged, save for a few revisions by the Episcopal church which do not materially affect any substantial point (such as substituting a Monarch with the more generic Civil Magistrate). I doubt you'll be able to say that the Articles have always changed and therefore we are not bound to adhere to them. The church has adhered to them, unchanged in any substantial way, for almost half a millenium.

    NB. As a point on the good Archbishop, it is known that he had grown in his theology during his life. None of his writings prior to the accession of Edward VI are taken by scholars to be necessary upon his future theology.
     
  15. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    724
    Likes Received:
    718
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    High-Church Laudian
    Thank you Spherelink. I am happy to subscribe to the Articles, but I am still trying to figure out their meaning for myself. I can find any number of books and websites that interpret them in different ways. I am even thinking of writing a paper on them when I have the time since that will motivate me to do more research on the subject.

    P.S. I have been reading the King's Book and I like what I see so far.
     
  16. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    I am actually quite comfortable with both the 39 and the 10. And I think that if one does subscribe to sola scriptura, then one must concede that they are only guides rather than authoritative dogmatic statements in and of themselves.
     
    Peteprint likes this.
  17. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    724
    Likes Received:
    718
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    High-Church Laudian
    That is how I tend to look at them Lowly. I am interested in studying all of the early formularies in greater detail in the months ahead.
     
  18. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    724
    Likes Received:
    718
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    High-Church Laudian
  19. Spherelink

    Spherelink Active Member

    Posts:
    545
    Likes Received:
    246
    Religion:
    Unhinged SC Anglican
    I wonder how true that is, since we do subscribe to the Creed as authoritative and dogmatic.
     
  20. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    good point. But consider this, article 8 states that the creeds ought thoroughly to be believed "for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture." Thus, for the Anglican reformers, the creeds are only authoritative because, and only insofar as, they agree with scripture. The creeds can't be authoritative merely because they are products of the ancient church or ecumenical councils, since articles
    19 thru 21 teach us that neither have the assurance of infallibility. Both can and have erred, say the Articles, even with matters pertaining to the faith and things unto God. For the Articles, the Church is not the maker of doctrines, rather it's authority is limited to the role of witness and keeper of those doctrines found in Holy Writ. Of the councils, article 21 state that we are only bound to follow them under this circumstance: " Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture." The authority of the creeds, the councils, and even the church are systems of derived authority from God's word written, which is the source of ultimate authority (which is why I say it is more accurate to say Anglicans subscribe to Prima scriptura).
     
    Peteprint likes this.