A weak point in the answer given is the phrase ‘congregation calling itself Anglican’. True Anglicanism knows not congregations which call themselves Anglican but fosters congregations which are (or belong to if one of several congregations meeting in the same place) local churches in communion with a diocese which is in communion with other dioceses etc.
While one can quibble with little bits or implications, I think this statement would be largely acceptable to Episcopalians (who are also Anglicans). I am not sure how much weight is given to the idea of being baptized in “a congregation calling itself Anglican” or to what extent the drafters intend that the reference to an “Anglican” Book of Prayer excludes the most recent (and, to me, unsatisfactory) BCP of the Episcopal Church. However, on the main structural points, I see nothing that would justify a distinction between Episcopalians and “Anglicans”.
Bearing fully in mind my lack of qualification to comment on this subject, it seems that Mr. Carrell [[url=”http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/25743/#395640″]1[/url]] has hit upon a key point. The answer seems to be modeled loosely on the [url=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambeth_Quadrilateral”]Lambeth Quadrilateral[/url], with the significant omission of Point 4, the “Historic Episcopate” (though Article XXXVI, taken in conjunction with the Ordinal in the BCP, might be considered equivalent by some).
Mind, much of Anglican ecclesiology seems (to me) to be assumed rather than formally articulated; Articles XIX and XX seem a less than firm foundation for any developed ecclesiology.
Reappraisers and some others will of course insist that full communion with Canterbury is a necessary (and perhaps sufficient) component of “Anglicanism”, but I do not believe that is spelled out in either the Articles or the Quadrilateral.
I’m not quite sure why a single congregation in a single building, in communion with nobody else, couldn’t consecrate at least one bishop. priest and deacon, and legitimately call itself “Anglican” under this definition. Then again, minus the needs of the current political battle, what [i]exactly[/i] would be wrong with that? That’s an honest question, not a rhetorically-phrased conclusion.
Technically, you couldn’t do what you propose AND be in agreement with the rest of the statement (as I believe that would be out of order by the Ordinal/BCP). I wish the Falls Church page had at least one explicit statement about the episcopate. Otherwise it’s a nice description if not a great formula.
If being Anglican means holding to the 39 Articles, count me out. (That doesn’t mean that one doesn’t have to deal with them, but if the spirit of the 39 articles is at all right, the Church dare not hold on to them in any way comparable to the Nicene Creed.)
The trouble I have with this kind of thing is not so much whether it is true to Anglicanism, but whether “being Anglican” should really be anybody’s goal. Presented here, an Anglican is just a Christian who goes to a particular congregation — it could as well be, “What does it mean to be a member of the Falls Church?” Anyway I am much less interested in “authentic Anglicanism” than in authentic Christianity in its fullness.
This must be poor wording: “Baptized and active in a congregation calling itself Anglican.” Surely TFC isn’t saying that if you weren’t baptized in an Anglican church, you can never be Anglican, or, conversely, that those baptized in Trinitarian fashion have to be “re-baptized” to be Anglican. Of course, we can’t be sure Episcopalians in recent times have received Trinitarian baptisms, but, in most cases, that shouldn’t be a problem.
A lot rides on how one interprets the “calling itself Anglican” phrase. I find it a potentially confusing qualifier on the document. The Falls Church (Episcopal) has called an continues to “call itself” Anglican, at least in some contexts, as does this church, The Falls Church (CANA). Do the CANA types accept the Episcopalians as Anglicans? The CANA church uses the “Anglican” referent more openly and frequently than does the Falls Church (Episcopal), but I assume the members of both churches would meet the apparent substance of what is set forth in the document.
Any characterization of Anglicanism that fails to include communion with the See of Canterbury as the [i]sine qua non[/i] of Anglican identity is wholly inadequate. I agree with Sam Keyes when he wonders why the description offered on the Falls Church website should be anyone’s goal.
Fr. Dan, I tend to agree with you, except for the practical question of behavior and to what extent that affects theoretical catholicity. That is: given Canterbury’s trajectory on women’s ordination, it will soon be a house divided, not in communion with itself. I’m not sure why that should be anyone’s goal, either, but I guess that’s Anglicanism in the 21st century.
The definition seems to confuse what it is to be a Christian (which would include subscription to the creeds, and is a religion) and what it is to be an Anglican (which is no more than a denomination).
Given the limited importance of the Anglican denomination, it makes no sense either etymologically or historically to link its core meaning to anything other than Ecclesia Anglicana – the Church of England. An Anglican church must be a part of or derived from or linked to the Church of England.
I don’t disagree with Fr Dan, but it is worth asking what it means to be “in communion” with a church with “open communion” (by which I do not mean communion of the unbaptized, which is an absurdity, but a policy by which holy communion is open to all the baptized regardless of ecclesial location). It’s not a question to be answered on this thread, obviously, but the existence of the question, in my mind, should prevent any simplistic assertions about who is in communion with whom. I wonder if the reduction of “communio in sacris” to a mere recognition of orders leads to an odd kind of protestant clericalism.
Am I missing the part affirming the necessity of the historic episcopate, three-fold ministry of deacons, priests and bishops, or continuity with the See of Canterbury? I’ll grant the last bit may not be absolutely necessary, but under the TFC’s understanding, any congregation can simply change the sign on the door and be ‘Anglican.’ If bishops aren’t necessary, why is ACNA consecrating bishops left right and center? A very confused definition, I think.
Interesting comments at the bottom of the page about the catechism. I’m glad to see them using it, and their description of it as a summary of the faith (derivative of the creeds) or a jumping off point is particularly apt. I’ve never heard of it being used as a form of service–cool idea.
This catechism is primarily intended for use by parish priests, deacons,
and lay catechists, to give an outline for instruction. It is a commentary
on the creeds, but is not meant to be a complete statement of belief and
practices; rather, it is a point of departure for the teacher, and it is cast in
the traditional question and answer form for ease of reference.
In the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Luther’s Small Catechism is put into the hands of children to learn.
A weak point in the answer given is the phrase ‘congregation calling itself Anglican’. True Anglicanism knows not congregations which call themselves Anglican but fosters congregations which are (or belong to if one of several congregations meeting in the same place) local churches in communion with a diocese which is in communion with other dioceses etc.
While one can quibble with little bits or implications, I think this statement would be largely acceptable to Episcopalians (who are also Anglicans). I am not sure how much weight is given to the idea of being baptized in “a congregation calling itself Anglican” or to what extent the drafters intend that the reference to an “Anglican” Book of Prayer excludes the most recent (and, to me, unsatisfactory) BCP of the Episcopal Church. However, on the main structural points, I see nothing that would justify a distinction between Episcopalians and “Anglicans”.
Greetings.
Bearing fully in mind my lack of qualification to comment on this subject, it seems that Mr. Carrell [[url=”http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/25743/#395640″]1[/url]] has hit upon a key point. The answer seems to be modeled loosely on the [url=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambeth_Quadrilateral”]Lambeth Quadrilateral[/url], with the significant omission of Point 4, the “Historic Episcopate” (though Article XXXVI, taken in conjunction with the Ordinal in the BCP, might be considered equivalent by some).
Mind, much of Anglican ecclesiology seems (to me) to be assumed rather than formally articulated; Articles XIX and XX seem a less than firm foundation for any developed ecclesiology.
Reappraisers and some others will of course insist that full communion with Canterbury is a necessary (and perhaps sufficient) component of “Anglicanism”, but I do not believe that is spelled out in either the Articles or the Quadrilateral.
I’m not quite sure why a single congregation in a single building, in communion with nobody else, couldn’t consecrate at least one bishop. priest and deacon, and legitimately call itself “Anglican” under this definition. Then again, minus the needs of the current political battle, what [i]exactly[/i] would be wrong with that? That’s an honest question, not a rhetorically-phrased conclusion.
regards,
JPB
JPB,
Technically, you couldn’t do what you propose AND be in agreement with the rest of the statement (as I believe that would be out of order by the Ordinal/BCP). I wish the Falls Church page had at least one explicit statement about the episcopate. Otherwise it’s a nice description if not a great formula.
If being Anglican means holding to the 39 Articles, count me out. (That doesn’t mean that one doesn’t have to deal with them, but if the spirit of the 39 articles is at all right, the Church dare not hold on to them in any way comparable to the Nicene Creed.)
The trouble I have with this kind of thing is not so much whether it is true to Anglicanism, but whether “being Anglican” should really be anybody’s goal. Presented here, an Anglican is just a Christian who goes to a particular congregation — it could as well be, “What does it mean to be a member of the Falls Church?” Anyway I am much less interested in “authentic Anglicanism” than in authentic Christianity in its fullness.
This must be poor wording: “Baptized and active in a congregation calling itself Anglican.” Surely TFC isn’t saying that if you weren’t baptized in an Anglican church, you can never be Anglican, or, conversely, that those baptized in Trinitarian fashion have to be “re-baptized” to be Anglican. Of course, we can’t be sure Episcopalians in recent times have received Trinitarian baptisms, but, in most cases, that shouldn’t be a problem.
A lot rides on how one interprets the “calling itself Anglican” phrase. I find it a potentially confusing qualifier on the document. The Falls Church (Episcopal) has called an continues to “call itself” Anglican, at least in some contexts, as does this church, The Falls Church (CANA). Do the CANA types accept the Episcopalians as Anglicans? The CANA church uses the “Anglican” referent more openly and frequently than does the Falls Church (Episcopal), but I assume the members of both churches would meet the apparent substance of what is set forth in the document.
Any characterization of Anglicanism that fails to include communion with the See of Canterbury as the [i]sine qua non[/i] of Anglican identity is wholly inadequate. I agree with Sam Keyes when he wonders why the description offered on the Falls Church website should be anyone’s goal.
Fr. Dan, I tend to agree with you, except for the practical question of behavior and to what extent that affects theoretical catholicity. That is: given Canterbury’s trajectory on women’s ordination, it will soon be a house divided, not in communion with itself. I’m not sure why that should be anyone’s goal, either, but I guess that’s Anglicanism in the 21st century.
The definition seems to confuse what it is to be a Christian (which would include subscription to the creeds, and is a religion) and what it is to be an Anglican (which is no more than a denomination).
Given the limited importance of the Anglican denomination, it makes no sense either etymologically or historically to link its core meaning to anything other than Ecclesia Anglicana – the Church of England. An Anglican church must be a part of or derived from or linked to the Church of England.
I don’t disagree with Fr Dan, but it is worth asking what it means to be “in communion” with a church with “open communion” (by which I do not mean communion of the unbaptized, which is an absurdity, but a policy by which holy communion is open to all the baptized regardless of ecclesial location). It’s not a question to be answered on this thread, obviously, but the existence of the question, in my mind, should prevent any simplistic assertions about who is in communion with whom. I wonder if the reduction of “communio in sacris” to a mere recognition of orders leads to an odd kind of protestant clericalism.
Hmm…
Am I missing the part affirming the necessity of the historic episcopate, three-fold ministry of deacons, priests and bishops, or continuity with the See of Canterbury? I’ll grant the last bit may not be absolutely necessary, but under the TFC’s understanding, any congregation can simply change the sign on the door and be ‘Anglican.’ If bishops aren’t necessary, why is ACNA consecrating bishops left right and center? A very confused definition, I think.
Interesting comments at the bottom of the page about the catechism. I’m glad to see them using it, and their description of it as a summary of the faith (derivative of the creeds) or a jumping off point is particularly apt. I’ve never heard of it being used as a form of service–cool idea.
Concerning the Catechism
This catechism is primarily intended for use by parish priests, deacons,
and lay catechists, to give an outline for instruction. It is a commentary
on the creeds, but is not meant to be a complete statement of belief and
practices; rather, it is a point of departure for the teacher, and it is cast in
the traditional question and answer form for ease of reference.
In the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Luther’s Small Catechism is put into the hands of children to learn.