Ship of Fools: TEC Protestants

Thread: TEC Protestants 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=023025

Posted by jordan32404 (# 15833) on :

I'm wondering if there is some sort of organization for Protestant-minded Episcopalians like there is Forward in Faith and Affirming Catholicism for Catholic-minded folk.

Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :

Fulcrum.

That's in the UK and there are others.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

jordan32404 is asking about TEC though, Balaam. Fulcrum is a UK-only organization AFAIK.

[ 29. April 2012, 18:54: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
jordan32404 is asking about TEC though, Balaam. Fulcrum is a UK-only organization AFAIK.

From the site:

quote:
"I see the launch of Fulcrum as a call to evangelical Anglicans of whatever background to work together, to play a full part in the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion, to make the running, instead of always reacting, to be in the front row of innovative Gospel-work." Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham, Fulcrum National Launch

Sounds like he wants to take it beyond these shores.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Fair enough, Spike, I'm happy to be corrected if it has spread beyond the UK.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jordan32404:
I'm wondering if there is some sort of organization for Protestant-minded Episcopalians like there is Forward in Faith and Affirming Catholicism for Catholic-minded folk.

What exactly do you mean by "Protestant-minded"? I thought all Anglicans were protestants.

Posted by jordan32404 (# 15833) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:

quote:
Originally posted by jordan32404:
I'm wondering if there is some sort of organization for Protestant-minded Episcopalians like there is Forward in Faith and Affirming Catholicism for Catholic-minded folk.
What exactly do you mean by "Protestant-minded"? I thought all Anglicans were protestants.

I think that Anglicanism is Protestant, myself, but the folks in FIFNA or Affirming Catholicism wouldn't say so.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

FiF and AffCath don't speak for he Church, and honestly I can hardly think of any "real life" Anglicans that deny the Protestantism of TEC.

I can't think of any organizations, but the low-church seminary is VTS.

Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
FiF and AffCath don't speak for he Church, and honestly I can hardly think of any "real life" Anglicans that deny the Protestantism of TEC.

I can't think of any organizations, but the low-church seminary is VTS.

VTS isn't low church anymore necessarily. All sorts of dioceses send people there for training - it's Trinity, Ambridge that you'll want for the full pretty effect I guess.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
FiF and AffCath don't speak for he Church, and honestly I can hardly think of any "real life" Anglicans that deny the Protestantism of TEC.

Hello! Good to meet you. [Big Grin]

I think "Protestant-minded" is a decent way to say it. Personally, I consider Anglicanism to be Catholic, but reformed. Some people call it "Catholic and Protestant," and mean roughly the same thing, I think.

But I don't mean to derail this thread.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
FiF and AffCath don't speak for he Church, and honestly I can hardly think of any "real life" Anglicans that deny the Protestantism of TEC.

I can't think of any organizations, but the low-church seminary is VTS.

How about all the diocese in the entire Southeastern United States?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I hate to tell you people this, but you aren't real. You're the internet! [Razz]

This here site is about the only place I know of that gets all heated up about Anglicans being Protestants.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
What exactly do you mean by "Protestant-minded"? I thought all Anglicans were protestants.

I'm cradle C of E and I don't think I'm protestant. I don't accept sola scriptura and I don't accept justification by faith alone.

I say the rosary. I go to confession. I make a point of going to mass every Sunday. I go on retreat to monasteries. I go on pilgrimage.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I grew up in the Protestant Episcopal Church. I don't know why or when they changed the name, but 20 years ago I was in a clergy person's office, I made a comment, he said "that's Protestant thinking, Episcopalians aren't Protestants," I replied "I grew up in the Protestant Episcopal church."

People on Eccles have insisted the Anglican Communion is not Protestant. (If I understood them correctly.)

Why did the church throw the word Protestant out of it's title?

As to sola gracia, if Wikipedia is correct the Roman Catholics agree with it. "In November 1999, the Lutheran World Federation and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity issued the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" that said, "By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping us and calling us to good works." Wikipedia sola gracia

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
FiF and AffCath don't speak for he Church, and honestly I can hardly think of any "real life" Anglicans that deny the Protestantism of TEC.

You don't have to deny the protestantism to affirm the catholicism. Just as evangelicals will deny that they are 'Catholic' in the Roman sense, though they affirm the Creeds and 'one, holy, catholic, apostolic church.' So anglo-catholics will deny that they are protestant in the Ian Paisley sense, but can hardly deny that they are protestant against certain RC positions.

The problem is I suppose that the word 'protestant' can have negative implications: you're against something rather than positively for it. Perhaps we should reclaim it, like the term 'nonconformist', as a positive sign of rebellion. After all, a famous Anglo-catholic (Stewart Headlam I think) said that the mass was 'a meeting of rebels against a mammon-worshipping society'

But it's a fact that the word is never used in the Book of Common Prayer (any edition).

Posted by JSwift (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

But it's a fact that the word is never used in the Book of Common Prayer (any edition).

That doesn't seem to be true on this side of the Atlantic. Here is the preface to the first American edition.

Posted by ostiarius (# 13726) on :

Even still in the 1928 edition

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Why did the church throw the word Protestant out of its title?

Apparently it never did, if the Wikipedia entry is to be believed. (Can't link to it; the address contains characters not legal in the Ship's HTML code.)

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Why did the church throw the word Protestant out of its title?
Apparently it never did, if the Wikipedia entry is to be believed. (Can't link to it; the address contains characters not legal in the Ship's HTML code.)

Interesting. "The Episcopal Church in the United States of America is often called ECUSA. Perhaps it is more properly called PECUSA (The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America). If you think that being Episcopalian is about being proper, then you should probably call it the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America." I wonder why the word "protestant" is not used anymore, like: the 1940 hymnal is of the Protestant Episcopal church, the 1982 is of the Episcopal Church. Well, next time I get told (by clergy even!) "we are Episcopalians, we are not Protestants" I'll remind them of the CURRENT official name of the church. [Smile]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

I seem to remember a big deal being made over the change, first to The Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and then to just The Episcopal Church.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I said my bit. In courtesy to jordan, can we get back to answering his question? (I, of course, am in no position to do so.)

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
FiF and AffCath don't speak for he Church, and honestly I can hardly think of any "real life" Anglicans that deny the Protestantism of TEC.

I can't think of any organizations, but the low-church seminary is VTS.
How about all the diocese in the entire Southeastern United States?

North Carolina has a number of Anglo-Catholic parishes, and of course Charleston South Carolina has one quite well known A-C joint.

As to the question of an organisation for protestant-minded Episcopalians, unlike the CofE, TEC isn't really about such strong party affiliations. The majority churchmanship is more homogeneous, especially since the cultural assimilation of the 1979 BCP.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
FiF and AffCath don't speak for he Church, and honestly I can hardly think of any "real life" Anglicans that deny the Protestantism of TEC.

I can't think of any organizations, but the low-church seminary is VTS.
How about all the diocese in the entire Southeastern United States?

Both of the Florida dioceses I'm familiar with (SW Florida and Central Florida) tend to send their seminarians to Sewanee.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Personally, I consider Anglicanism to be Catholic, but reformed.

Thats wot that Fulcrum website said.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Personally, I consider Anglicanism to be Catholic, but reformed.
Thats wot that Fulcrum website said.

It's just a longer-winded way of saying "Protestant"

P = C+R

Posted by BalddudeCrompond (# 12152) on :

Personally, I prefer the word reformed, rather than protestant. I think that better fits the theology of the current Episcopal Church. I'd rather be defined as what I believe in, rather than what I'm opposing.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

You can protest for something (e.g. your innocence) - it's by no means restricted to protesting against stuff.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
As to the question of an organisation for protestant-minded Episcopalians, unlike the CofE, TEC isn't really about such strong party affiliations. The majority churchmanship is more homogeneous, especially since the cultural assimilation of the 1979 BCP.

Except for the "snake-belly low and proud of it" parishes in Virginia, I think the US church has probably been more homogeneous than the CofE since the REC split off in the 19th Century.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I said my bit. In courtesy to jordan, can we get back to answering his question? (I, of course, am in no position to do so.)

In asking why "Protestant" was dropped from the name - or as I was corrected, dropped from use - I'm asking what changed, in what way was the USA church Protestant and no longer is? That would help identify which local churches are still Protestant.

I grew up so low church any Episcopal churches I walk into these days seem Catholic! Fancy robes, chanting some of the prayers, more formalities than in the Catholic churches I visit!

But I suppose style is not the whole issue in what is Anglo-Catholic, what is Anglo-Protestant, and what are Anglo-just-anglos?

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

Angloid, I believe it is spelt out in the former Irish book's preface or somwhere in the material only Eccles people read.

[ 30. April 2012, 15:03: Message edited by: Mama Thomas ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
As to the question of an organisation for protestant-minded Episcopalians, unlike the CofE, TEC isn't really about such strong party affiliations. The majority churchmanship is more homogeneous, especially since the cultural assimilation of the 1979 BCP.

Also, I can't see a need for such an organization. What purpose would it serve?

Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
and of course Charleston South Carolina has one quite well known A-C joint.

Are they still in TEC, I heard they were going with the Ordinariate?

I know plenty of people in my AC shack that shudder at being called just plain "catholics" as that implies Rome, while I'm happy to be called "protestant" as that implies not Rome.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
Personally, I prefer the word reformed, rather than protestant. I think that better fits the theology of the current Episcopal Church. I'd rather be defined as what I believe in, rather than what I'm opposing.

I've read that when the Episcopal dioceses in the secessionist Confederate States of America were organising themselves into a national church, the name "Reformed Catholic Church in the Confederate States of America" was proposed, although they ended up going with "Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States of America". It's interesting to think that tractarianism had sufficiently penetrated the American South by 1861 for such a proposal to be made.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
As to the question of an organisation for protestant-minded Episcopalians, unlike the CofE, TEC isn't really about such strong party affiliations. The majority churchmanship is more homogeneous, especially since the cultural assimilation of the 1979 BCP.
Also, I can't see a need for such an organization. What purpose would it serve?

I don't think it would serve any purpose in non-established TEC. By contrast, the CofE has these various groups fighting either for hegemony or at least to preserve territory. As pointed out, TEC got rid of all the extreme protestants when the arch-Calvinists and no-popery people stomped out in the 1870s along with the suffragan bishop of Kentucky, creating the Reformed Episcopal Church. However, I think what you do have in TEC are various devotional and charitable societies that represent different spectra of churchmanship: CBS and Guild of All Souls for the catholic-minded; DOK and Brotherhood of St Andrew for the more MOTR-Prot parishes. You also have the Society of Catholic Priests for the catholic-minded clergy, though I'm unaware of any analogous fellowship for low church/evangelical type clergy.

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

There's the Church Army for both clergy and laity.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Does the Church Army exist in TEC? I'm only aware of it in the CofE.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
As to the question of an organisation for protestant-minded Episcopalians, unlike the CofE, TEC isn't really about such strong party affiliations. The majority churchmanship is more homogeneous, especially since the cultural assimilation of the 1979 BCP.
Also, I can't see a need for such an organization. What purpose would it serve?

I haven't come across any especially low Episcopal Churches, and I imagine that for the most part their liturgical choices are not controversial. I'm unaware of any recent liturgical/theological changes in the Book of Common Prayer which alienate the low-churchers.

Maybe if the BCP 20XX ed. mandates smells and bells in the liturgy or contemplates a lot of stuff involving the Virgin Mary.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

An especially low Episcopal parish that is now part of the +Jack Iker (Fort Worth) schism is St Andrew's Fort Worth. It's a complete anomaly in what was always an Anglo-Catholic diocese, where Morning Prayer is otherwise almost unknown as a Sunday service. St Andrew's has always been a surplice and stole, early HC, late MP alternating with HC kind of a place. They refused to adopt the '79 and have continued to use '28 AFAIK. Also, the rector and other clergy were known as "Mr..." rather than Father so and so. When I was familiar with the place, the rector celebrated HC with almost no manual gestures at all, didn't do the lavabo, and held his palms up in Aaronic style blessing for the blessing at the end of mass (not that they would have EVER called it that)rather than making the sign of the cross. His style of ceremonial could only be described as casual.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

St. John's Episcopal in Ft. Worth was also quite low, if not as low as St. Andrew's (I was a paid Bass in the choir there more years ago than I care to count).

At the time, they used both the 1928 and the 1979, depending on the service. They were Rite I, and often appended HC to MP (or MP to HC, if you prefer). It's not clear from their website quite what they do now, but I note they also followed Iker. I suspect that's because the clergy did--I'm trying to remember the name of the priest who was there in the late 80s and I can't imagine him leaving with +Iker, but he was not far from retirement 25 years ago.

If the congregation is anything like it was when I was there, a large proportion of them will stick with the building. The attitude then was "Rectors come and go, but this is our church".

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Does the Church Army exist in TEC? I'm only aware of it in the CofE.

The link Mama Thomas provided is for churcharmyusa.org. From their list of missions, their activity appears to be centered in Missouri.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
St. John's Episcopal in Ft. Worth was also quite low, if not as low as St. Andrew's (I was a paid Bass in the choir there more years ago than I care to count).

At the time, they used both the 1928 and the 1979, depending on the service. They were Rite I, and often appended HC to MP (or MP to HC, if you prefer). It's not clear from their website quite what they do now, but I note they also followed Iker. I suspect that's because the clergy did--I'm trying to remember the name of the priest who was there in the late 80s and I can't imagine him leaving with +Iker, but he was not far from retirement 25 years ago.

If the congregation is anything like it was when I was there, a large proportion of them will stick with the building. The attitude then was "Rectors come and go, but this is our church".

Yeah, St John's was the other low-ish place, but the one time I ever attended a Eucharist there, the celebrant did wear eucharistic vestments (a very fine chasuble, actually) and it was more dignified than St Andrew's. Fr (note: it was Fr and not Mr) Leatherbury was the rector there in the early 1980s and I think he had quite a reputation as a difficult man whom the prudent wouldn't cross. I'm sure he's no longer in the Church Militant here in earth, but has moved on to a clearer light.

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

I have always liked the phrase used in some Anglican/Lutheran agreements, referring to these two bodies as "the two catholic churches of the Reformation."

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

A Lutheran pastor I knew many years ago used to refer to Lutherans as "Lutheran Catholics". That was in Texas, where Lutherans also tend to be relatively high churchy.

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

The Lutheran equivalent to "Anglo-Catholic" is usually "Evangelical-Catholic."

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Yes, I'm aware of that, e.g. St Peter's Lutheran in Manhattan use that self-description. As my acquaintance with this particular pastor was during the early 1980s I think it's possible that the Evangelical Catholic designation wasn't as common at that time, at least outside of more scholarly Lutheran circles.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I do not know whether it is still on the go, but there used to be a group called the Evangelical Episcopalian Fellowship (EEF). They published something called the 'Prayer Book Manual' in 1943 for the 1928 BCP and revised it in 1982 for use with the 1979 BCP. They were mainly what I would call 'liberal Evangelicals' in that they were not Biblical literalists, and were lukewarm at best about PSA, but they were definitely on the Protestant wing of Episcopalianism.

PD

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

I'm on lunch break, no time for a long post. In my limited experiance as an Episcopalian, I would say that nowadays Protestant or Evangelical theology manifests itself in preaching and pastoral care, but not in liturgy. The one Evangelical Episcopal priest I know personally wears the chasuble and uses incense, but prefers a quiet conversation over lunch to the Sacrement of Reconciliation.

Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on :

If it is of use, in French Canada Anglican is distinguished from Protestant. The term protestant is used either for 1) for non conformists and evangelicals or 2) amongst the older generation for English speakers!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I hate to tell you people this, but you aren't real. You're the internet!

This here site is about the only place I know of that gets all heated up about Anglicans being Protestants.

Same. I had no idea I might not be Protestant until I arrived on the Ship. I'd always thought I was mildly Protestant, yes, but still in that category.

It was very interesting watching the TV series The Tudors over the last year and a bit, knowing what the Ship has taught me. Yes, yes, I know it's not all tremendously accurate history or anything. But a lot of it is close to history. And is what quite interesting watching the mindset and the battles. It seems as if Henry VIII himself was quite keen on the notion that he was asserting his own supremacy but otherwise keeping the church doctrinally on the same path it was already on.

Mind you, his children did tend to veer off in either direction. Not sure exactly where Elizabeth I ended up after her siblings had alternated between strong Protestant and strong Catholic, ie I know she was closer to the middle but not sure if it was quite the same as her father.

Posted by Cruet (# 14586) on :

Surprisingly, the South is not solid low church.
The old South Florida diocese was mildly AC, as was Georgia, Western North Carolina, and Louisiana. At one time, there were a number of
Nashota House priests.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Crucifix in her chapel aside, Elizabeth I was almost certainly "basically Protestant," as were the Church of England and her clergy until the Oxford Movement. Until then, it was the Puritans, not the Anglicans, that questioned the Protestantism of the Church of England.

Zach

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

A look at the Diocese of Western North Carolina website confirms that there are a number of A-C and high church parishes at present. There are three NC dioceses and I'm not sure of the name of the one that includes Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, but Raleigh includes an advanced A-C parish. A recent look at a youtube vid of the investiture of the new Bishop of Alabama in his cathedral shows some fairly high churchy features, although the PB's mile-high mitre (garishly coloured, as you'd expect)might cause one to go blind.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Crucifix in her chapel aside, Elizabeth I was almost certainly "basically Protestant," as were the Church of England and her clergy until the Oxford Movement. Until then, it was the Puritans, not the Anglicans, that questioned the Protestantism of the Church of England.

Zach

Theologically, Elizabeth I seems to have definitely been to the reformed catholic/protestant end of things, but she definitely also wanted liturgy that was dignified, stately and tasteful. She also seems to have held to belief in the Real Presence, without trying to over-define the issue. As to the crucifix in her private chapel, some controversialist wag wrote a chastising tract about "The Enormities in the Queen's Closet Yet".

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Crucifix in her chapel aside, Elizabeth I was almost certainly "basically Protestant," as were the Church of England and her clergy until the Oxford Movement. Until then, it was the Puritans, not the Anglicans, that questioned the Protestantism of the Church of England.

Zach

I am not sure this is absolutely quite true. Elizabeth I was ingenious in hiding most of her religious belief, and politcally needed to steer a careful course with regard to Spain. She was very conscious of being Henry VIII's daughter.

The protestant James I who succeeded her rather liked things a little higher, as it were. And the period 1620-40 (ish) the historian Graham Parry refering to the reforms of Laud in his book 'All Glory, Laud, and Honour' called the 'Anglican Counter-Reformation'.

The Oxford Movement itself was based on a continuous but perhaps small stream that had been present within the CofE right through the Reformation to the 19thC in one guise or another.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I hate to tell you people this, but you aren't real. You're the internet!

This here site is about the only place I know of that gets all heated up about Anglicans being Protestants.
Same. I had no idea I might not be Protestant until I arrived on the Ship. I'd always thought I was mildly Protestant, yes, but still in that category.

It was very interesting watching the TV series The Tudors over the last year and a bit, knowing what the Ship has taught me. Yes, yes, I know it's not all tremendously accurate history or anything. But a lot of it is close to history. And is what quite interesting watching the mindset and the battles. It seems as if Henry VIII himself was quite keen on the notion that he was asserting his own supremacy but otherwise keeping the church doctrinally on the same path it was already on.

Mind you, his children did tend to veer off in either direction. Not sure exactly where Elizabeth I ended up after her siblings had alternated between strong Protestant and strong Catholic, ie I know she was closer to the middle but not sure if it was quite the same as her father.

Edward VI seems to have veered strongly in the Reformed direction. Had he lived he probably would have ended up a Calvinist. Mary I was RC. Elizabeth seems to have been a Lutheran with some Reformed leanings, or Reformed with some Lutheran leanings - I am not sure which, and I am not absolutely sure she did either!

PD

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

She was far too clever and wise to reveal her hand - even, as you say, if she knew herself. As I said in a previous post, she was veey sure about one thing in particular: she was Henry VIII's daughter.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I think people tend to over complicate Good Saint Bess's take on religion.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think people tend to over complicate Good Saint Bess's take on religion.

I once heard her described as an Anti-Civilwarian.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I hate to tell you people this, but you aren't real. You're the internet!

This here site is about the only place I know of that gets all heated up about Anglicans being Protestants.
Same. I had no idea I might not be Protestant until I arrived on the Ship. I'd always thought I was mildly Protestant, yes, but still in that category.

It was very interesting watching the TV series The Tudors over the last year and a bit, knowing what the Ship has taught me. Yes, yes, I know it's not all tremendously accurate history or anything. But a lot of it is close to history. And is what quite interesting watching the mindset and the battles. It seems as if Henry VIII himself was quite keen on the notion that he was asserting his own supremacy but otherwise keeping the church doctrinally on the same path it was already on.

Mind you, his children did tend to veer off in either direction. Not sure exactly where Elizabeth I ended up after her siblings had alternated between strong Protestant and strong Catholic, ie I know she was closer to the middle but not sure if it was quite the same as her father.
Edward VI seems to have veered strongly in the Reformed direction. Had he lived he probably would have ended up a Calvinist. Mary I was RC. Elizabeth seems to have been a Lutheran with some Reformed leanings, or Reformed with some Lutheran leanings - I am not sure which, and I am not absolutely sure she did either!

PD

Quite so. Before editing my previous post, I had originally said that Elizabeth I's theology of the Real Presence appeared to be essentially Lutheran. I don't gather that theological precision was too important to her; indeed, quite the contrary. I think she seems to have wanted a moderate reformed catholicism that would have been close to the conservative continental Lutherans, whether or not she realised how close her brand of Anglicanism came to practices in places like Nuremburg or Uppsala.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think people tend to over complicate Good Saint Bess's take on religion.
I once heard her described as an Anti-Civilwarian.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cruet:
Surprisingly, the South is not solid low church.
The old South Florida diocese was mildly AC, as was Georgia, Western North Carolina, and Louisiana. At one time, there were a number of
Nashota House priests.

The Tampa church (Dio. of S.W. Fla.)where I grew up was (and still is) middle/middle-high. No incense, nothing too Romish, but I didn't even know it was an option to have a Sunday morning service without the Eucharist when that church was all I knew, and when I revisited the church a few weeks ago they seemed to have even more crossing and bowing and other gestures than they used to.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Apart from Virginia, the South used to be mainly low side of Broad in Churchmanship. The main service would be MP (except for 1st Sun.), but there would always be an early Communion, and the minister would wear surplice and stole. Candles on the altar were OK, and there was a certain amount of bowing and scraping - more if the priest was a Sewanee or a General; less if he was Virginia, ETS or Philadelphia Divinity. Up until the 1980s you really had to listen to the preaching to decide which nuance of MOTR the parish was.

The main exceptions seem to have been the old diocese of Southern FL, parts of GA, and NC. NC had a Tractarian Bishop early on, whilst back in the 1920s and 30s a determined attempt was made to broaden the Diocese of GA out. Southern FL was +Hank Louttit, Sr. country and his churchmanship was Missal, Martini and Lace. There should also be pockets of High Church in TN as the first three bishops there were all High or Tractarian.

PD

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

PD, interesting observation about the now long-defunct Philadelphia Divinity. My late, very spikey priest, Fr George Acker, rector of St Timothy's Fort Worth from the late 1950s until his retirement in the late 1980s, was a stalwart spike, as was the churchmanship he maintained at St Timothy's. Hence, not all Philadelphia men could have been on the lowish end of things. I know he was a parishioner at St Clement's during his time in Philly and likely took a lot of his churchmanship ideas from there. I seem to recall his saying that he went to Philadelphia because married seminarians weren't then permitted at Nashotah, but don't know what that says about his other potential options back in those days.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

I know that the diocese of Southern Ohio was a low-church shop for the most part, up until a very short time ago. The first Bishop of Southern Ohio was +Philander Chase, an evangelical of the Wilberforce, Gambier, Charles Wesley, and John Fletcher type. In fact, most of Chase's funds for the Ohio mission came from subscriptions raised by English Evangelical Anglicans. Both the New England High Churchmen and the Southern Lauditudinarians cosidered him "too Methodist" to support. After Chase's death, the diocese of Ohio was split into two parts, and in the southern half +Henry McIllvane continued the evangelical tradition. He refused to consecrate one church, St. Paul's, a tractinarian stronghold in Columbus, until they had replaced their altar with a communion table with legs. The altar was apparently draped with a frontal, and McIllvane used a walking stick. He apparently poked at the object in the chancel with his cane, and when it gave a hollow thump he yelled "this is an altar, and it will be removed immediately!" The strict low church tendencey began to fade with the introduction of the trial liturgies that preceeded the '79 prayer book, and culminated in 06 or 07 ( I think) when the dioecse elected an affirming catholic as their bishop. Nowadays, all that remains of Southern Ohio low churchmanship is a preference for a plain cross, rather then a crucifix, on the altar. However, I would venture to say that there are more evangelical churches left in the DSO then there are full on tat shacks, of either FiF or Aff-cath persuasion. Most of the congregation of St. Paul's, incidentally, left PECUSA after the ordination of women- they foremed a continuing Anglican parish that continues to this day.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Why did the church throw the word Protestant out of it's title?

Maybe because it sounds like negativism and it's about issues that are receding further into history with every passing year. Does it answer anymore a question that people on the street are asking when they wonder what, if anything, the Christian faith has to say to them?

Mind you, I still ask myself from time to time whether I should or could become a Roman Catholic who can stomach the whole meal served (as opposed to the so-called cafeteria kind), and the answer is always "no." Therefore I stay put. As Dan Savage's mother once said, "it's like the pope is trying to make Lutherans of us all!" But I hope the church has more urgent things to do than to keep 500-year-old controversies on life support.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
PD, interesting observation about the now long-defunct Philadelphia Divinity. My late, very spikey priest, Fr George Acker, rector of St Timothy's Fort Worth from the late 1950s until his retirement in the late 1980s, was a stalwart spike, as was the churchmanship he maintained at St Timothy's. Hence, not all Philadelphia men could have been on the lowish end of things. I know he was a parishioner at St Clement's during his time in Philly and likely took a lot of his churchmanship ideas from there. I seem to recall his saying that he went to Philadelphia because married seminarians weren't then permitted at Nashotah, but don't know what that says about his other potential options back in those days.

1973 really isn't that long ago. OK, I know, I am a historian...

Anyhow, it was not an uncommon thing in former times for quite High Church folks to attend a Low Church Seminary because they had 'committed matrimony.' My first bishop was a married seminarian. He was as high as a kite, but he went to that bastion of the Reformation known as St Aidan's College, Birkenhead because he was married. The Evos would accept married ordinands in those days, but the A-Cs would not. I also have a distinct recollection of meeting older A-Cs in the UK who went to Evangelical colleges because they had married during WW2.

On a slightly different topic, my mentor for the priesthood had to go pretty much on bended knee to the Bishop of Moray, Ross and Caithness to be allowed to marry whilst still an Assistant Curate. He would have been in his mid-30s at the time and had served in the British Army during the war.

PD

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0