Giddings no confidence motion overturned...

I believe you are right Celtic1. A number of people I know including myself are conservative in our thinking regarding how we worship and we adhere mostly to the tradition of the old Church of England, but find no biblical reason why women of today cannot be members of the clergy.

 

Thank you for confirming what I know to be true.

 

Having grown up in the UMC, I can tell you they do not see American Methodism as a product of schism. Wesley was an Anglican priest and remained so until his death.When the American Revolution happened the bishops and many priests of the Church of England abandoned their colonial parishes and there was no sign of them returning. Wesley was moved to help those in America who had lost their churches and so in the vacuum, created the Methodist Church. He gave them their own prayer book, modeled after the BCP, gave them his version of the Articles of Religion, and licensed ministers and bishops in the absence of an Anglican presence. Thus, they assert, and I know this is cliche, they did not leave the C of E, but , in a very real way, the C of E left them. Wesley gave them a way of continuing at a time when it appeared they had no other options, since Anglican bishops would not ordain or confirm.

 

.
There was no such thing as an Anglican schism from Rome! Rome, or its Bishop, had only the authority given by scripture and developed by the Councils for disciplinary purpose. This meant that he was acting in an unauthorised manner when he became authoritarian and it was Rome who broke off from the Church in England in 1572 citing the demands of thr Robber Council of Trent!

 

Regarding the Methodists? Do they hold to the Apostolic Faith & Councils, if not what is the argument about? If we follow the track laid down by some on this board, we would , all of us, be worshipping as individuals , rather than Members of Christ! I ask, can anyone just get up and walk away, because we don't like the cut of the Bishop's clothes or the way he combs his hair?
You don't appear to have any faith or belief amongst yourselves and would rather quarrel amongst yourselves!
Are we being told that the last two thousand years have been wasted and all our Church Fathers have been wasting their time and it is all a gag?

 

The question is really, do they hold the same beliefs that Anglicans subscribe to? I have Methodist aquaintances who hold nothing remotely similar to Anglican teaching! Even if your theory holds good however, when Seabury or White received Bishop's Orders should they, the Methodists, not have returned to the fold? This is the Anglican critique of Continental Protestantism!

 

Yes they do. Read Wesley's Methodist Articles of Religion. They run very similar the the Anglican Articles except in that they were purged of phrases that Calvinists used to push the TULIP agenda, which methodists rejected. Moreover, why follow Seabury, who was consecrated by a Scot who followed both a theology and liturgy distinct from the C of E, and enter a church that, at the time, was made up of a number of deists and Unitarians, when they already had a system of bishops and ministers, licensed and ordained in the Anglican way by an Anglican clergyman, and a church that preached the revived and reformed Anglican Gospel message. In addition, since the Methodist church in America predates the TEC, why didn't the TEC try to join up with the Methodists? That restoration road runs 2 ways my friend. Now British Methodists are a different breed I'll grant you, so I can't speak for them. But in America, the UMC worships in a liturgical low church style followed by most colonial Anglicans. We sing the same hymns, once a month, read a communion liturgy almost identical to the TEC, and practiced a far more strictly episcopal form of church governance than TEC. The biggest differences between the 2 was vestments, grape juice instead of wine at the Lord's Supper, and the minister confirming new members instead of a bishop. After a while, when I was about 7, the new TEC priest started introducing more "catholic" aspects to the TEC parish I went to and I started to see bigger differences between the 2 denominations. Quite frankly, I think the UMC I grew up in was far more Anglican as Anglicanism was in the 18th century than the TEC could ever claim to be.

 

Thank you for the historical accuracy.

It is rather tiresome to continue to read all this blather about "schism".

 

Dream on. It is funny how some love to throw out the word "schism" when it suits their purposes, which is to denigrate other Christian bodies, but cringe when it is used to show how their own "branch" has done the same.

 

(Bold, part one) Yes, indeed they do.

(Bold, part two) That is an insult to the Methodists and what happened to them.

Tell me, is it common for "Catholics" to exclude, insult, and denigrate other Christians?

 

Thank you once again for an excellent and historically and theologically accurate post!

 

[

Celtic, you like words, so do I, but for both of us they have to be based on reality, in this case historical reality. Just when did the Church in Britain become subservient to the Church of Rome? Where did Rome get her authority, or headship from?

 

It is quite clear that the Church of England after Henry, Edward, Elizabeth, and Cranmer was different in doctrine and practice than it was before them.

 

To highchurchman ( somehow I couldn't quote your post):


The Methodists have "the faith", as do I; "apostolic succession" is not a necessary part of it since it is not based on scripture -- although personally I have apostolic succession. The Methodists are not a sect.

No, you should not lie. I know you can't help but see things the way you do and post accordingly, so if I have been too harsh with you, I am sorry.

 

Not to put too fine a point in regarding the above, but, Rubbish

I have told you previously, we believe that the Church in England is the Body of Christ here on earth and we are a Communion of Catholic believers within the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. As for a change at the reformation, your enthusiasm for sectarianism is carrying you deeper in to error,
Bishop Steven Neile . ( A fifties Bishop.
He wrote, "It had maintained the Catholic faith, as that is set forth in the Scriptures, Creeds, and the decisions of the... General Councils. It had restored the Catholic doctrine of the supremacy of Holy Scripture in all matters of doctrine and conduct. It had restored Catholic practice in the provision of worship in a language understanded of the people. It had restored Catholic practice in the encouragement of Bible-reading by the laity. In the Holy Communion, it had restored Catholic order by giving the Communion to the laity in both kinds, both the Bread and the Wine, instead of in one kind only, as was the practice of the medieval Church. In Confirmation and Ordination, it had restored Catholic order by making the laying on of hands by the Bishop the essential in the rite. It aimed at restoring the Catholic practice of regular Communion by all the faithful. It had retained the three-fold Order of ministry: bishops, priests and deacons. It had most carefully retained the succession of the bishops from the days of the Apostles. It retained the liturgical order of the Christian year, though in a considerably modified and simplified form. It had repudiated the supremacy of the Pope, as that had developed since the days of Gregory VII. It denied that the Pope had authority to interfere in the civil affairs of States and to depose princes. It claimed liberty for national Churches, within the fellowship of Christ's Holy Catholic Church, 'to decree Rites or Ceremonies' (Article XX). It rejected the scholastic philosophy, and the late medieval definitions, especially of transubstantiation, which had been based on it. It rejected late medieval ideas of purgatory, indulgences, and the merits of the saints... It maintained continuity of administration, most of the Episcopal registers showing the work of the Church was carried on through all the troubles without the intermission of a single day. It claimed to be a living part of the world-wide Church of Christ" (pp. 131-132).

I have kept this book for about thirty years , it was considered a stout Anglican book in those days and it still is, A Bishop within the Anglican Church being a modern day apostle! After this we have a 17th, Century apostle, the marvellous Bramhall, he receives more space on this board than should be necessary, but he and the reformation fathers are as essential now ,with folk like you about, as they ever were

Archbishop John Bramhall (1594-1663) of Armagh in Ireland, wrote, "I make not the least doubt in the world, but that the Church of England before the Reformation and the Church of England after the Reformation are as much the same Church, as a garden before it is weeded and after it is weeded, is the same garden; or a vine before it is pruned and after it is pruned and freed from luxuriant branches is one and the same vine."

 

I notice bishop Neile uses the word "restored" a lot, as well as he is very clear that the reformation rejected medieval novelties. If there was a restoration wouldnt that mean Celtic was right in his assertion there was a real difference pre reformation medieval church and the post one?

 

Those are wonderful quotes Highchurchman. Thanks for sharing. However, I think Bishop Neile's history might be a little off. Regular bible reading by the laity, apart from a formal church service, was nearly impossible prior to the invention of the printing press. Unless one was rich enough to afford a handwritten manuscript, which very few were, the bible reading was far too expensive a hobby to engage in for most folks without a large fortune or ready access to a Monastic library...not to mention literacy was not as common as today. In fact two of the great gifts of the Reformation was the availability of cheap bibles and an almost missionary zeal for education so that all could read the scriptures for themselves.

 

[/quote] I notice bishop Neile uses the word "restored" a lot, as well as he is very clear that the reformation rejected medieval novelties​

If there was a restoration wouldnt that mean Celtic was right in his assertion there was a real difference pre reformation medieval church and the post one?, and there was one,[/quote]​

What went out were the offensive medieval novelties or additions! What were retained were acceptable to Church & people.​

Papal Infallibility and Jurisdiction were cast out,​

Transubstantiation went out, marian additions went out and all kinds of mumbo jumbo, it was the non offensive and the important ideas along with acceptable customs that were retained.​

 

Since my reply to you in another thread is also relevant here, I'll post it here -- plus, I'll add a few more comments:

The problem that Anglo-Catholics and "highchurchmen" have is that they have no scriptural or factual historical basis for their beliefs, so they have to rely on fabricated history, fables, myths, legends, and vain traditions of men to try to substantiate their false beliefs. And when they and those false beliefs are exposed, all they can do is to make it personal -- resorting to insults, pejoratives, and attempts to diminish and marginalize their opponents, thus using worsd like "sectary".

All anyone need do to see that I have stated the facts is to do some studying. Everything I say can be proven by scripture and factual history. I thus have no need or desire to stoop to insults and pejoratives to back up my position.

To prove what I say is true: The beliefs in the CoE after especially Edward, Lizzy, and Cranmer were much different than before them. The 39 Articles are basically a Protestant confession of faith. Cranmer was influenced by the Continental Reformers. Now I enjoy seeing Anglo-Catholics and the "High Church" party squirming in their vain efforts to explain where these beliefs came from. I haven't seen any of them try to show where they existed in the CoE prior to Cranmer because they can't.