Ship of Fools: The Church of England and the Free Church of England

Thread: The Church of England and the Free Church of England Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022976

Posted by jordan32404 (# 15833) on :

I'm curious about the relationship between the CofE and the FCofE. How is the Free Church treated by the Established Church? Are orders recognized, etc.? Is the Free Church regarded as "Anglican"?

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

The Free Church of England regards itself as Anglican but is not one of the churches recognised as being 'in communion'.

John Fenwick the Bishop of the Northern Diocese is a former Church of England priest. The Bishop for the Southern Diocese is from the Reformed Episcopal Church of America.

They use buildings and forms of worship which are very similar to what you might find in many CofE churches however they don't have any women as ministers, including lay readers.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

The FCE of the 1990s was a bit like the Low end of the Church of Ireland in the 1970s. Strictly BCP, with rather a strong memories of old-style Evangelical theology, but identifying more as "Low Church" than "Evangelical.

Their BCP is essentially 1662, but with the word priest removed, and most of the Red Letter Days deleted, though oddly, the proper lessons remained for MP and EP even though the Collect, Epistle and Gospel. The bloody awful REC Declaration of Principles is included which eventually cause me to depart from the denomination mainly because the enthusiasts on the Evo wing tended to use them to rule out good Oxford theology of the pre-Tractarian era. However, the final straw for me was the shinnangins that led to the split between the main FCE and the Evangelical Connexion of the FCE. My closer friends were in the latter but my ecclesiastical sympathies with the former.

There was a move when I was in the FCE to come into full communion with the C of E. This was pushed by the Low Church wing of the denomination, and vehemently opposed by the stronger Evangelicals. This was stopped at the 1996 Convention of the denomination, but there was a lot of bad blood afterwards.

PD

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

How many of these people ARE there? I'd suggest that it is possible to spend an entire lifetime in Anglican circles over here and not even be aware that they exist.

They seem pretty invisible in non-conformist/Free Church circles too.

I've never actually met anyone from the Free Church of England and only once or twice seen a publication or a web-page.

Are we talking two men and a dog here? A Bishop operating from a shed in his back garden?

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

If you check out the website link above you'll find a map of their churches. I think there's about a dozen churches, 4 in London, 2 in the Midlands and the rest in Lancashire. I've seen membership figures of around 1,500 for FCE and perhaps a similar number for the ones who broke away.

I got to know about them from another forum which was joined by someone claiming to be a lay reader in an FCE church. This member's posts aroused suspcion that he might be a sockpuppet. It was an easy matter to confirm with bishop John Fenwick that there is no such lay reader in FCE and indeed no-one at all matching the details given. Someone else did some investigating of the alleged puppeteer and we found some links. One particular name, who is within the FCE, crops up all over the place.

The FCE seems rather like the kind of church I remember from the 1950's. Very involved in local communities, running youth groups including brownies and guides, cubs and scouts and also providing social activities for older people. I couldn't subscribe to their theology and the male-only rule for ministers, but they seem level-headed and sincere.

I doubt if they could keep going without funding coming in from outside sources. Some apparently comes from America via an educational project and I suspect the Freemasons give considerable support. One of the reasons for the schism given by the breakaway group was the FCE's heavy involvement in freemasonry.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jordan32404:
I'm curious about the relationship between the CofE and the FCofE.

None at all. Most people haven't heard of it.

quote:

How is the Free Church treated by the Established Church?

It isn't

quote:

Are orders recognized, etc.?

That would depend on how the minister was ordained and by who. Some of them would have been ordained regularly before they joined the breakaway lot. I suppose its just possible that some might be ex-Catholic priests. But the answer is almost certainly not.

quote:

Is the Free Church regarded as "Anglican"?

I don't think its regarded, or even noticed, at all.

If you asked CofE members to think of a breakaway denomination that is sort of a little bit Anglican and whose orders we don't recognise even though most of us would like to, if they thought of anyone they would likely think of the Methodists.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

Anyone readingthis report in the Lancashire Evening Post would probably assume a connection with the CofE. They're involved with Churches Together and their buildings are used for youth groups and social activities so within their own neighbourhoods they wil be well-known. I think most people walking past a church building with a sign proclaiming it as 'St David's, Free Church of England' would assume it to be a branch of the CofE.

Posted by jordan32404 (# 15833) on :

Sorry, I suppose I should clarify, I mean the official CofE stance not the average layman's perception of things.

The FCE seems to be a little more "Anglican" in their use of the BCP, etc. than other low-church breakaways like CESA (or official dioceses like Sydney). And it also seems like in the Anglican breakaway world, there are those who work more with the established varieties.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jordan32404:
Sorry, I suppose I should clarify, I mean the official CofE stance...

There almost certainly isn't one.

Check the website? But I'd be surprised if you found anything much. There's a list of denominations the CofE is in communion with. And somewhere a list of denominations we do LEPs with I suppose. And maybe even a list of denominations whose orders we recognise, though I've never seen it if there is.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

The FCE has embraced ecumenicism which is another bone of contention with the breakaway group -'Free Church of England Evangelical Connexion'. There are some links and apparently some instances of shared worship with the CofE. The fact that FCE is not in communion with the CofE doesn't prevent cordial relations. John Fenwick was Assistant Secretary of Ecumenical Affairs for the Archbishop of Canterbury (1988-92) before joining FCE.

Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :

I have known two CofE priests who came from the FCofE. One, in Canada fifty years ago had been (re-)ordained in the ACofC because of the FCE doctrine of "parity of orders". The second was a moderate high churchman and very prominent in the Anglican Society and The Prayer Book Society . He had been received in his orders.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

One thing that should be noted is that the FCE remained as close to the C of E it could in matters of doctrine and worship as it could without compromising its Evangelical character. Hence the ordinal is practically the same as that of the Church of England's 1662 BCP, and certainly there is no suggestion of parity of orders in the FCE Ordinal, but the orders of bishop and presbyter are somewhat merged - see below. I won't speak for the Canadian set up as they have been part of the REC since the 1940s and therefore used the old REC Ordinal which was based on that of the 1785 Proposed BCP of the PECUSA.

The question about FCE orders has usually centre on two facts:

Firstly, that the original REC/FCE consecrations tended to be undertaken by one bishop assisted by several presbyters.

Secondly, the classic FCE/REC position seems to be that Bishops and Presbyters share a common ministry, but only bishops can exercise the fullness of that ministry, hence the need to consecrate them to that ministry. This is not a novel position as it accords with some mediaeval theologians.

Bishop Frank Wilson of Eau Claire reporting to the PECUSA House of Bishops recommended the recognition of REC Orders back in the 1940s, and this was eventually acted upon probably in the 1970s.

In the UK, the FCE and the Church of England had some fairly detailed negotiations about the FCE being recognized by the Anglican Communion in the early-1990s, when George Carey was ABC. To some degree these were mishandled by the FCE bishop who headed up the discussion who basically left the rest of us in the dark and fed us on shit, with predictable consequences when the matter came to the vote.

In 1995, when I was in the FCE it had 26 churches, two missions, and about 1500 communicants. I think current the main FCE has about 16 churches and the Connexion 10 with both sides claiming about a 1000 members. I always thought that a good growth strategy would have been to angle at some of the more PBS types in the Church of England as, at that time the FCE was pretty much all BCP, although there was some experimentation with both 'A Prayer Book for Australia' and the CESA Prayer Book, but that was strictly not on Sunday mornings. I also did a little pushing for 'An English Prayer Book' whilst I was in there.

Most FCE churches have conventional Anglican interiors but you will look in vain for a cross and candlesticks on the Communion Table, and although the altar often has a frontal on it, it is not changed with the seasons. The usual vestments are cassock, surplice, tippet and hood, but the FCE BCP specifically allows the use of the gown for preaching.

PD
(former FCE Presbyter)

[ 12. April 2012, 17:50: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by jordan32404:
Sorry, I suppose I should clarify, I mean the official CofE stance...
There almost certainly isn't one.

The Wikipedia page on FCE has this:

quote:
It is a Designated Church under the Church of England's Ecumenical Canons. FCE bishops have attended the enthronements of George Carey and Rowan Williams as Archbishops of Canterbury.

and this

quote:
The Church has continued to ordain bishops in the apostolic succession, with Moravian, Church of England and Indian Orthodox bishops taking part on occasion.[6] T

So I suppose the official stance is that the CofE accepts the FCE as a 'Designated Church', which means the bishops get invited to enthronements and some CofE bishops can be involved in consecrating FCE bishops.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Are we talking two men and a dog here? A Bishop operating from a shed in his back garden?

"Like Gideon of old, I've seen the fearful and uncommitted winnowed away .." (with apologies to Adrian Plass.

Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on :

Hadn't heard of these guys, but it reminded me of a little church which set up in Canterbury a few years ago, called the Anglican Catholic Church - not in communion with Canterbury or Rome, but very high, Council of Trent style, I think (maybe Sarum, I'm not sure - but definitely high). The FCofE sounds a little bit like the low/BCP version.

Posted by Lutherkehrt (# 17058) on :

The comment about links is exactly what Bp Fenwick would and has argued... however I do not think that the CofE would take the same viewpoint on it. In fact, using some tortuous logic he has even argued that they (the FCE) are in communion with the CofE. More to the point is that when clergy have left the FCE and gone to the CofE they have been ordained by the CofE - I think that makes it quite clear what the CofE thinks of the FCE!

Some facts are a little inaccurate here, in this string. I am an 'insider' so to speak, and I do not aim to 'diss' anyone, simply to straighten out facts for the enquirer.

The FCE Southern Diocese Bishop, Paul Hunt, is NOT an REC man from the US, but very English indeed!

Neither the FCE nor the Evangelical Connexion (EC) could claim 1000 members with any honesty. Maybe half that, if they were truthful about it.

The FCE is very concerned with 'what they do', in terms of robes and so on. In fact they are now going the REC (US) direction, and heading into greater use of robes, ritual, and paraphernalia.

The EC has one Bishop who was indeed an ex-RC priest - Dominic Stockford. Though he is thorough-going Protestant these days, and chairman of the PTS to boot. None of the FCE are ex-romans.

One EC church uses the English Prayer Book, others use CESA's book, or variant of that, and three use the FCE Prayer Book. The FCE churches are all bound to use the FCE Prayer Book for what they term their "main" Sunday service - though in practice they have found ways around that. E.G. following a Prayer Book service almost immediately with a more 'free' service, or designating their evening as main, and doing whatever in the morning. On the whole though, the FCE remain what I would term 'Prayer Book Ritualists'.

The FCE Bishops who attended the enthronements did so as "private individuals", and were quite insistent upon that, mainly because they had not been given permission to do so as representatives of the FCE. They can't now have that one both ways. One was present in Westminster Abbey to listen to his popeness speak.

The FCE have indeed many Masons in their number - one of their bishops is one, and one of their bishops is (was?) the chaplain to the British Israelites. Money has been forthcoming from this corner - I know for a fact that one minister had his robes purchased via masonic support. He told me.

The EC seems to be shrinking - however they would argue that their purpose was to free truly reformed evangelicals from the FCE, and that purpose having been fulfilled it would be no issue were they to head towards congregationalism, or some other group with which they are so similar.

The FCE seems, as one poster commented, to be a 1950's version of church - doing low-church ritual and getting on with social activities. I don't think it is growing.
Unless something odd happens I really don't think that it is likely to have much link with the CofE, who would rather eat it and turn its property into cash than have more churches to have to look after, where there are already plenty.

Ask further, if you wish to know further.

P.S. For your information, I joined the FCE in 1998, but have never even heard of PD. He may or may not be happy to know that he didn't leave much of an impression!

[ 13. April 2012, 15:26: Message edited by: Lutherkehrt ]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
Hadn't heard of these guys, but it reminded me of a little church which set up in Canterbury a few years ago, called the Anglican Catholic Church - not in communion with Canterbury or Rome, but very high, Council of Trent style, I think (maybe Sarum, I'm not sure - but definitely high). The FCofE sounds a little bit like the low/BCP version.

The ACC is American in origin, and was one of the jurisdictions formed in the wake of the fission of the *original* Anglican Church in North America, c. 1978 or so. I have no idea how many parishes there are in the UK, but I believe it's Bishop Damien Mead who is in Canterbury. The ACC is split between Missal types and Prayer Book Catholics for the most part.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
So I suppose the official stance is that the CofE accepts the FCE as a 'Designated Church'

Exactly. That is a list of people the CofE has noticed are Trinitarian churches. And so, for example, recognises their baptisms, and invites their members to Communion (we're nice like that).

The list is here

It is not a list if denominations that the CofE is in full or partial communion with. (There is such a list there but the FCOE is not on it)

For example, the update to the list that includes the FCOE reads:

quote:

28 January 1992
The Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain (Greek Orthodox)
The Council of African and Afro-Caribbean churches
The Free Church of England
The Southam Road Evangelical Church,Banbury

The "designated church" bit refers to Canons B43 and B44

B43 basically says that a CofE incumbent is allowed to invite ministers of "designated churches" to occasionally preside at services in their church, or to preach, pr to lead the intercessions, or to distribute Communion, but that if they want them to do it regularly they must get written permission from the Bishop. It explicitly excludes them from presideing at a service of Holy Communion. There are also rules about CofE priests invited to do things in other churches. (B44 defines rules for "Local Ecumenical Partnerships" (LEP))

In other words the status is the same as a lay member of the Church of England. Our vicar can ask any lay member of the congregation to preach or lead a service (and often does) but if we want someone to do it regularly they need to be licensed by the Bishop (and the normal way to do that in the CofE is to appoint them as a Reader). So this is not the same as recognising the ordinations of those designated "churches".

quote:

...which means the bishops get invited to enthronements and some CofE bishops can be involved in consecrating FCE bishops.

No, it means that they invite them as neighbours and as witnesses. Just as they might invite you and me. It says nothing at all about whether the CofE recognises their bishops as bishops or whether those bishops would be asked to take part in ordinations or consecration.

That would require some declaration of full communion, or at least recognition of equivalent ministry. Those are quite separate questions. For example the CofE certainly recognises Orthodox and Roman Catholic bishops as bishops, and their priests as ordained priests, but Catholic bishops don't normally consecrate Anglican bishops or ordain Anglican priests. If they did, through some weird oversight on their part, presumably the CofE would regard the ordinations as valid but irregular. (And as the relationship is not reciprocal, if an Anglican-consecrated bishop ordained someone to be a priest in the Roman Catholic church, the Catholics would, I guess, think it both invalid and irregular)

However the CofE does not recognise the ordinations of the Methodists, or of the Church of Scotland. (Personally I wish it did, but it doesn't). So ministers of those churches, even if they were to be called Bishops (which some Methodists are, though not usually in England) or even if they were to be licensed ministers in a Church of England parish (which some Methodists are in England), don't get to preside over Communion, or to ordain, or consecrate, in the CofE. Yes its silly, and there really are LEP churches with combined Methodist and Anglican congregations where those members who think of themselves and Anglicans aren't supposed to take Communion at the services when the Methodist minister presides but are supposed to when the Anglican does - but thems the rules.

For what its worth, this is the list of churches that the CofE regards itself as in full communion with:

The Anglican Communion (too many to list separately)
The Church of Ceylon
The Church of Bangladesh
The Church of North India
The Church of Pakistan
The Church of South India
Old Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht
Philippine Independent Church
Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar
The Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland
The Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Iceland
The Church of Norway
The Church of Sweden
The Estonian Evangelical-Lutheran Church
The Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Lithuania

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

The point about the ordinations Ken is that this has apparently happened. At least this is what I understand from :

quote:
The Church has continued to ordain bishops in the apostolic succession, with Moravian, Church of England and Indian Orthodox bishops taking part on occasion.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
The point about the ordinations Ken is that this has apparently happened. At least this is what I understand from :

quote:
The Church has continued to ordain bishops in the apostolic succession, with Moravian, Church of England and Indian Orthodox bishops taking part on occasion.

You are misreading that rather blatantly I think.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

How do you read it?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Those bishops may be participating in a consecration, but that doesn't mean it's authorized by C of E canons.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

This entry in the 'Apostolic Succession' page of the FEC website refers to a CofE bishop.

quote:
36. ARTHUR WARD, BD ThB, DD, was consecrated by Bishops Milner, Cameron, Theophilus J. Herter, ThD, DD, Presiding Bishop of the Reformed Episcopal Church of America, the Right Revd Russell B. White, MA, Bishop of the Church of England, assisted by several Presbyters, at Christ Church Teddington, Middlesex, on 11 September 1976. Died 1995.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

Christ Church, Exmouth (FCE) is slightly charismatic (New Wine style) rather than liturgical. Despite the denomination being officially BCP it is no more enforced in the FCE than the CofE!

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lutherkehrt:

P.S. For your information, I joined the FCE in 1998, but have never even heard of PD. He may or may not be happy to know that he didn't leave much of an impression!

I am very happy to know that I did not leave much of an impression. I had not yet matured as a Minister and still cared too much about many of the wrong things. Thankfully I preferred to keep myself to myself and firmly out of denominational politics. I had a very happy working relationship with Bishop Cyril Milner, and it all went south very rapidly after he died leading to my applying for and being granted letters dimissory to the Church of Ireland (Traditional Rite). I have some very happy memories of the old Northern Diocese folks like Bruce Burrows, but in truth, even if I had been desparate to make an impression, I was not around long enough to make much of one.

PD

[ 13. April 2012, 18:16: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

From 1945 to 1950 I was at school at Christchurch Primary School Teddington, which was adjacent to the Free Church of England Church (of the same name) - and attended the Sunday School there.

I was, of course, barely aware then that the church was any way different from the CofE church in Hampshire to which I was taken during holidays and which I attended after moving there in 1950.

I wish I could speak well of either the minister, or of the headmistress of the school (who may or may not have been of the same denomination).

I think that there have divisions since, so the church is in a different group (and the school has, I believe, moved).

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
This entry in the 'Apostolic Succession' page of the FEC website refers to a CofE bishop.

No-one is disputing that the FCOE priests consider themselves to be in the Apostolic Succession or that the founders of that church were ordained by Anglican bishops.

The point I was making was that that does not mean that the Church of England recognises priests ordained within the FCOE as valid priests - as far as I know it has no official opinion oin the matter.

Nor does it mean that the CofE invites FCOE bishops to participate in sacramentally ordaining or consecrating CofE ministers. It doesn't, and it would be against its own rules if it did. As those canon laws and the list of "designated churches" makes clear.

It certainly invites FCOE ministers to be presents and to pray for the new bishops and so on, but that's on the same basis as it also invites Methodists or Baptists or Pentecostals. Its a sign that they are neighbours and friends and fellow-Christians - not that they are recognised as bishops or priests. Nor that they aren't recognised either - as I said the question of recognition of orders is not the same as the one of full communion.

It seems to me that the statement you quote4d are perhaps deliberately phrased in a way that might imply tht the CofE recognises FCOE as in communion with it when it in fact doesn't.

Not that it matters really. We don't recognise Methodist orders and we aren't in Communion with them but we work with them in all sorts of ways.

I'm not sure that this obsession with finicky legalistic definitions of apostolic succession is really very useful. Thoiugh it is one that seems to be shared by a lot of small groups and episcopi vagantes that broke away from the Anglican communion.

Its probably rude of me to say so but I'd not be surprised if the combination of Anglo-Catholicsim (which can get a bit obsessive atbout apostolic succession at times), and being in a small sect that wants to justify itself to the world and claim some authority, and perhaps the rather rigid legalism inherited from the old High Church prayerbook types. makes such groups very vulnerable to this...

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

I certainly wouldn't call the FCoE Anglo-Catholic, though some of them might be described as Old High Church prayer-book types. To me, they seem roughly analogous to the Reformed Episcopal Church (as it was pre-realignment); both groups formed in reaction to what they saw as "Romanizing" tendencies within their parent churches, and both have softened their stances somewhat since their founding.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Christ Church, Exmouth (FCE) is slightly charismatic (New Wine style) rather than liturgical. Despite the denomination being officially BCP it is no more enforced in the FCE than the CofE!

Gosh, I walked past that church every Saturday to go to my piano lessons. My mother had a cleaning lady who was a member in the 60s because she found the Anglicans unfriendly.

But things move on.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

Ken - the entry refers to a CofE bishop as one of those consecrating a FCE bishop in 1978. It doesn't imply anything reciprocal but it does show at least one CofE bishop openly supporting FCE orders.

I find FCE quite intriguing. The split with EC was very bitter - there are documents detailing "dastardly" doings. It's like the CofE in miniature in some ways.

Posted by Lutherkehrt (# 17058) on :

And, having realised it is so, why is this posting on the "purgatory" board? Are the FCE really thought of that badly... [Biased]

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

This is the board for serious discussion. FCE are thought worthy of such attention. Have a look at Hell - it's been harrowed recently but there's still enough there to give you an idea. And you're definitely not fluffy enough for Heaven. You're a cantankerous lot from what I've seen.

[ 14. April 2012, 10:38: Message edited by: justlooking ]

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

I did know of a clergyman in the last decade who was FCOE and wished to be a cleric in the CofE. After a period of training he was (re) ordained deacon and then priest the next year.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

I had a friend who occasionally played organ for a branch of the FCE, in Balham I believe. It was by all accounts an 1830s sort of place - Laudian frontals were permitted but as others have noted they could not vary by the season (academic hoods in different colours were, however, allowed!).

From what I've heard, I doubt even a liturgy wonk like myself would notice I wasn't in a Prayer Book bastion of the C. of E. I am sorry to hear about their schisms as they had struck me as having their heads screwed on and having resisted the more fissiparous tendencies of the 'Continuum'.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

Interesting you should mention the hoods dj_ordinaire, some of them also like to collect lots of different letters after their names. If you poke around following links they lead to some not very well known degree awarding bodies. I know of someone who obtained a PhD from a body connected to FCE. Mainly for the hood I think.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I suppose its just possible that some might be ex-Catholic priests.

The Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Connexion, no less (details in pdf).

[ 15. April 2012, 00:42: Message edited by: LQ ]

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Interesting you should mention the hoods dj_ordinaire, some of them also like to collect lots of different letters after their names. If you poke around following links they lead to some not very well known degree awarding bodies. I know of someone who obtained a PhD from a body connected to FCE. Mainly for the hood I think.

It seems to be an affliction fairly common to a certain type of Protestant. I guess that when one's emphasis is on a learned preaching ministry, and you have not quite got the kidneys to make it elsewhere, non-accredited denominational theological colleges can supply the neccessary letters after the name.

On the other hand, some non-accredited religious institutions are quite good - i.e. of the same quality as accredited schools. I noticed a long time ago that my particular denomination has a Canon which requires clergy moving in from somewhere else to prove their academic worth by taking an abridged Canonical Examination. It is also presumed that you should have a degree in order to be ordained, or if one comes in under "the old men's Canon" then one must have the appropriate qualifications to enter university. That said, some of the best preachers I have heard have been "black hoods."

PD

[ 15. April 2012, 04:07: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
It seems to be an affliction fairly common to a certain type of Protestant. I guess that when one's emphasis is on a learned preaching ministry, and you have not quite got the kidneys to make it elsewhere, non-accredited denominational theological colleges can supply the neccessary letters after the name....

I can understand that. However some in FCE and others of 'a certain type of Protestant' seem to want quantity. They may already have one or two degrees gained in the usual way from accredited establishments but then pile on more from the non-accredited. I suspect the opportunity to swank around in fancy hoods is a motivating factor.

There are hood anoraks

quote:

Free Church of England Bishops' hood Full shape scarlet cloth, fully lined with a pink shot-silk. (This supplements the information on page 38 of the fifth edition of the 'HoodBook' which incorrectly gives details of the FCE Presbyters' hood - this should read 'cowl bound three inches inside and outside with blue silk and the cape edged with ½inch of blue silk'. The pink lining is correct.)

An innocent enough hobby. Weird but innocent.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Interesting you should mention the hoods dj_ordinaire, some of them also like to collect lots of different letters after their names. If you poke around following links they lead to some not very well known degree awarding bodies. I know of someone who obtained a PhD from a body connected to FCE. Mainly for the hood I think.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has the power to award degrees, but where does the FCE claim to get this power from?

Are there University Vice-Chancellors vagantes out there?

Posted by Wyclif (# 5391) on :

quote:
36. ARTHUR WARD, BD ThB, DD, was consecrated by Bishops Milner, Cameron, Theophilus J. Herter, ThD, DD, Presiding Bishop of the Reformed Episcopal Church of America, the Right Revd Russell B. White, MA, Bishop of the Church of England, assisted by several Presbyters, at Christ Church Teddington, Middlesex, on 11 September 1976. Died 1995.

Theophilus Herter, ThD was a Bishop of the REC USA, and used to teach for many years at the original REC Seminary in W. Philadelphia on Chestnut Street. I actually own part of his library which was broken up and sold when he passed-- his bookplates are still on the inside covers!

Posted by Wyclif (# 5391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
That said, some of the best preachers I have heard have been "black hoods."

PD, by "black hoods" do you mean the scarf only?

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Interesting you should mention the hoods dj_ordinaire, some of them also like to collect lots of different letters after their names. If you poke around following links they lead to some not very well known degree awarding bodies. I know of someone who obtained a PhD from a body connected to FCE. Mainly for the hood I think.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has the power to award degrees, but where does the FCE claim to get this power from?

It's not directly from the FCE but there's a lot of cross-pollination going on with these small protestant churches and the kind of academic establishments which are outside the usual accreditation schemes. So ministers of these churches will be listed on the staff and governing bodies of degree-awarding colleges. At least three FCE ministers are on the staff of one particular institution, based in Arizona. They provide accreditation for each other. They seem to be largely distance-learning programmes and can be run as one-man-band operations. Nothing illegal about them.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wyclif:

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
That said, some of the best preachers I have heard have been "black hoods."
PD, by "black hoods" do you mean the scarf only?

I think anyone can wear a plain black hood - it's a 'scholar's hood'.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I had a friend who occasionally played organ for a branch of the FCE, in Balham I believe.

Yes, there is, or was, such a church in Balham. I bumped into the minister thereof once, at the Crem: he was perfectly pleasant but gave the impression (presumably intended) of being the sort of preacher with whom it was dangerous to to trifle.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

There's an FCE congregation in the same town as my church. We have invited them to events but have never met them. I suspect our doctrines and worship are not to their taste, which is fair enough. We don't really know much about them other than that they're there but I thought it noteworthy due to the small number of their parishes in existence.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

If you look at the map on their website it looks like 6 of the 16 churches are in Lancashire. Not sure what that says about Lancashire.

Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :

Lancashire historicaly has a fairly high proportion of RCs: protestantism in and out of the CofE flourishes where the RCs abound.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by otyetsfoma:
Lancashire historicaly has a fairly high proportion of RCs: protestantism in and out of the CofE flourishes where the RCs abound.

Like an opposition perhaps.

Posted by Wyclif (# 5391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:

quote:
Originally posted by Wyclif:

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
That said, some of the best preachers I have heard have been "black hoods."
PD, by "black hoods" do you mean the scarf only?
I think anyone can wear a plain black hood - it's a 'scholar's hood'.

With the proliferation of academic degrees in the modern age, I don't think it's possible to obtain a plain black hood anymore. At least I've never seen one, have you?

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wyclif:
With the proliferation of academic degrees in the modern age, I don't think it's possible to obtain a plain black hood anymore. At least I've never seen one, have you?

I've never seen one being worn and I can't think why anyone would bother. This is one Literate's hood from the Burgon Society.

There are hoods just for belonging to some institutions and of course the kind of 'academic' institution that can be run from a back bedroom by one person and a computer will have a colourful hood for their graduates.

Posted by Wyclif (# 5391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:

quote:
Originally posted by Wyclif:
With the proliferation of academic degrees in the modern age, I don't think it's possible to obtain a plain black hood anymore. At least I've never seen one, have you?
I've never seen one being worn and I can't think why anyone would bother. This is one Literate's hood from the Burgon Society.

There are hoods just for belonging to some institutions and of course the kind of 'academic' institution that can be run from a back bedroom by one person and a computer will have a colourful hood for their graduates.

Thanks for the link, that is exactly what I was looking for by way of illustration. Here's an interesting cached article I found on the Burgon Society site titled: "Who May Wear the 'Literate's Hood'?" wherein we read:

"For those clergy who were not members of a university, the ‘decent tippett’ was prescribed. This was, I think, a garment of dignity, marking their status as Clerks in Holy Orders, rather than an indication that they had studied privately; other clergy wore their hoods primarily as marks ofdignity, not to ‘parade their learning’. Again, during the nineteenth century, there is a change ofperception, and the ‘tippett’, by now a hood4, has come to mark study completed, and non-graduateclergy who attended a theological college wear distinctive hoods."

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
Hadn't heard of these guys, but it reminded me of a little church which set up in Canterbury a few years ago, called the Anglican Catholic Church - not in communion with Canterbury or Rome, but very high, Council of Trent style, I think (maybe Sarum, I'm not sure - but definitely high). The FCofE sounds a little bit like the low/BCP version.

The ACC came out of the 1970s Continuing Church Movement, which was phase two even for the Continuing Anglicans. They wobble quite a long way to the high side. The old Anglican Church of North America, which is not to be confused with Bo Duncan's version, was formed in 1977 at the St Louis Congress of Concerned Churchmen. Unfortunately, it was a hastily cobbled together body and tensions rapidly emerged between those who wanted to be a conservative version of the Episcopal Church, and those who wanted root and branch reform. The older fault line between High and Low got in there somewhere too. As a result of too much politics and not enough prayer and dialogue the old ACNA fragmented, and the ACC is the largest of those fragments. It tends to be High Church, and it completely reworked its Constitution and Canons in 1977-83. I hope Bishop Damien does not mind, but the ACC Diocese of the UK is one of the most consistently Anglo-Catholic in the ACC.

The FCE is far older having its roots in the Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion, which started back in the 1750s, and the session of various Evangelical Anglican clergy over Ritualism in the 1840s and 50s. The Deed Poll that marked the creation of the FCE as a separate entity associated with the Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion dates from 1863, whilst the two oldest congregations date back to the 1840s. They had their problems in the 19th century with a rather lengthy dispute between the 'Methodist' and 'Episcopal' factions, which was helped on by the unfortunate coincidence of the REC deciding to set up in England, and the erratic genius of Thomas H. Gregg. At one time the FCE constituency was split into three - the Free Church of England (1863, but with older congregations); the Reformed Episcopal Church of the United Kingdom (formed 1877) and the Reformed Church of England (formed 1878). Essentially, the RCE was a split from the REC-UK, which in turn took some of its ministers from the FCE. In the 1880s the Reformed C of E was the liveliest of the three, thanks to Gregg, but when he suffered a nervous breakdown in 1891 he did not have a competant successor and his son brokered their merging back into the REC-UK in 1892.

The FCE peaked in the late 1930s with a 48 congregations and three dioceses. Like the Methodists, they did not do well in the 1950s and 60s as many of their local congregations were too fragile to survive the cold winds of secularization.

Hope this helps.

PD

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

I ahve worshipped several times with Bishop Damien Mead of the ACC, th first time about 11 years ago, when he was just a priest, in Rochester. Several years later, I caught up with him in Canterbury, when I worshipped there there 2 or 3 times. The ACC is definately high up the candle. It has Cranmer 1549 as authorised canon, but they usually worship to the English Missal. For me, that is a dream combination! Also, they take the sacraments very seriously. Personal preparation for communion, something I strongly believe in, is emphasised, and the spirituality of the Christian life is taught and practised. Bishop Damien is a fine priest.

So why didn't I join? It's quite hard to take seriously a church which probably has less than 100 members in the UK. The whole fragmented nature of Continuing Anglicanism is typically Protestant. If you offend me in your church, I'll start my own down the road! The ACC claims that, by going back to the Seven Ecumenical Councils, it is both a Western Orthodox Church and an independent Catholic Church. Unfortunately nobody else sees it that way. Their orders and therefore their sacraments are recognised by no one but themselves. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Anglican Continuum.

Many Anglicans, troubled by how the goalposts have been moved so far from the churches in which they grew up, nevertheless don't want to join Rome. So to form a continuing church, which in the case of the ACC, represents the highest end of Anglo-Catholic worship as it was both in the Episcopal Church of the USA and in the Church of England, is quite logical. But where can it lead? There has been no sign of growth in the last decade for the ACC in the UK. It is a tiny unrecognised church, likely to fizzle out. At least if the Ordinariate goes the same way, it will blend in to the world's largest Church.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

With my Central Churchmanship background the ACC gives me problems from a different angle as high altitude training was not part of the confirmation class in my home parish. I gave it a go in the ACC in the UK and found it wayu too Catholic for me so I moved to the Free Church of England and later to the Church of Ireland (Traditional Rite) where my preference for BCP liturgy in a straight glass could not get me into any trouble. When I moved over here I sideways slid from CI(TR) into the ACA, but I ran into the bigotted end of Anglo-Catholicism again.
[brick wall]

PD

[ 18. April 2012, 00:10: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
but I ran into the bigotted end of Anglo-Catholicism again.

What do you call the "bigotted end" of Anglo-Catholicism?

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

To be honest Paul, bigots exist in every religious tradition, I just feel it more when it comes from Anglo-Catholics where it seems to thrive iamong a subset of the 'gin, lace, and backbiting' crowd.

With my own background as a catholic-leaning Central Churchman I have found it painful to experience the strange brand of intolerance meeted out to those who disagree with the party line. Bishop Hamlett was very rigid, but you could survive if you kept out of his way until he started using spies. My parting from him came when he asked me to spy on other clergy in the diocese to make sure that they were towing the line on ceremonial.

However, my worst experience with the 'bigotted end' was in the TAC. Basically, the Hepworth-Moyer set would not brook any open opposition to the Ordinariate proposal. As a result, if you did not tow the line you were subject to dirty tricks - especially if your parish was able to pay its clergyman. The favourite was to acuse a priest of fiddling his expenses - which is almost impossible to prove due to sloppy accounting procedures, suspend him, and then pressure his parish to fire him whilst he is suspended.

I am really glad to be away from that sort of environment now.

PD

Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :

Regarding the CofE and the FCE orders: I was told by the late Dr Paul Faunch that he had been accepted by the Cof E in the orders he received from the FCE. Did I misunderstand him?

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

No, I remember him saying the precisely the same thing to me. I have a suspicion that at the time he moved from the FCE to the C of E, the latter did not then have a church-wide policy on such things, so it would have been up to the Diocesan Bishop.

I would summize that he ran into a sympathetic bishop, who decided that a priest, is a priest, is a priest. As the FCE's bishops are well enough documented and their ordinal close enough to the C of E's for Homer to nod. The C of E can be remarkably inconsistent in its attitude to episcopal orders conferred outside the Anglican Communion.

PD

Posted by SFG (# 17081) on :

Can I ask about the lay people of the FCE?

Are there familes who have been FCE for generations and know no other, or are the laity disaffected CofE types? Or maybe a combination of both.

I raise this because it may be an indicator of the future of the denomination. I suspect the principles on which they were formed may no longer be so relevant, or at least seem not to be so relevant to the modern generation.

[ 18. May 2012, 21:31: Message edited by: SFG ]

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

Conservative evangelicals in the CofE fall into two groups: ones who break away to form their own little sect, like this lot, or who continually threaten to if they don't get their own way, and ones who accuse liberals of being schismatics!

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
Conservative evangelicals in the CofE fall into two groups: ones who break away to form their own little sect, like this lot, or who continually threaten to if they don't get their own way, and ones who accuse liberals of being schismatics!

You missed out the vast majority who do neither.

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
Conservative evangelicals in the CofE fall into two groups: ones who break away to form their own little sect, like this lot, or who continually threaten to if they don't get their own way, and ones who accuse liberals of being schismatics!
You missed out the vast majority who do neither.

If I ever meet one, I'll let you know.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
Conservative evangelicals in the CofE fall into two groups: ones who break away to form their own little sect, like this lot, or who continually threaten to if they don't get their own way, and ones who accuse liberals of being schismatics!
You missed out the vast majority who do neither.
If I ever meet one, I'll let you know.

I'm not an Evangelical, but you really don't know what you are talking about.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

If I were an evangelical, I'd be greatly insulted by Steve H's ignorant comment. As I'm not, please allow me to feel insulted on their behalf.

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

OK, ok, so I was over-generalising: they do have a strong tendency to fall into one of those two groups, though, and they can be bloody rude about us liberals, too. Also, note that I was talking about conservative anglican evangelicals in the C, not evangellycules in general.

[ 21. May 2012, 16:25: Message edited by: Steve H ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I suppose if you define conservative evangelical tightly enough you might just have a point. But I don't know if many people would want to be labelled in such a restricting way. I know many 'conservative catholics' who come out with some surprisingly liberal statements at times.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

This just goes to show that there are many different and overlapping churches within Anglicanism. And that the word 'evangelical' is effectively useless as a description of people.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
And that the word 'evangelical' is effectively useless as a description of people.

Well, exactly.

And evangellycule is even more useless, as well as being somewhat dodgy here.

Steve H, you might benefit from reflecting on the implications of Commandment 1 for certain types of posting idiosyncracies on the serious discussion boards. Rulings on that are, of course a matter for Admin, so this is a well-meant Hostly nudge.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Hosts

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
Conservative evangelicals in the CofE fall into two groups: ones who break away to form their own little sect, like this lot,

Another pathetic little sect with a vastly inflated sense of its own importance.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Meanwhile, on today's Ship Two Minute Hate, a self-defined "liberal" picks on evangelicals and fundamentalists yet again. What a surprise.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:

quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
Conservative evangelicals in the CofE fall into two groups: ones who break away to form their own little sect, like this lot,
Another pathetic little sect with a vastly inflated sense of its own importance.

SteveH - maybe you can explain to us what this mirthful posting of links to other churches is all about? And just for the record, I don't think the ACC counts as evangelical anyway. They may be minute in the UK but have had a more substantial presence in the USA for longer, from whence they came.

If you head over to Anglicans Online, you'll find an entire section on churches not in communion - including the continuum of which this church is a member. Though not recommended if you are going to suffer an attack of apoplectic hilarity.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Ah well, gentle hints clearly don't do it.

Host Hat On
Steve H
I'm reporting you to Ship of Fools Admin for them to consider the Commandment 1 (and maybe other) implications of your posting habits.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Host Hat Off

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

It was interesting having a bit of a look at all the Anglican Churches not in communion with Canterbury. To my untrained eye they seem to be quite a range of beliefs - I particularly like the sound of the Christ the King Graceland independent Anglican Church of Canada with their minister Elvis Priestly. Not all are Evangelical by any means.

It doesn't appear that there are many cross-overs with the official Canterbury Anglican churches - though some seem to have indirect links, such as the CESA which has links to the Sydney Diocese.

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Ah well, gentle hints clearly don't do it.

Host Hat On
Steve H
I'm reporting you to Ship of Fools Admin for them to consider the Commandment 1 (and maybe other) implications of your posting habits.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Host Hat Off

That's your privilege, of course, but I don't think I've been racist, sexist, any other ist, or trolled or flame-baited. Just a bit blunt, that's all, but so are many others on this forum.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

Steve H

May I remind you that you have been given a second chance by being allowed back on board. Don't blow it.

Spike
SoF Admin

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

OK. Noted.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:

quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
Conservative evangelicals in the CofE fall into two groups: ones who break away to form their own little sect, like this lot,
Another pathetic little sect with a vastly inflated sense of its own importance.
SteveH - maybe you can explain to us what this mirthful posting of links to other churches is all about? And just for the record, I don't think the ACC counts as evangelical anyway. They may be minute in the UK but have had a more substantial presence in the USA for longer, from whence they came.

If you head over to Anglicans Online, you'll find an entire section on churches not in communion - including the continuum of which this church is a member. Though not recommended if you are going to suffer an attack of apoplectic hilarity.

The ACC tends to Low ball its numbers, but the total in the Original Province - USA, UK, South Sundan, Central Africa, South Africa, and Australia is in the somewhere around 40,000, with the bulk of those in central Africa and South Sudan. ACC Province 2 - India and Pakistan probably has between 50,000 and 60,000 according to their respective annual reports. These are Communicant numbers by the way, which is a more realistic number than baptized.

The numbers in the UK are miniscule but they have shown increases at the last three Provincial Synods - 2007, 2009 and 2011 - not bad for a jurisdiction that was bishopless for over ten years, and had unfortunate godparents.

PD

[ 23. May 2012, 21:34: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

Included in a list on this site which gives details of churches in which only psalms and not 'man made' hymns are sung is 'Bolton Reformed Anglican Church'. Most of the places listed are Wee Frees, ultra conservative places in Ulster and the like. A quick internet search produces no meaningful results for the place in Bolton. There is a local press report of a recent fire at the derelict 'former United Reformed Anglican Church in Beta Street, Bolton'. This curious ecclesiastical beast looks to be a chimaera produced by a reporter who is vaguely aware of the CoE and the URC and has somehow conflated the two.

That aside, can anyone offer any further information on the 'Reformed Anglican Church'? Anything to do with the Free CoE? Metrical psalms and no hymns would have be the norm in the CoE until the early 19th century - could the place in Bolton be (or have been) a curious survival of that era, a lonely fossil?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

That webpage appears last to have been updated on 22 March 1999.

I've long dreamt of finding some CofE congregation that still used Tate & Brady or even Sternhold & Hopkins, but alas, I don't think such exists. They'd have had real difficulty replacing their books when they wore out. As far as I know, the only reissue of either in the last 150 years was a photocopy of a C17 text of Sternhold & Hopkins with music by the West Gallery Music Association less than 20 years ago.

I suspect if any were to have got away with it, they'd have to have been a proprietary chapel, with the ability to hire a priest and then tell him or her what to do. Does any shipmate know if any such still exist?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0