Ship of Fools: Anglicanism in the Commonwealth.

Thread: Anglicanism in the Commonwealth. 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=025037

Posted by liberte (# 17538) on :

Hi everyone! This is my 1st post here.

I'm from a Commonwealth country. I visited a traditional Anglican church when I was studying abroad in the USA. Loved the worship and the congregation tremendously.

As a whole the church was doctrinally conservative Protestant and Evangelical, but strictly adhered to the Prayer Book (even used KJV English), and was middle in terms of liturgy (no crucifix and surplice/stole only but congregation cross-signs and genuflects). Not sure if they believe in baptismal regeneration or their views on Communion, but they certainly hold onto some "Real Presence" belief.

I get the feeling that I do not see such type of Anglicanism in UK, Australia etc. I've heard that either you're Evangelical and (sometimes ultra) low-church, or liberal and high-church (Anglo-Catholics being an exception). Is this claim true? And if yes, why do you think this is so?

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

Welcome liberte - if you wish to introduce formally there is a thread pinned at the top of All Saints for this very purpose. Otherwise settle in and have fun.

I can't give any real sort of answer to your question as I haven't been an Anglican for Quite A Long Time but somebody may be along to answer sometime but I think what you describe is a bit like low to middle Broad Church.

eta: per your request in the welcome thread I am shifting this to Ecclesiantics, where you are far more likely to get an answer to your particular points.

WW
All Saints Host

[ 01. February 2013, 02:24: Message edited by: Welease Woderwick ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
I'm from a Commonwealth country.

That's a broad category, too broad, in fact. Canada and Australia are both in the Commonwealth, as are Nigeria and South Africa, but the Nigerian church is Low while the South African one is High. Old Commonwealth vs. New Commonwealth, etc.

Would you please be more specific?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I live in a Commonwealth. [Razz]

Posted by liberte (# 17538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:
I'm from a Commonwealth country.
That's a broad category, too broad, in fact. Canada and Australia are both in the Commonwealth, as are Nigeria and South Africa, but the Nigerian church is Low while the South African one is High. Old Commonwealth vs. New Commonwealth, etc.

Would you please be more specific?

How about UK and Australia? I'm from Singapore btw. It's just I have not heard of liturgical AND evangelical Anglican churches outside of the US.

In my country for example I think only a handful of parishes even use the BCP, and the liturgical service is usually early, unpopular, and attended by mostly old folks while the contemporary praise and worship service is heavily attended but is not very different from free-flow evangelical services you see in the average non-denom church.

[ 01. February 2013, 03:00: Message edited by: liberte ]

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

I would say across the former British Empire (from which those dastardly Americans ungraciously defected [Biased]

) there are as many changes of mater cantuar as there are colours in a rainbow - and I don't mean ROYGBIV but every intermediate shade as well. Forget fifty shades of grey: we produce an infinite shading of light.

Most are represented on these boards, though our most Arminian of Brethren have managed to get themselves expelled, not for their theology but for their attempts to crusade. They are mainly from Sydney.

There - that's for starters. And don't be confused by South Africa - there's two Anglican churches there. Oh I suppose there are in OZ, too, though one remains tiny.

Zappa, checking in: modern chazzie-wearing father-calling gospel-processing anglo-evo-carflic-(neo)orthodox.

[ 01. February 2013, 03:16: Message edited by: Zappa ]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Anglican immigrants from the formerly British possessions in the Caribbean seem to be uniformly Anglocatholic, or at least Very High Church.

Welcome liberte.

[ 01. February 2013, 03:23: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
How about UK and Australia? I'm from Singapore btw. It's just I have not heard of liturgical AND evangelical Anglican churches outside of the US.

Good to know about Singapore.

I had no idea what Singapore got up to. I live in Canada and I'm not Anglican, I just have lots of Anglican friends and you can't spend any time here on the Ship without learning about all the infinite variations of Anglicanism.

Where's PD when you need him? PD, +PD, you're wanted in Eccles!

+Name around here means the person is a bishop. PD is a Shipmate and a Bishop in one of the continuing Anglican churches in the US, not The Episcopal Church which is the "official" Anglican church, the one that gets invited to Lambeth Conferences.

I was referring to the Anglican Church of Southern Africa in my previous post, which ++Desmond Tutu belongs to (++ means Archbishop), which is very Anglo-Catholic.

In some countries, Canada and the US are excellent examples, the Anglican/Episcopal Church is more "liturgical" because the low, informal evangelical sort of person is better served by other churches and vise-verse Anglicans use liturgy and the Prayer Book as a distinctive identity marker and way to stand out in the row of churches on the street (literally).

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Interestingly, as I've probably said before on these boards, NZ is low-liberal, either mainly charismatic without liturgy, or sort of BCP without adornment (even when BCP has morphed into NZ's 1980s Prayer Book the liturgical form is still Cranmer on Mogadon). Surplice and scarf are often to be seen there, especially in the Māori churches. In OZ, outside the Sydney influenced dioceses, where neither a vestment nor a prayer book dare make an appearance these days, it's mainly Chazzie and post-Vatican Anglican, and I haven't seen a cassock or surplice, except on an organist, for 30 years.

I would really like to see "High Church" and "Anglo Catholic" defined in contradistinction to each other, though. [Confused]

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

Good afternoon liberte, and welcome to the Ship.

As others have said, the Anglican Communion is a very diverse ship, just as it is likely that individual Provinces (regional sections, often based on countries) are diverse. That is one of the great joys and blessings - as well as pains and sorrows - of being Anglican.

Here in Australia, there are to be found all shades of Anglicanism, and definitely individual communities can host different shades within them. The BCP is not used as much as it might or ought, but the vast majority of Anglican parishes would use the authorised books of worship, either An Austrralian Prayer Book or the older A Prayer Book for Australia. This is definitely true of open evangelical churches I have attended.

Here in Diocese of Sydney the Archbishop's since the 1970s have tried to encourage clergy (not always with great success)to make use of either the national prayer books or, more lately, the diocesan services. The latter are viewed by the diocese as being more in keeping with the theology of the BCP (such, as they see it, a strict notion of baptismal regeneration and the Cranmerian understanding of the Eucharist, oops, Lord's Supper, as a memorial in the Genevan sense of the word) than what they view as elements contrary to reformed Protestant faith found in AAPB and APBA.

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
I haven't seen a cassock or surplice, except on an organist, for 30 years.

My Venerable shipmate - unfortunately you weren't at Christ Church St Laurence the other night for the induction of Fr Daniel as the new rector - there were cassocks on everyone, and a mix of surplices and cottas on top! All with white stoles, of course!

Mind you, it was great visual theatre for the Diocese - especially the Local Mission Director (full choir dress) to see a raft of female priests in procession with him - from the Dioceses of Newcastle, Bathurst and even further afield.

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by liberte:
Hi everyone! This is my 1st post here.

I'm from a Commonwealth country. I visited a traditional Anglican church when I was studying abroad in the USA. Loved the worship and the congregation tremendously ...

liberte, It may well be that you happened upon a an "Anglican" spin-off of The Episcopal Church in the USA. There are many such, most notably the

Anglican Church in North America (ACNA)

The worship style and general tone of the parish church you mention could well be one of their's.

Not to confuse you unduly, I must hasten to add that ACNA is Anglican only in style and feel but not in fact. ACNA, or the other "traditional" spin-offs of The Episcopal Church are not a constituent members of of the Anglican Communion. In the USA, only The Episcopal Church is a member of the Communion recognized as such by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference and the other juridical instruments.

I'm just wondering what you really did encounter here in the USA.
.
*

Posted by liberte (# 17538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:

quote:
Originally posted by liberte:
Hi everyone! This is my 1st post here.

I'm from a Commonwealth country. I visited a traditional Anglican church when I was studying abroad in the USA. Loved the worship and the congregation tremendously ...

liberte, It may well be that you happened upon a an "Anglican" spin-off of The Episcopal Church in the USA. There are many such, most notably the

Anglican Church in North America (ACNA)

The worship style and general tone of the parish church you mention could well be one of their's.

Not to confuse you unduly, I must hasten to add that ACNA is Anglican only in style and feel but not in fact. ACNA, or the other "traditional" spin-offs of The Episcopal Church are not a constituent members of of the Anglican Communion. In the USA, only The Episcopal Church is a member of the Communion recognized as such by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference and the other juridical instruments.

I'm just wondering what you really did encounter here in the USA.
.
*

Rob, I went to the Reformed Episcopal church.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Zappa, in its strict sense "high church" refers to ecclesiology and not liturgy. A High Churchman has a high ecclesiology, and retains traditional liturgy, episcopal polity (including a commitment to obedience to episcopal authority), and (in places where the church is established) favors its continued establishment.

"Anglo-Catholic" refers to a theological and liturgical orientation which is continuous with that of the church catholic. Anglo-Catholics generally agree with many RC doctrines and liturgical emphases, though with the rise of Affirming Catholicism this is less predictably so. Liturgically, Anglo-Catholics range from strict Prayer Book Catholics who will not add a single word to the BCP ordo all the way to Anglo-Papalists who use the Roman Missal instead of the BCP. Theologically, they can range from complete assent to the RC catechisms to neo-Christianity.

It's possible to be a High Churchman without being an Anglo-Catholic. Traditionalists who celebrate at the north end of the altar in surplice, scarf & Canterbury cap, scrupulously observing the BCP's rubrics, are High Churchmen but not A-Cs. Similarly, the Ritualists of the late 19th century were Anglo-Catholics, but their wilful disobedience of their bishops on matters liturgical demonstrate clearly that they were not High Churchmen.

There's a lot that can be added to the above, I'm sure, and I welcome others doing so or correcting my factual errors. I happen to feel the distinction between high churchmanship and Anglo-Catholicism worth keeping, and I admit to cringing a bit when the terms are confused.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

The REC does in fact have an intercommunion relationship with ACNA. And I've said it before, but I'll say it again : that the sole requirement of Anglicanism is communion with the see of Canterbury is rather sadly minimal. Oh well, according to the Campbellites I'm not Christian either. Pffft.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Oh well, according to the Campbellites I'm not Christian either. Pffft.

What's sad is using a derogatory term. [Disappointed]

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by liberte:

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:

quote:
Originally posted by liberte:
Hi everyone! This is my 1st post here.

I'm from a Commonwealth country. I visited a traditional Anglican church when I was studying abroad in the USA. Loved the worship and the congregation tremendously ...

liberte, It may well be that you happened upon a an "Anglican" spin-off of The Episcopal Church in the USA. There are many such, most notably the

Anglican Church in North America (ACNA)

The worship style and general tone of the parish church you mention could well be one of their's.

Not to confuse you unduly, I must hasten to add that ACNA is Anglican only in style and feel but not in fact. ACNA, or the other "traditional" spin-offs of The Episcopal Church are not a constituent members of of the Anglican Communion. In the USA, only The Episcopal Church is a member of the Communion recognized as such by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference and the other juridical instruments.

I'm just wondering what you really did encounter here in the USA.
.

Rob, I went to the Reformed Episcopal church.

I think it's great that you found a church that you liked so well in the USA. In the latter part of the 19th cen, the Reformed Episcopal Church was one of the very first spin-offs from The Episcopal Church. Baptismal regeneration, a non-essential episcopate and low view of the Eucharist were all part of their theology. They have always been a small, very Evangelical - and very low church - group until the last several decades. In the old day you might have said they were Episcopalian in passing. Just a pinch of it. Now you will see all sorts of high church REC ceremonial in practice. [Eek!]

The REC has recently become a quasi-member of some sort of ACNA, but none of it is really Anglican in the strict sense of being part of the Anglican Communion. They call it Anglican, and it can feel Anglican, especially on the local level.

*

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It's possible to be a High Churchman without being an Anglo-Catholic. Traditionalists who ... scrupulously observing the BCP's rubrics, are High Churchmen but not A-Cs. Similarly, the Ritualists of the late 19th century were Anglo-Catholics, but their wilful disobedience of their bishops on matters liturgical demonstrate clearly that they were not High Churchmen.

This depends on what you mean by liturgical - is it purely the form or was it the ornaments? From your post about surplice it would seem the ornaments.

So, whilst true on the disobediance of Bishops front, the Ornaments Rubrics are open for interpretation on what it did and did not allow where some ritualists would be able to make a valid argument that the Chasuable etc. were not banned, but enforced by the rubric.

Since the original refers to the second year of Edward VI's reign, it would be anyone who did not follow that rule who was disobeying the BCP, and established cremonies of the church. The implication would be that the alb and chasuable for the celebrant (along with girdle, amice and stole - by implication as they always accompany the alb and chasuable.)

It is from the survey of Church goods in 1552, and the old service books from the period, which we draw upon for knowledge of what was and what was not in use in 1548 (being the second year of Edward VI reign) and so no Church and minister is without Altar and candlesticks, cross and coverings, the Eucharistic Vestments (Chasuable etc.) Albs and Tunicles and the Cope.

If anything your 'high-Church' surpliced priest was wilfully ignoring the established ceremonies of the Church, and doesn't deserve the title 'High-Church' since they, although in line with their Bishops (can I call Bishops ignorant?) they were not inline with the ritual requirements, as laid down, of the Church of England which the traditions of which outrank the Bishops who can err, as they did in this case by wilfully disobeying, and perpetuating the disobediance, the established ceremonies and customs of the Church.

Or that's how the argument goes...

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by Liberte:

quote:

It's just I have not heard of liturgical AND evangelical Anglican churches outside of the US.

In Ireland for a very long time time 'evangelical' stood for by the book BCP, with a high standard of preaching and a personal concentration on a high standard of Biblical studies embracing modern criticism, all layered over with a very strong social conscience. That's changing - in my own personal opinion, for the worse.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Liberte:

quote:

It's just I have not heard of liturgical AND evangelical Anglican churches outside of the US.
In Ireland for a very long time time 'evangelical' stood for by the book BCP, with a high standard of preaching and a personal concentration on a high standard of Biblical studies embracing modern criticism, all layered over with a very strong social conscience. That's changing - in my own personal opinion, for the worse.

Until recently, this tradition was also widespread in England. It's not that unusual now transposed into Common Worship.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Oh bugger. .. Now I don't know what I am any more :-(

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Not to confuse you unduly, I must hasten to add that ACNA is Anglican only in style and feel but not in fact. ACNA, or the other "traditional" spin-offs of The Episcopal Church are not a constituent members of of the Anglican Communion. In the USA, only The Episcopal Church is a member of the Communion recognized as such by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference and the other juridical instruments.

I don't disagree, but I wonder if we're eventually going to have to learn to live with different flavors of Anglican just as the Lutherans live with many flavors of Lutheran. Not saying we should learn to live like that, but wondering if we might have to at some point.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Indeed. There are at least two ways of being 'Anglican'. The one that most of us traditionally think of is by being a member of the Anglican Communion. The other, I imagine that espooused by the ACNA etc, is deriving your faith, ecclesiology, worship practices, etc in some sense from the Church of England and in acknowledging that inheritance from the CofE as the defining element of who you are as a church.

I think we have to recognise that both of these are legitimate uses of the term 'Anglican'- though I am firmly Anglican in the first sense.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Generally in terms of the Commonwealth, I was told that churchmanship depends on which missionary society was dominant in the country in the 19th century:

If a country was evangelized by the Church Missionary Army, it would be low-church and evangelical.

If a country was evangelized by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, it would be high church.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Liberte:

quote:

It's just I have not heard of liturgical AND evangelical Anglican churches outside of the US.
In Ireland for a very long time time 'evangelical' stood for by the book BCP, with a high standard of preaching and a personal concentration on a high standard of Biblical studies embracing modern criticism, all layered over with a very strong social conscience. That's changing - in my own personal opinion, for the worse.

That is the United Church of Canada in a nutshell. That's what most lay people want, what most ministers aim to provide and what our divinity schools are geared to train for.

My congregation really aims for that, it's what people remember from when we were kids and it's what we want for our kids.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

If a country was evangelized by the Church Missionary Army, it would be low-church and evangelical.

If a country was evangelized by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, it would be high church.

And if by the UMCA (Universities Mission to Central Africa) it would be stratospheric!

Broadly true I think, Anglican_Brat. But more so of Africa than the predominantly white-expatriate countries like Australia and Canada. Incidentally, the Church Army and the Church Mission(ary) Society are two distinct organisations. I'm not sure if the former had much presence in the 'colonies'.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Anglican immigrants from the formerly British possessions in the Caribbean seem to be uniformly Anglocatholic, or at least Very High Church.

Welcome liberte.

Except for some reason, Jamaica.

My theory is that if the prevailing Christianity is one way, Anglicans tend to be the other - Liverpool and Ireland - protestant. South Africa and Cornwall - catholic.

Wales is an obvious exception.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Church Army

Decided to investigate a bit and it is intriguing. The Church Army is solidly UK based probably English based but...

There is Church Army Africa which is very clearly a sister organisation to the Church Army (the give away is not just what they say but their training college is called "Carlile" which given the one in the UK is "Wilson Carlile" seems to be pretty confirmatory). So without doubt there was some spread to the former colonies. Not sure how or when.

Colour of Anglicanism

Not as simple, in east Lancashire both the population and the Anglican churches are historically very Protestant and low. My impression is that Anglican gets higher as it gets closer to Liverpool.

Oh Anglicanism in South Africa was predominantly the new English settler religion. As such it is priveledged religion of the business community. The missionaries were of course largely Dutch Reformed. The dominant form there is Reformed whether you are white or black. Of course there were English missionaries such as Moffat.

Jengie

[ 01. February 2013, 16:14: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

An exception in the sense that the CinW is mixed. My impression is that we're a little bit higher on the whole than the CofE, or rather that we have slightly fewer Evangelicals, but that may just be the circles I move in.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Oh well, according to the Campbellites I'm not Christian either. Pffft.
What's sad is using a derogatory term.

Sorry, PJ--I don't mean to gore your personal ox, but the Church-of-Christers who would unchurch me (and anyone else not committed to their particular restoration movement) deserve the derogation.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

My theory is that if the prevailing Christianity is one way, Anglicans tend to be the other - Liverpool and Ireland - protestant. South Africa and Cornwall - catholic.

Wales is an obvious exception.

It's not as simple as that in the case of Liverpool. The first bishop Charles Ryle was a ferocious protestant who was appointed by Disraeli against the wishes of his Liberal and Tractarian rival (and native scouser) Gladstone. It was he as much as any other trend which set the tone for the predominantly evangelical character of the diocese. Interestingly the strong influence of (Roman) Catholicism in the area makes the average non-church or fringe Anglican much more familiar with Catholic terminology and culture, hence low-church (usually but not always male) clergy are often addressed as Father.

I don't understand why Wales is an 'exception'. Can you explain, VB? But your theory would work in the case of Scotland.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

Oh Anglicanism in South Africa was predominantly the new English settler religion. As such it is priveledged religion of the business community.

There is an interesting chapter in Essays Catholic and Radical (published in 1983) by John Davies about Anglicanism in South Africa. Basically he sees this as taking two forms; one, the religion of the white settlers, being to a greater or lesser extent conventional Anglicanism with most of the trappings of catholic worship; and two, the more full-blooded catholicism of the black communities. The political involvement leading to the Church's courageous stand against apartheid sprung from the latter, albeit with the leadership of many whites such as Trevor Huddleston and Ambrose Reeves; later of course from Desmond Tutu and others. The Community of the Resurrection, with its Christian Socialist roots, was deeply involved in that struggle.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
I haven't seen a cassock or surplice, except on an organist, for 30 years.

We wear them at our rather evangelical CofE church. I'd guesstimate - obviously I haven't counted them all, though I have been to many - that maybe half of evangelical Anglican churches in England have vicars in robes these days, which is a lot more than a couple of decades ago.

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
An exception in the sense that the CinW is mixed.

If by "mixed" you mean each of the evangelical, anglo-catholic, and liberal tendencies is well-represented, than that's true of England of course. You will find at least one of each of those three inds of parishes in any large town.

I think of Australia is "mixed" as well, though if we can go by what people say online here they tend to split by diocese rather than by parish within diocese, which isn't the case in England. There are in a sense "Anglo Catholic" dioceses in England - Chischester is the obvious example, as well as "LIberal" ones - such as Southwark - but they always have a significant minority of parishes of the other tendencies, and I don't think there are any majority evangelical dioceses in England.

Again going by what is said here, Anglicans in New Zealand seem to be almost uniformly theologically liberal and liturgically low church, and in Canada liberal and MOTR. The USA, because of its size, is more mixed, and like Australia but unlike England there seems to be some tendency fo diocese to sort by churchmanship, but evangelicals seem much less significant there than in the Church of England - to us the overwhelming majority of them look like what we'd call Liberal Catholic.

Nigeria (which of course has the largest Anglican church attendence of any country in the world) tends to the prayer-book evangelical, as does Sierra Leone. Its that CMS influence again. Anglicanism in East Africa is almost entirely charismatic-evangelical, with a few Anglo-Catholic enclaves in Tanzania.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Anglican immigrants from the formerly British possessions in the Caribbean seem to be uniformly Anglocatholic, or at least Very High Church.

Welcome liberte.
Except for some reason, Jamaica.

Not around my little Anglocatholic shack. We've got folk from many of the West Indian islands, not the least number of them being from Jamaica and Barbados.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Oh well, according to the Campbellites I'm not Christian either. Pffft.
What's sad is using a derogatory term.
Sorry, PJ--I don't mean to gore your personal ox, but the Church-of-Christers who would unchurch me (and anyone else not committed to their particular restoration movement) deserve the derogation.

Sorry but that dog don't hunt. I can find plenty of Episcopalian/Continuer literature on the interwebz that state no sacraments and no bishops(as defined by them) equals no church. My favorite is the tract by Grafton that theorizes the possibility of memorialist types falling out of heaven itself because they refrained from received the Real Presence at their local Episcopalian shack during their time on earth. I don't mind. I don't believe in papering over real doctrinal differences. You can't complain if it is reciprocated. What I object to is the name calling.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I live in a Commonwealth.

Me too! though sadly not longer attached to the "real" one.
[Biased]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

I don't understand why Wales is an 'exception'. Can you explain, VB? But your theory would work in the case of Scotland.

Because the prevailing non-Anglicanism in Wales is protestant, and the C of W, although not noticeably evangelical, is not very noticeably catholic, as far as I can tell.

But I'm making sweeping generalizations.

As regards the Province of the West Indies, having the joy of worshiping for many years with Anglicans from that region, I get the impression that they can move between traditions without all the suspicion there can be in the UK. However Jamaica is definitely not so 'Igh Church as the rest at least in its clergy.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Because the prevailing non-Anglicanism in Wales is protestant, and the C of W, although not noticeably evangelical, is not very noticeably catholic, as far as I can tell.

The Church in Wales varies quite considerably by diocese. In Llandaff which is the diocese local to me, the tradition has been quite Anglo-Catholic (certainly many of Anglican colleagues would dispute the suggestion they weren't noticeably catholic!).

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

I don't understand why Wales is an 'exception'. Can you explain, VB? But your theory would work in the case of Scotland.
Because the prevailing non-Anglicanism in Wales is protestant, and the C of W, although not noticeably evangelical, is not very noticeably catholic, as far as I can tell.

Is that mainly because the C in W is largely rural, and rural Anglican churches are almost by necessity MOTR? I gather that urban South Wales is much more Anglo-catholic.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

And rural Wales is what I know best.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
I haven't seen a cassock or surplice, except on an organist, for 30 years.
We wear them at our rather evangelical CofE church. I'd guesstimate - obviously I haven't counted them all, though I have been to many - that maybe half of evangelical Anglican churches in England have vicars in robes these days, which is a lot more than a couple of decades ago.

I don't know for certain, obviously, but I would guess that the vast majority of evangelical clergy wear a surplice (and scarf if not stole) at early morning communion services. At later 'family' services - even if they are communion - maybe not so much. Though I have celebrated and preached in a cross-section of evangelical parishes locally, always robed, and never been given the impression that this was unusual.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
I haven't seen a cassock or surplice, except on an organist, for 30 years.
We wear them at our rather evangelical CofE church. I'd guesstimate - obviously I haven't counted them all, though I have been to many - that maybe half of evangelical Anglican churches in England have vicars in robes these days, which is a lot more than a couple of decades ago.
I don't know for certain, obviously, but I would guess that the vast majority of evangelical clergy wear a surplice (and scarf if not stole) at early morning communion services. At later 'family' services - even if they are communion - maybe not so much. Though I have celebrated and preached in a cross-section of evangelical parishes locally, always robed, and never been given the impression that this was unusual.

This is my experience too. In my previous church there was no kind of robing up after early morning Communion, not even for later Communion services - but surplice and scarf (emphatically NOT a stole at this church) was worn for the 8.45 services. However my (open) evo uni chaplain always wears a stole over his clerical shirt for our fortnightly lunchtime said Communion, so I think it's a particular type of evangelicalism which avoids robes at all costs.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Of course there were English missionaries such as Moffat.

My sons are his great-great-great-great grandsons. But they are Anglican, not Presby, as he was.* I shared Christmas and January with many (almost countless!) of his descendants. [Axe murder]

*Oh, alright, Scottish Congregationalist.

[ 02. February 2013, 06:30: Message edited by: Zappa ]

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Of course there were English missionaries such as Moffat.
My sons are his great-great-great-great grandsons. But they are Anglican, not Presby, as he was.* I shared Christmas and January with many (almost countless!) of his descendants.

*Oh, alright, Scottish Congregationalist.

Hmm. Perhaps to an Anglican there wouldn't be much difference between a Scottish congregationalist and a presbyterian - well, they're both not Anglican, after all. But look at Elisabeth Murray's biography of James Murray, the progenitor of the 'New English Dictionary' which spawned the Oxford family of dictionaries. She shows tells how her grandfather was brought up a congregationalist in the Scottish borders in the nineteenth century. It is immediately clear that dissenters in Scotland were no better treated by the religious establishment at that time than were their confreres south of the border.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Except there is no evidence that Moffat was a Scottish Congregationalist. It looks as if he was a Scot who on coming to England found his home amongst non-conformist congregations, this is a very common phenomena in English Congregationalism. He would not be the only Presbyterian to find a home in Congregationalism by any stretch of the imagination.

This is not to diminish Scottish Congregationalism which is a honourable tradition that I have a lot of time for. It is just not the same as English Congregationalism by a long way. The Scots Congregationalist defined themselves against Presbyterianism; the English Congregationalist defined themselves against Anglicanism.

Jengie

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

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Oh well, according to the Campbellites I'm not Christian either. Pffft.
What's sad is using a derogatory term.
Sorry, PJ--I don't mean to gore your personal ox, but the Church-of-Christers who would unchurch me (and anyone else not committed to their particular restoration movement) deserve the derogation.
Sorry but that dog don't hunt. I can find plenty of Episcopalian/Continuer literature on the interwebz that state no sacraments and no bishops(as defined by them) equals no church. My favorite is the tract by Grafton that theorizes the possibility of memorialist types falling out of heaven itself because they refrained from received the Real Presence at their local Episcopalian shack during their time on earth. I don't mind. I don't believe in papering over real doctrinal differences. You can't complain if it is reciprocated. What I object to is the name calling.

Apologies for the tangent, but I'm just trying to get some clarification from Prester John. Two points: I had thought that "Campbellite" was an old 19th Century term that was not necessarily derogatory, but is archaic? Second, I thought that both the Disciples of Christ and the Churches of Christ were historically included in the "Campbellite" designation, since they originated in the same restorationist movement, but diverged later into two separate streams with somewhat similar praxis but with rather different theologies (Disciples are largely liberal protestants and very nondoctrinal in some respects), whilst the Churches of Christ are theologically conservative, more conservative in worship praxis as well, and potentially rather more orthodox than the Disciples of Christ.

Prester John, do you consider the above to be essentially correct, or would you see it differently? Again, apologies for the tangent.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Apologies for the tangent, but I'm just trying to get some clarification from Prester John. Two points: I had thought that "Campbellite" was an old 19th Century term that was not necessarily derogatory, but is archaic? Second, I thought that both the Disciples of Christ and the Churches of Christ were historically included in the "Campbellite" designation, since they originated in the same restorationist movement, but diverged later into two separate streams with somewhat similar praxis but with rather different theologies (Disciples are largely liberal protestants and very nondoctrinal in some respects), whilst the Churches of Christ are theologically conservative, more conservative in worship praxis as well, and potentially rather more orthodox than the Disciples of Christ.

Prester John, do you consider the above to be essentially correct, or would you see it differently? Again, apologies for the tangent. [/QB]

Concerning the term "Campbellite", whenever I have seen it's usage in 19th and 20th century literature it has always been negative. It doesn't seem to be commonly used now, except maybe in an ironic manner by some members of the movement. In the 19th Century those within the movement commonly referred to themselves as "Disciples" or "Christians" and occassionally as "Refomers".

You are correct in that both groups had been labeled such but there were actually three streams. The first divergence concerned ecclesiology and, as you noted, worship praxis. This split first started in the 1840's and was formally recognized by 1906. This gave rise to the Churches of Christ and the Disciples of Christ. The second split occurred within the Disciples of Christ. This divergence was caused by controversies over open membership,ie. allowing the unimmersed to be considered full-fledged members of a congregation, concern the influence of Higher Criticism in church supported universities and yet another disagreement over ecclesiology. This split first started in the 1920's and is usually considered to have been completed by 1968. This resulted in the Disciples of Christ which, as you've noted, are usually looked on as a liberal, mainline denomination and the Christian Church/Churches of Christ who are usually viewed as conservative yet much more influenced by the evangelical movement than the Churches of Christ.

As for the orthodoxy of each, I'm not exactly an unbiased observer but I would consider the Disciples of Christ to be much more open to what I would consider unorthodox beliefs. Hope that helps.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
And rural Wales is what I know best.

Although Scotland and Ireland are pretty rural, as well.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
And rural Wales is what I know best.

Ah yes. And I know best urban south Wales- specifically, the diocese of Llandaff. (Rhondda deanery is, I believe, pretty strongly Evangelical, though.)

Posted by Cornish High (# 17202) on :

I can assure Albertus that the Rhondda Deanery contains not one evangelical parish. They are all, save one more MOTR place, either trad or lib Catholic. The neatest evo parish is a few miles south at Pontypridd .

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

My guess is that with all those chapels around, what's the point in being evangelical? Which would support Venbede's Theorem.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

'All those' chapels? I get the impression there are very few of them left.

Posted by liberte (# 17538) on :

Do the evangelical Anglican parishes in UK, Australia and so on still practice the essentials of Anglican worship? (E.g. Absolution and the Nicene Creed)

I explored some flag-ship conservative evangelical and/or charismatic Anglican parishes' websites and they do not give me an impression they are Anglican at all besides the name. I wonder if they have eliminated the Sacraments altogether from their worship (except for the occasional Holy Communion) and become same as an average non-denom evangelical church.

[ 04. February 2013, 11:50: Message edited by: liberte ]

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

A quick glance at this website suggests still a very high ratio of Chapel to Church.

Of course lots have closed or are closing. The problem is a very high level initially of small chapel tradition congregations plus the odd habit of for every two chapels that close at least one new independent congregation appears. It does not mean the new ones are anymore viable than the old. Quite often they are breakaways from viable congregation and neither they nor the congregation they left are then viable. So they mean that Chapel has more congregations but fewer members per congregation.

Jengie

[ 04. February 2013, 12:40: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yes, I think that's right. IIRC the CinW is the biggest single denomination in Wales in terms of membership, though if you put the Presbyterians and the Independents together there are more of them. And Christianity of any kind- whether active or nominal/cultural- has sharply declined in the Valleys (though not only in the Valleys) recently.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Anglican immigrants from the formerly British possessions in the Caribbean seem to be uniformly Anglocatholic, or at least Very High Church.

Welcome liberte.
Except for some reason, Jamaica.
Not around my little Anglocatholic shack. We've got folk from many of the West Indian islands, not the least number of them being from Jamaica and Barbados.

I have Caribbean connections, but not in the Anglican church, so this is rather interesting.

Jamaica has a huge number of different churches and denominations, and Pentecostalism has developed a large presence. My guess would be that Anglicanism on the island could have gone in one of two ways: it could have developed in a charismatic direction as a result of outside influences, or else it could have chosen to emphasise its High Church side as a way of asserting its independence from such influences. It obviously chose the latter path.

Barbadian Anglicanism faces less competition from other denominations, but that probably indicates a lower tolerance level for charismatic/Pentecostal type spirituality as a whole; the island is often thought of as 'Little England'.

I imagine that any West Indian Anglican with strong charismatic leanings would sooner or later choose to join another church. But for many, loyalty to Anglicanism is part of their identity, and it would trump other considerations.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by liberte:
Do the evangelical Anglican parishes in UK, Australia and so on still practice the essentials of Anglican worship? (E.g. Absolution and the Nicene Creed)

Why on earth would those just two things be "the essentials of Anglican worship"? What's so specifically Anglican about them?

Yes, of course evangelical Anglican parishes use them. As would most churches that are not Anglican. I can't think of an evangelical Anglican church that would not sign up to the Nicene Creed (though not all of them would use it in every service). And in my experience evangelical Anglicans are more likely to use the Gerneral Confession and Absolution than more MOTR parishes.

quote:

I wonder if they have eliminated the Sacraments altogether from their worship (except for the occasional Holy Communion) and become same as an average non-denom evangelical church.

Until recently occasional Holy Communion was normal in Anglican churches of all churchmanships. Its only become the normal main Sunday Morning service in most parishes in my own lifetime. The parish I attend used to have Morning Prayer at 10:30, with Holy Comunion once a month after the end of the main service, which was the common pattern then. In the 1990s we moved to having Communion as the main service every week, but more recently reverted to alternating Communion and other services. The other two evangelical parishes in our deanery have the same sort of pattern. All very Anglican I think!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Until recently occasional Holy Communion was normal in Anglican churches of all churchmanships. Its only become the normal main Sunday Morning service in most parishes in my own lifetime. The parish I attend used to have Morning Prayer at 10:30, with Holy Comunion once a month after the end of the main service, which was the common pattern then. In the 1990s we moved to having Communion as the main service every week, but more recently reverted to alternating Communion and other services. The other two evangelical parishes in our deanery have the same sort of pattern. All very Anglican I think!

Ken: I know you have admitted to not being a morning person and hence not a devotee of early communion services. Hence while your comment is generally true, it would be truer to say that, since the mid-19th century, Anglican parishes of all descriptions would almost without exception had Holy Communion weekly at 8am or thereabouts, usually celebrated simply and without music (often too without a sermon).

Evangelical ones would have a non-eucharistic 'main' service (usually Morning Prayer) later in the day, as well as Evening Prayer. To the horror of anglo-catholics they might also have had Evening Communion on occasion.

MOTR parishes would generally have had a similar pattern but without the evening communion, often with a late celebration after morning prayer, and maybe a Sung Eucharist once or twice a month. Only the braver and consciously Anglo-Catholic ones would have replaced Mattins with Sung Eucharist/Mass as the main service every week.

However, it was the general C of E tradition that the specially devout would attend 8am Holy Communion and receive the sacrament, many of them each week, and return for a congregational service with music, hymns and a sermon. Anglo-catholics would usually refrain from communicating at a later Mass - often the congregation would not be given the chance to receive, or only on condition they were fasting.

All this began to change - as early as the 1920s in some places, but it really took off in the 1950s and 60s - with the Parish Communion movement. At first it was largely a phenomenon of 'progressive' anglo-catholic parishes in cities, often in poor areas, where people were encouraged to attend the Eucharist - fasting - at 9.00 or thereabouts and join in a parish breakfast afterwards.

Eventually this spread to the great majority of town and city parishes, of most traditions. It probably took the pre-ASB experiments of Series 3 and the like in the 1970s to finally convince Evangelicals. They would have had no hang-ups about fasting so there was no reason for a particularly early time; nevertheless the idea of the parish breakfast somehow transmuted itself into the after-church 'coffee' (deliberate use of inverted commas).

Some of the more hardline preaching-oriented Evangelical churches continued to resist a weekly (main-service) communion; similarly a few reactionary Anglo-catholic shrines hung onto their non-communicating High Masses until the influence of the post-Vatican2 RCC became too hard to resist. Choral Mattins remained a feature of some 'society' churches and not a few cathedrals until quite recently.

I suppose two things in recent years have caused the partial dethronement of the Eucharist-as-main-service: the shortage of clergy, and the demand for more 'evangelistic' and enquirer-friendly acts of worship. Smaller congregations as well as overworked vicars have led some churches to abandon their 8am weekly communion.

But it's interesting that Evangelical churches such as Ken's now have a pattern (alternate Eucharist and Service of the Word) that was quite common in so-called 'Prayer Book Catholic' parishes in the 1950s. They probably use candles and stoles too, which they wouldn't have done back then.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

My only experience of Jamaican Anglicanism was in Brownstown and Ochi Rios (the latter MWd some years ago, IIRC) and in both cases services would be characterized as Prayerbook Catholic (service by the book, priest in chasuble, services in red with cottas, propers chanted) with no stuffiness and Everybody Singing in Full Voice.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by liberte:
Do the evangelical Anglican parishes in UK, Australia and so on still practice the essentials of Anglican worship? (E.g. Absolution and the Nicene Creed)

I explored some flag-ship conservative evangelical and/or charismatic Anglican parishes' websites and they do not give me an impression they are Anglican at all besides the name. I wonder if they have eliminated the Sacraments altogether from their worship (except for the occasional Holy Communion) and become same as an average non-denom evangelical church.

I can't speak for Australia, but in my experience UK conservative evangelical Anglican churches do use some Anglican liturgy, but pretty much the least amount they can get away with - we always had the Nicene Creed ('catholic' explained in the margin!) and the Absolution, but no sign of the cross for example. Most services were hymn sandwiches with the exception of monthly Holy Communion. Certainly a lot of the congregation would say that they attend an Anglican church, rather than say they are Anglicans themselves. I only have experience of con-evo Anglicans in one diocese though, albeit several churches within that diocese.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Also yes, Angloid is right, and my con-evo church did have a weekly 8.45am Holy Communion, I'd just forgotten about it since I never attended that service [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

Re chapels in Wales - my experience of living for a couple of years in Aberystwyth a generation ago is that they were uniformly monoglot, so you had to have two at least of each denomination, one English speaking, another Welsh. This bumped up the overall number of buildings considerably.

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by liberte:
Do the evangelical Anglican parishes in UK, Australia and so on still practice the essentials of Anglican worship? (E.g. Absolution and the Nicene Creed)

I explored some flag-ship conservative evangelical and/or charismatic Anglican parishes' websites and they do not give me an impression they are Anglican at all besides the name. I wonder if they have eliminated the Sacraments altogether from their worship (except for the occasional Holy Communion) and become same as an average non-denom evangelical church.

liberte, here in Australia you have a wide cross-section of Evangelical churches, so impossible to lump all of them together. Even here in Sydney there are a number of parishes which are proudly evangelical, yet eschew what goes on in fellow'evangelical parishes'.

On the whole though, conEvo, or radical Evo parishes, are very much like non-denom churches elsewhere, with very little ready identification with the Anglican norms, let alone broader Anglicanism. Have a look at the website of, say, St Andrew's Cathedral, and the messages of the Dean, or the website of Moore Theological College, and you will get a good picture of their thought, feeling, desires.

Many Anglican parishes in the diocese (and to a slightly lesser extent Armidale diocese) have, for instance, dropped any dedication to a saint in their name. Their main services are more often than not services of the word and hymn sandwiches (despite the arhcbishop's preference and requirements, they are free-flowing rather than following any set liturgical book) with the Creed/s not being used, and no formal absolution given after General Confession. I have heard from a number of ministers over the years, when asked they they did not pronounce either an absolution or a blessing, that they did not believe that they were worthy enough to give absolution, etc. underlying a lack of knowledge and acceptance of historical Anglican theology and practise).

The sacraments are celebrated on a varying degree of regularity and availability. There are a number of parishes in the diocese where baptism, for instance, will only be given to the children of parents who have established their own faith through significant time in that church. Holy Communion is an 8am service, and either traditional BCP or else a very much watered down affair in terms of sacramental practice.

I would agree with your basic premise that for many conEvo congregations that there is little to differentiate them from non-denominational evangelical churches. The cynic in me views there continued linking with the Anglican Church to do more with property and money than much else; but that would be a cruel and unfair assessment of those many, many Anglicans who are both Evangelical AND Anglican (the two not necessarily going together even within the denominational structure).

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Or that's how the argument goes...

No, that's how ONE argument goes. Other mileage varies on that one

[Edit: quote clarification]

[ 05. February 2013, 10:47: Message edited by: Zappa ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also yes, Angloid is right, and my con-evo church did have a weekly 8.45am Holy Communion, I'd just forgotten about it since I never attended that service

I'm pretty sure our parish doesn't and hasn't for at least twenty-three years. Not that I would have noticed if we did though...

Anyway, what is described here as going on in evangelical churches in England and Australia is certainly Anglican, and has deep historical roots in the Church of England. Its just a different style of being Anglican from the one the Anglo-Catholics like.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Come off it, ken. No-one in the Church of England would have dreamed of abandoning the Book of Common Prayer (supplementing it, maybe) until the mid-19th century. Then it was the Anglo-catholics who started to drift off to missals and the like. It was the mark of Evangelical Anglicans that they stayed faithful to the Prayer Book right up until the 1960s.

From what I can gather, there are two sorts of Evangelicals in Sydney: the traditional Prayer Book Anglicans and those who willingly jettison every bit of Anglican tradition to establish the sort of Reformation they wish we could have had in the 16th century. Even 1552 didn't go that far.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Hey, I said "deep roots"! I'm not pretending that the leaves and the flowers and the fruit are the same colour as the roots.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

OK ken. I take your point. Just as well, because I believe we have deep roots in the RC tradition too and I wouldn't want to be held responsible for every statement that comes from Ben XVI.

Interesting your comment about your church not having a weekly early communion. The one I go to doesn't either (and it does me 'ead in!) but in both cases I think that is because we are part of a joint benefice with another church or churches, so that there is always one communion service somewhere in the 'parish' every Sunday. As there should be if one is observing Canon Law.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
Re chapels in Wales - my experience of living for a couple of years in Aberystwyth a generation ago is that they were uniformly monoglot, so you had to have two at least of each denomination, one English speaking, another Welsh. This bumped up the overall number of buildings considerably.

Not just in Wales

This was the Welsh Congregational in Trafford and this was the English Congregational. They are 400 metres apart!

Jengie

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

The Annibynwyr (Welsh Independents / = Congregationalists) are very definitely Welsh-speaking (they describe themselves as Cymraeg- which means Welsh but is only used of the language- rather than Cymreig, which means Welsh in a general sense) although I unnderstand that they maintain friendly connections with the remaining (English speaking) Congregationalists. The Presbyterians are still I think predominantly Welsh-speaking but they have had a relatively substantial English-speaking constituency for many years, and their closest links among the 'English' denominations are with the URC.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Come off it, ken. No-one in the Church of England would have dreamed of abandoning the Book of Common Prayer (supplementing it, maybe) until the mid-19th century. Then it was the Anglo-catholics who started to drift off to missals and the like. It was the mark of Evangelical Anglicans that they stayed faithful to the Prayer Book right up until the 1960s.

From what I can gather, there are two sorts of Evangelicals in Sydney: the traditional Prayer Book Anglicans and those who willingly jettison every bit of Anglican tradition to establish the sort of Reformation they wish we could have had in the 16th century. Even 1552 didn't go that far.

Your understanding of Sydney is correct. Many of us here grew up in a low church Prayer Book Anglicanism. There are still many parishes, perhaps even the largest single grouping, like that in Sydney - vesting for at least one service every Sunday in surplice and stole or scarf, no candles, no bells or smells, but a procession and recession, use of the 1662 BCP or AAPB, and adherence to traditional Anglicanism. It is that variety which is found in low church parishes throughout most of the remainder of the country. The Moore College school is much newer, and bears no resemblance to Anglicanism at all.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

I remember South Wales in th late 80s, and thought it very High. I am thinking of the Monmouth and Llandaff dioceses.

Queueing in a bank one day in Newport, I saw at least three young (in their 20s) clergy in black suits and one floated past the door in a cassock. This was one wet Monday afternoon, if I remember correctly.

I also remember a sort of friendly tension - not between High and Low, but between old fashioned High Church (the Lampeter trained older clergy; some from St Michael's College Llandaff; the Diocesan bishop to categorise a few) who were a little maniple and crossed stole and cassocky, and others who were very Vatican II ish in dark suits, no cassocks etc.

There used to be a little tussle in the ordination of priests, as this last category were known to untie their stoles under their chasables. It was the custom of the Monmouth diocese (I believe) to cross the stole over the breast at ordination to the priesthood. THe more modern and possibly English trained, preferred it to hang straight down.

What was most remarkable was the amount of young priests (and deacons). Clergy seemed either to be quite sneior in age, or to be in their mid to late 20s. And loads of them.

I think that Llandaff had two days of ordinations in 1988 to fit them all in (about 30 odd).

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I'm very fond of Llandaff cathedral and visit there about once a month. It is so close in practice to my own Anglican church - MOTR to High, vestments but not incense, genuflecting etc. Liberal Catholic, I guess, rather than Anglo Catholic. And being a parish church as well as a cathedral, it is so warm and friendly.
There is the occasional prayer or blessing in Welsh, but always with a written translation, about 90% of the service is in English. You will be bowled over, if attending the Parish Eucharist in term-time at how many children are in attendance - rumour has it that it is the very generous late breakfast snacks that are provided in the Prebendal House after the service that attracts so many! [Biased]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0