Ship of Fools: The distinctiveness of Anglo-Catholic teaching

Thread: The distinctiveness of Anglo-Catholic teaching 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=026668

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

The Church of England has changed a lot in the last 40 years. When I was a lad, a lot of churches didn't celebrate the eucharist as their main service every Sunday, and in (probably) most churches, the priest wouldn't wear an alb and chasuble to celebrate the eucharist. Anglo-Catholic churches were identifiably different: eucharistically centred, vestmented, and often with the lingering scent of smelly smoke after the Sunday Mass.

These days, most churches have the eucharist as their main service and eucharistic vestments are much more common than they used to be. Some churches are even noticeably smellier, in the "right" kind of way.

But there was something else about Anglo-Catholic churches that, far from being more common, I fear may be much rarer than it used to be: the doctrine you would hear preached from the pulpit.

Anglo-Catholic doctrine, I think, was very distinctive. There would be a strong accent on the objective nature and value of the sacraments. The teaching would also be solidly scriptural. The teaching and lives of the saints would often be referred to, especially those of the Patristic period. It was assumed that there was a historic continuity between the present-day Church of England and that planted in England in the first centuries of Christianity. It was rigorously intellectual, and yet also pastoral.

There were other strong themes in the Anglo-Catholic churches I've experienced, but I think the ones I've outlined could be said to be common to all (English) Anglican churches that might call themselves Catholic.

But it's a long time since I've heard such teaching from the pulpit. In fact in the diocese in which I live, I can think of only two or three churches where it can be relied on, apart from those churches allied with Forward in Faith. And here's my question: is the old, distinctive teaching of Anglo-Catholicism becoming increasingly confined to FiF parishes? Is it dying out in the more mainstream church? Have those of us who called ourselves Anglo-Catholic, but chose to go with the majority on certain Dead Horse issues, abandoned that distinctiveness? Are we all now merely liberals in vestments?

Or was I kidding myself all along that such Catholic teaching might have a place in the Church of England?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Interesting! Although I consider myself on the Catholic wing of the C of E, I have never consistently experienced 'Anglo-Catholic' worship and preaching (as you define it) as a consumer. I studied at a definitely 'anglo-catholic' theological college, and though the worship was as you might expect (incense, High Mass, even English Missal) the preaching was solidly scriptural and orthodox (albeit, in later years, also radical) and rarely - as I remember - touched on the usual a-c themes. Maybe they were just taken for granted.

As a parish priest I've never seen the sermon as an opportunity for 'teaching'; I've always tried to relate the lectionary scriptures to the lives of the congregation. 'Teaching' in the sense of inculcating an understanding of the church's theological position is always problematic, except when you have got a captive audience like a confirmation class. I've tended to rely on being unapologetic about what I see as important, and probably some kind of 'osmosis'

I wonder if part of the explanation is that Roman Catholics (to whom anglo-catholics have always looked for guidance) since Vatican 2 have moved away from teaching about the 'Catholic distinctives' and rediscovered the Bible and basic Christian values. Maybe they could do this because there was already a foundation of Catholic understanding, and they needed to redress the balance: maybe Anglo-Catholics really needed to lay that foundation first. Though it's not really the 'foundation', is it?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

A lot of Anglo-catholic theology has been adopted by the broad mainstream of Anglicanism. I don't think we can claim that incarnational theology is itself, distinctively Anglo-catholic. Plenty of broad-church Anglicans think the emphasis on Incarnation is an Anglican characteristic, not limited to Anglo-catholics.

You can even argue that the emphasis on Sacraments has now been adopted by broad Anglicanism.

Marian and Eucharistic devotion are still seen as markers of Anglo-catholic identity.

Are Anglo-catholics, liberals in vestments? No, I think the problem now is that a lot of self-described high-church Anglicans are people who love the liturgy but may have varying theologies. The problem isn't that Anglo-catholics are "liberals" in vestments, the problem is that Anglo-catholics nowadays can be anyone who loves vestments and not necessarily tied to a specific theology.

Posted by fabula rasa (# 11436) on :

I think that both Angloid and Anglican Brat have hit various nails on the head.

The point about "liberals in vestments" is very well taken; but I would argue strongly that within Anglicanism we should take much more care in our language to distinguish between what is genuinely catholic--which Adeodatus described--and what is merely high-church.

IMO, the latter by itself doesn't actually get you very far.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

I'm not sure to what extent I experienced in my youth the tradition that Adeodatus describes. My formative years were spent in the "biretta belt" of the U.S., specifically the dioceses of Milwaukee and Fond du Lac-- but in parishes within those dioceses that were not particularly high-church. In my teens, I became keenly aware of what I was missing in that regard and complained about my glass as half-empty, whereas it was probably more than half full.

When I was an 11-year-old sixth grader, we got out of public school early on one afternoon a week and boarded a bus which would drive from church to church. We each got out at our church and attended its religious instruction (given in my case by the rector). I don't recall what the unchurched kids did. Maybe there weren't any. Doesn't that sound now like a foreign country?

I wonder to what extent this "distinctiveness of Anglo-Catholic teaching" depends upon a threshold or common denominator of Christian assumption or knowledge in the population on which we can no longer build. Alas, common knowledge once lost is probably never recovered. I blame a proliferation of Bible translations in part for this. However well-intentioned, this Babel leaves us with no common memory or effect upon the mother tongue. We divide, and oblivious secularism conquers.

I'm confident of the Anglo-Catholic background and intentions, for instance, of Fr. John Andrew and Fr. Andrew Mead at St. Thomas, Fifth Avenue, NYC. But they appreciate that if they are to take advantage of the opportunity that geography affords to make a significant mark on New Yorkers, they must begin with answers to much simpler and more basic questions than in the past. Their Anglo-Catholic standpoint, while just as important as ever, may not be so obvious at the outset.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Agreed with LC and Angloid, but rather surprised by the idea that most CoE churches have weekly Communion! Not the case in my experience, although I admit to having been in mostly evangelical areas until I moved to Northampton.

Posted by hugorune (# 17793) on :

I know what you mean... I joined an Anglo-Catholic church because I see the sacraments as central, and it was also a church that is very welcoming to all people such as myself, i.e. gay. But I tend to think, in a lot of ways, like an evangelical, and at mass on the weekend (the evening service, which only had a few attendees), the priest's message, while a positive one, had only the tiniest relation to the Scripture readings, and barely seemed to tie in with faith at all. Mind you he wasn't one of the regular priests, otherwise I would have probably said something (because I have sometimes found their messages profound).
I guess the point of what I'm saying is that we're all different, some of us are intellectual, some aren't. But as long as we're paying attention with our hearts, that's what I feel is really important. Christ doesn't ask us to understand, he only asks us to repent from our sin, and join with him in life.

[ 06. January 2014, 09:18: Message edited by: hugorune ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'd agree with Jade Constable. When ken, Adeodatus and others say that the CofE has moved in a more broadly 'catholic' direction - in terms of eucharistic emphasis, vestments etc - over the last 40 years, I look around and think ... 'Where?'

I s'pose growing up in South Wales the only Anglican 'choices' I was aware of were either MoR or more Catholic ... although some evangelical/charismatic influences did come into some parishes.

Since 1981 and my evangelical conversion, most Anglicans I tended to rub shoulders with were evangelicals. Some had a soft spot for Anglo-Catholics, others couldn't stand them ...

Here, the immediate Anglican options are either snake-belly low or else liberal catholic ... liberals in vestments.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Agreed with LC and Angloid, but rather surprised by the idea that most CoE churches have weekly Communion! Not the case in my experience, although I admit to having been in mostly evangelical areas until I moved to Northampton.

I live in a predominantly evangelical area - there are only about three parishes out of twenty or so that you could describe as MOTR or higher - but the only churches that don't have communion weekly are one or two in joint benefices where one priest will celebrate in each in alternate weeks. The very conservative evangelical parish where I live has communion every Sunday at 8.30. Of course, not all churches will have communion at the main service every week, but few do so less than twice a month and most will be weekly with perhaps the exception of a monthly family service. Fifty years ago or so even quite 'catholic' parishes alternated Mattins and Sung Eucharist at the 11.00.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

PS - responding to Gamaliel. The flavour of anglicanism in the C of E depends a great deal on location. Some dioceses have a predominant bias one way or another: Southwark, where Ken lives, is strongly 'liberal catholic' in ethos and churches of a different tradition stand out or sometimes I suppose struggle to be heard. Rural dioceses like Chester or Chichester I would guess are mostly MOTR at heart but can be influenced by strong pressure groups and/or bishops: there seems to be a lot of evangelicalism in Chester and the Lewes end of Chichester, while Anglo-catholicism dominates in Brighton and elsewhere. So our perceptions of the totality of the C of E can be distorted by our local experience.

Having said that, I think that 'official' and 'establishment' Anglicanism has moved a long way up the candle in recent years, at least in externals. Incense is common in many cathedrals; the Midnight Mass from Westminster Abbey was not dissimilar from what would have happened down the road at the Cathedral. But none of that answers Adeodatus's question about anglo-catholic teaching.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

My knowledge of the Oxford movement is pretty limited, but as it developed did it not also become critical of social policies which neglected the poor, as well as "low" and "liberal" tendencies within Anglicanism?

I have a feeling that was one of its distinctives, from a half-remembered conversation in the 1980 with an Anglo-Catholic vicar who was a good friend. So I also relate the roots of Anglo-Catholicism (at least in some respects) with the kind of social conscience and willingness to get stuck in to the problems of impoverished communities that ticks a lot of my "low nonconformist" boxes. But I may be talking out of my hat! Happy to be re-educated.

[ 06. January 2014, 09:49: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, Angloid.

Here in Cheshire, my impression is that evangelicalism and MOTR predominate in the suburbs and small towns but with tinges of Anglo-Catholicism around the Wirral and Stockport. There are a few patches of liberal catholicism here and there.

The rural churches are struggling unless they're close to towns in which case their congregations are swollen to some extent by refugees from both evangelicalism and liberal catholicism.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, Angloid.

Here in Cheshire, my impression is that evangelicalism and MOTR predominate in the suburbs and small towns but with tinges of Anglo-Catholicism around the Wirral and Stockport. There are a few patches of liberal catholicism here and there.

The rural churches are struggling unless they're close to towns in which case their congregations are swollen to some extent by refugees from both evangelicalism and liberal catholicism.

The last bit is definitely true - until 18 months ago I drove 15 miles each way to go to church in a rural idyll which managed sung BCP Mattins, kick out non-communicants then immediately follow with Shortened Holy Communion, in response to the church in my little market town binning its pews, erecting big screens at the front of the nave, installing a nave altar, and sacking the choir in the space of 6 months. Not sure what the PCC thought they were doing when they made that appointment (and, from sunsequent conversations, I know that some of them aren't either....).

Anyway, that church was full to the gunwales with "refugees" - attendance over the course of 2 years went from 20 to 100 every service. (and of course, the more people that went, the more there were to tell their friends about it and bring them along).

Just before I moved house it was literally standing room only at some services. A market town of 25,000 people, on the other hand, had an empty church....

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Agreed with LC and Angloid, but rather surprised by the idea that most CoE churches have weekly Communion! Not the case in my experience, although I admit to having been in mostly evangelical areas until I moved to Northampton.
I live in a predominantly evangelical area - there are only about three parishes out of twenty or so that you could describe as MOTR or higher - but the only churches that don't have communion weekly are one or two in joint benefices where one priest will celebrate in each in alternate weeks. The very conservative evangelical parish where I live has communion every Sunday at 8.30. Of course, not all churches will have communion at the main service every week, but few do so less than twice a month and most will be weekly with perhaps the exception of a monthly family service. Fifty years ago or so even quite 'catholic' parishes alternated Mattins and Sung Eucharist at the 11.00.

Interesting. In fairness, most of my churchgoing years have been spent in the evangelical Bermuda Triangle of East Sussex, where conservative evangelical Anglican churches with monthly Communion are the norm (Brighton naturally does its own thing). When I was in Farnborough my MOTR/gently evangelical church had fortnightly Communion. Here the two evangelical Anglican churches have monthly Communion - all the other Anglican churches are high of some variety, with weekly Communion. No MOTR here!

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
PS - responding to Gamaliel. The flavour of anglicanism in the C of E depends a great deal on location. Some dioceses have a predominant bias one way or another: Southwark, where Ken lives, is strongly 'liberal catholic' in ethos and churches of a different tradition stand out or sometimes I suppose struggle to be heard. Rural dioceses like Chester or Chichester I would guess are mostly MOTR at heart but can be influenced by strong pressure groups and/or bishops: there seems to be a lot of evangelicalism in Chester and the Lewes end of Chichester, while Anglo-catholicism dominates in Brighton and elsewhere. So our perceptions of the totality of the C of E can be distorted by our local experience.

Having said that, I think that 'official' and 'establishment' Anglicanism has moved a long way up the candle in recent years, at least in externals. Incense is common in many cathedrals; the Midnight Mass from Westminster Abbey was not dissimilar from what would have happened down the road at the Cathedral. But none of that answers Adeodatus's question about anglo-catholic teaching.

Chichester (in the West Sussex end) tends to attract FiF A-Cs IME. Weirdly, Northampton seems to have a lot of FiF types - no idea about the rest of Peterborough diocese.

Also I now realise that I'd forgotten about early Communion services [Hot and Hormonal]

In my defence, the congregation at my previous con-evo East Sussex church was tiny in the early 8.30 Communion service so I think a lot of the congregation forgot about it too!

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My knowledge of the Oxford movement is pretty limited, but as it developed did it not also become critical of social policies which neglected the poor, as well as "low" and "liberal" tendencies within Anglicanism?

I have a feeling that was one of its distinctives, from a half-remembered conversation in the 1980 with an Anglo-Catholic vicar who was a good friend. So I also relate the roots of Anglo-Catholicism (at least in some respects) with the kind of social conscience and willingness to get stuck in to the problems of impoverished communities that ticks a lot of my "low nonconformist" boxes. But I may be talking out of my hat! Happy to be re-educated.

You are correct. A large factor in this was the distrust the then CoE establishment had for Anglo-Catholics, so the priests in question got put in the less-desirable areas.

I think the contrariness of Anglo-Catholicism is a strength and is also why people don't cross the Tiber. I think it's something liberal A-Cs have lost sight of, and conservatives are wasting contrariness on Dead Horses. I also think that the average person in the pews of an A-C church is not aware of the social activism history of the movement.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fabula rasa:
we should take much more care in our language to distinguish between what is genuinely catholic--which Adeodatus described--and what is merely high-church.

That's it in a nutshell - and from my reading of our history as catholics it has always been the case.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hugorune:
rch because I see the sacraments as central, and it was also a church that is very welcoming to all people such as myself, i.e. gay.

I am not wanting to twist this thread into 'a dead horse' but it is important to know that, whatever was the official 'catholic teaching', anglo-catholic shrines, mainly but not exclusively through the confessional, had an important ministry in this area.

Bp. Richard Holloway, a son of our catholic movement, has written perceptively about this and about why it isn't merely a love of tat - summarised by me here - 14th paragraph.

Posted by Frank Mitchell (# 17946) on :

I started life as a Roman Catholic, and it always irritated me when Anglicans referred to themselves a Catholics. Especially the guy who shouted at me for being taught a perversion when I explained what most Catholics believe. And that was when I hadn't believed in any of it for at least ten years.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

It irritates many of us when RCs claim to have a monopoly on 'catholic'; 'Christian' even.

[ 06. January 2014, 15:34: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fabula rasa:
I think that both Angloid and Anglican Brat have hit various nails on the head.

The point about "liberals in vestments" is very well taken; but I would argue strongly that within Anglicanism we should take much more care in our language to distinguish between what is genuinely catholic--which Adeodatus described--and what is merely high-church.

IMO, the latter by itself doesn't actually get you very far.

This is really what I'm getting at. I care a lot less about the outward forms of worship than I do about Catholic doctrine. (I can't afford to be too fussy about outward forms - I'm a hospital chaplain. All things to all people etc.)

I can't remember the last time I heard in a sermon that Chrysostom or Ambrose had an opinion on the matter in hand. Or Newman or Pusey, for that matter. I can't remember the last time I heard a reference to the objectivity of the sacraments, or the prayers of the saints. These are among the things that for me form the Anglo-Catholic "distinctives" and my question really is, does anywhere (outside FiF) still bother with them?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Would the number of ACs in Northampton be anything to do with the historical strength of the non-conformists in that area? The boot and shoe manufacturing industry used to be quite Baptist and generally nonconformist in tone, from what I've heard.

In such areas, the CofE can tend towards the higher end of things. This was certainly true in parts of the Welsh Valleys where the Anglicans had to distinguish themselves in some way from the prevailing non-conformist presence.

Near here, Crewe is a largely Anglo-Catholic and mildly catholic enclave as far as the CofE goes - and this area was strongly Wesleyan and Primitive Methodist at one time. A priest I know there tells me that evangelicalism tends to be a largely non-conformist thing in Crewe.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Would the number of ACs in Northampton be anything to do with the historical strength of the non-conformists in that area? The boot and shoe manufacturing industry used to be quite Baptist and generally nonconformist in tone, from what I've heard.

In such areas, the CofE can tend towards the higher end of things. This was certainly true in parts of the Welsh Valleys where the Anglicans had to distinguish themselves in some way from the prevailing non-conformist presence.

Near here, Crewe is a largely Anglo-Catholic and mildly catholic enclave as far as the CofE goes - and this area was strongly Wesleyan and Primitive Methodist at one time. A priest I know there tells me that evangelicalism tends to be a largely non-conformist thing in Crewe.

In the past, Northampton was very much a centre of Old Dissent. The proprietors were what was then known as Congregationalist (most now URC), the workforce were either Baptist or Bradlaugh free thinkers, the professions etc were CofE, and there was a strong Irish neighbourhood round the RC Cathedral, which included its own middle class bit.

Out of town, there were a lot of Old Dissent chapels in the villages The gentry weren't too bothered whether their clergy were interested in religion as long as they hunted.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Would the number of ACs in Northampton be anything to do with the historical strength of the non-conformists in that area? The boot and shoe manufacturing industry used to be quite Baptist and generally nonconformist in tone, from what I've heard.

In such areas, the CofE can tend towards the higher end of things. This was certainly true in parts of the Welsh Valleys where the Anglicans had to distinguish themselves in some way from the prevailing non-conformist presence.

Near here, Crewe is a largely Anglo-Catholic and mildly catholic enclave as far as the CofE goes - and this area was strongly Wesleyan and Primitive Methodist at one time. A priest I know there tells me that evangelicalism tends to be a largely non-conformist thing in Crewe.
In the past, Northampton was very much a centre of Old Dissent. The proprietors were what was then known as Congregationalist (most now URC), the workforce were either Baptist or Bradlaugh free thinkers, the professions etc were CofE, and there was a strong Irish neighbourhood round the RC Cathedral, which included its own middle class bit.

Out of town, there were a lot of Old Dissent chapels in the villages The gentry weren't too bothered whether their clergy were interested in religion as long as they hunted.

That makes sense - the Nonconformists here seem to be VERY Nonconformist. Independent Reformed evangelical churches are still going pretty strong although I don't know about the URC. There are several Methodist churches though.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

In such areas, the CofE can tend towards the higher end of things. This was certainly true in parts of the Welsh Valleys where the Anglicans had to distinguish themselves in some way from the prevailing non-conformist presence.

It's that theory that some use to explain the prevalence of evangelicalism in Liverpool and parts of Lancashire: the predominance of Roman Catholics in the general population. Leeds and West Yorkshire (at least the Wakefield diocese) have had a strong Tractarian presence, in contrast to the strength of nonconformity.

But I think it only partly explains it. Liverpool (though now mostly soft/'open' evangelical or low church) was strongly influenced - or rather directed - by the ferociously protestant Bishop Ryle in the late 19th century. Leeds had the strong Tractarian lead of Walter Hook, Wakefield of Tractarian bishops (and the presence of Religious communities such as Mirfield)... whereas Bradford had a largely low-church leadership and hence fewer Anglo-catholics.

Back to the OP: I suspect the reason Adeodatus hasn't encountered references to the early Fathers or sacramental theology in sermons might have more to do with the lack of basic Christian knowledge among congregations and hence the need to start further back. Younger people now - such as come to church - have often not been brought up in a Christian environment, let alone an Anglo-catholic one. Some of the sermons of the 19th century Tractarians must have gone over many peoples' heads even then; far more so today.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by fabula rasa:
I think that both Angloid and Anglican Brat have hit various nails on the head.

The point about "liberals in vestments" is very well taken; but I would argue strongly that within Anglicanism we should take much more care in our language to distinguish between what is genuinely catholic--which Adeodatus described--and what is merely high-church.

IMO, the latter by itself doesn't actually get you very far.
This is really what I'm getting at. I care a lot less about the outward forms of worship than I do about Catholic doctrine. (I can't afford to be too fussy about outward forms - I'm a hospital chaplain. All things to all people etc.)

I can't remember the last time I heard in a sermon that Chrysostom or Ambrose had an opinion on the matter in hand. Or Newman or Pusey, for that matter. I can't remember the last time I heard a reference to the objectivity of the sacraments, or the prayers of the saints. These are among the things that for me form the Anglo-Catholic "distinctives" and my question really is, does anywhere (outside FiF) still bother with them?

I'm with you here, as someone relatively low church but quite catholic. I quoted St. Cyprian in a sermon a few weeks ago, and think Chrysostom is exactly the kind of counter-cultural Christians should be (well, excepting the bits on Jews and women...) But there needn't be so much chanting.

That's partly an old legacy of New England anti-Catholicism working itself out aesthetically though.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Back to the OP: I suspect the reason Adeodatus hasn't encountered references to the early Fathers or sacramental theology in sermons might have more to do with the lack of basic Christian knowledge among congregations and hence the need to start further back. Younger people now - such as come to church - have often not been brought up in a Christian environment, let alone an Anglo-catholic one. Some of the sermons of the 19th century Tractarians must have gone over many peoples' heads even then; far more so today.

This is interesting. Certainly what I'm thinking about in this thread is my perception that Anglo-Catholics aren't really being told about how to be Anglo-Catholics any more, and part of that is that they're not being told about Tradition.

Is it, I wonder, that clergy think this would go over people's heads? If so, then where would you start? Maybe the Tractarians' teaching went over people's heads, but my experience is that a hundred or so years later, there were lay people (very ordinary lay people) who had an excellent grasp of Anglo-Catholic distinctiveness.

Is it, I wonder, a lack of awareness of Tradition on the part of the clergy? I'll gloss over my perception that a lot of the preaching I hear these days is on the level of "chicken soup for the soul" - but are clergy who would style themselves "Anglo-Catholic" these days really engaging with Scripture and Tradition? Are they able to? And if not, then whither Anglo-Catholicism?

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

I think there is definitely a distinction between FiF and "the others" IME - however, before I get jumped on, I'm not suggesting for a moment that that means the state of ACism outside the PEV enclave is a rigourless desert. The chap at my current non-FiF non ABC shack is *very* good, for example - but then, it's in a university town so maybe he feels he has permission to soar a bit?

Nevertheless, looking back over the past couple of years of my attendance at FiF churches all I can say is that they have a tendency to assume a great deal of knowledge of Christianity qua Christianity, and then kick on from there. I can recall a spell-binding sermon on the importance of the desert fathers, for example, along with expositions on the lessons of the early church councils, on the importance of the sacrament of confession, and (to move to slightly less "religious" matters), the extent to which the Sandham Memorial Chapel can be considered high art.

At the same time, there is (again IME) a tendency to pitch it rather strong - I can think of one particular Mass of the Passion a couple of years back where the account of the crucifixion was so graphic that it caused the sacristan to throw up...

I would therefore say that the world described in the OP is indeed alive and well in the FiF world. However, outside that it is more hit and miss - depending entirely on the make-up and nature of the congregation, and, I would suggest, the education of the incumbent. There are surviving pockets here and there outside FiF though definitely.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

sorry for the double post, but in the spirit of AC distinctiveness, one of the best sermons I've heard in the past year or so was a magisterial response to Tract 90, and why therefore our future remained within the CofE.

Not groundbreaking by any means, but it did at least assume that the assembled congregation knew what Tract 90 was and why it was important.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Nevertheless, looking back over the past couple of years of my attendance at FiF churches all I can say is that they have a tendency to assume a great deal of knowledge of Christianity qua Christianity, and then kick on from there. I can recall a spell-binding sermon on the importance of the desert fathers, for example, along with expositions on the lessons of the early church councils, on the importance of the sacrament of confession, and (to move to slightly less "religious" matters), the extent to which the Sandham Memorial Chapel can be considered high art.

This is precisely the sort of think I'm thinking of. It's quite a contrast with my own experience (on average) over the same time. What you describe seems like what I would call real spiritual food. By contrast, consider the sermon I heard last year, in a church that would call itself "Catholic" and where most of the outward forms are observed - a sermon which boiled down to "I think the prophet Jeremiah would have been against tax avoidance". Bland, and shallow to the point of being embarrassing. (If you want a sermon on the redistribution of wealth, go to Chrysostom's Homilies on the Rich Man and Lazarus!)

quote:
At the same time, there is (again IME) a tendency to pitch it rather strong - I can think of one particular Mass of the Passion a couple of years back where the account of the crucifixion was so graphic that it caused the sacristan to throw up...

Go Father! [Biased]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
This is interesting. Certainly what I'm thinking about in this thread is my perception that Anglo-Catholics aren't really being told about how to be Anglo-Catholics any more, and part of that is that they're not being told about Tradition. ...

Yes, there is bland preaching. The example you cite about Jeremiah and taxes might have evidenced this. But with the state of general spiritual commitment, knowledge and awareness these days, might not even the best parish priest conclude that the prime job is that people need to be told about how to be Christians rather than how to be the particular niche sort of Christian the priest might prefer them eventually to become.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
This is interesting. Certainly what I'm thinking about in this thread is my perception that Anglo-Catholics aren't really being told about how to be Anglo-Catholics any more, and part of that is that they're not being told about Tradition. ...
Yes, there is bland preaching. The example you cite about Jeremiah and taxes might have evidenced this. But with the state of general spiritual commitment, knowledge and awareness these days, might not even the best parish priest conclude that the prime job is that people need to be told about how to be Christians rather than how to be the particular niche sort of Christian the priest might prefer them eventually to become.

Interesting - I sort of buy that, however far be it from me to suggest that because something worked in the 19th century it would work now but....

Pretty sure the slum priests didn't have ready made FiF style congregations when they turned up, rather they were bringing Christianity to the slums and facing exactly the same problems as now in terms of levels of religious education and understanding. Actually, probably worse as many of their flock wouldn't have been to school at all. Nevertheless through strong social action AND strong doctrinal preaching they won themselves an audience- hence the emphasis on the importance of explaining the sacraments etc. I would argue that they possibly created their own congregations from scratch, and not so much by telling people what they want to hear so much as explaining why they were doing what they were doing, and why it was important.

Obviously, people that don't agree with AC theology aren't going to believe that auricular confession, anointing the sick, and transubstantiation *are* important, but there is no doubt that on their own terms they did what they did, and expected their congregations to follow.

I don't know that if you set low standards (not just AC but of Methodism, Evangelism, Baptist worship, whatever), you don't end up just accepting low outcomes.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
This is interesting. Certainly what I'm thinking about in this thread is my perception that Anglo-Catholics aren't really being told about how to be Anglo-Catholics any more, and part of that is that they're not being told about Tradition. ...
Yes, there is bland preaching. The example you cite about Jeremiah and taxes might have evidenced this. But with the state of general spiritual commitment, knowledge and awareness these days, might not even the best parish priest conclude that the prime job is that people need to be told about how to be Christians rather than how to be the particular niche sort of Christian the priest might prefer them eventually to become.

I think that is very true. The problem I think is linked with the ghettoisation of anglo-catholicism (made worse by FinF and similar groups... and I'm not trying to revive dead horses or score points: if people have conscientious reasons for doing and preaching what they do I can't criticise.) But a result seems to be that many Anglo-catholics from at least the middle of the last century, unlike the Tractarians before them, seem to have given up the idea of transforming the whole C of E and to have settled for being a more or less exotic sect on the fringe.

On the other hand, many priests and people have grasped the 'catholic vision' and engaged with the wider church; many committed and orthodox anglo-catholics are working in middle of the road or even evangelical parishes and this needs a different strategy. I wouldn't have thought that sermons on the Desert Fathers would be any less acceptable in such a context than in a 'full-on' a-c shrine (my prejudice leads me to think maybe more so), but there are some topics and practices which need to be introduced more subtly.

I don't think there is much future for a Church of England that is just an uneasy federation of different sects. We need to be able to learn from the traditions and wisdom of each other. Archbishop Justin with his HTB background and Benedictine spirituality is a sign of hope in this respect, as are the religious orders (the Franciscans in particular, who embody evangelical catholicism). And the cathedrals of course.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
... sermons on the Desert Fathers

If I have heard any such over the course of the last 40 years they were entirely immemorable. On the other hand, I do recall Fr David Nicholls giving some offence to his colleagues in the theology faculty by some tart observations on the Dessert Fathers.

And from the golden age I recall Fr Max Saint preaching one Lent on St Cyprian on the Lord's Prayer.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

After over 10 years attending a charismatic evangelical church, though quite a sacramental one, I left when a new vicar started who most people disliked, and for some months attended an anglo catholic church with a woman vicar who considered herself very catholic though quite unsympathetic to Roman catholicism.

Many things were different between the two churches but the sermons was pretty much the same. I'm sure if given the texts of some of them now, I wouldn't be able to say which were from which church.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I think that is very true. The problem I think is linked with the ghettoisation of anglo-catholicism (made worse by FinF and similar groups... and I'm not trying to revive dead horses or score points: if people have conscientious reasons for doing and preaching what they do I can't criticise.) But a result seems to be that many Anglo-catholics from at least the middle of the last century, unlike the Tractarians before them, seem to have given up the idea of transforming the whole C of E and to have settled for being a more or less exotic sect on the fringe.

Here in the States, much is made of the 1979 Prayer Book as being a catholic victory. It's true that the BCP has steadily ascended the candle through 1928 and 1979. It's also true that Episcopal worship tends to be, by and large, on the high side of MOR to the point that in most places the Eucharist at the local TEC parish is higher-church than that at the RC shack.

My impression, though, is that this liturgical victory has been undercut by a theological loss. It's the Broad-Church party that's really in charge, and it's shown itself able and willing to assimilate a high liturgical style while making most of the nuts-and-bolts theology more or less optional.

Depending on where you stand, of course, this is either a lamentable outcome or a stroke of genius. [Smile]

For good or ill, it's certainly created a bigger tent.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I think there is definitely a distinction between FiF and "the others" IME - however, before I get jumped on, I'm not suggesting for a moment that that means the state of ACism outside the PEV enclave is a rigourless desert. The chap at my current non-FiF non ABC shack is *very* good, for example - but then, it's in a university town so maybe he feels he has permission to soar a bit?

Nevertheless, looking back over the past couple of years of my attendance at FiF churches all I can say is that they have a tendency to assume a great deal of knowledge of Christianity qua Christianity, and then kick on from there. I can recall a spell-binding sermon on the importance of the desert fathers, for example, along with expositions on the lessons of the early church councils, on the importance of the sacrament of confession, and (to move to slightly less "religious" matters), the extent to which the Sandham Memorial Chapel can be considered high art.

At the same time, there is (again IME) a tendency to pitch it rather strong - I can think of one particular Mass of the Passion a couple of years back where the account of the crucifixion was so graphic that it caused the sacristan to throw up...

I would therefore say that the world described in the OP is indeed alive and well in the FiF world. However, outside that it is more hit and miss - depending entirely on the make-up and nature of the congregation, and, I would suggest, the education of the incumbent. There are surviving pockets here and there outside FiF though definitely.

As I've said, Northampton is quite strongly FiF and now I am quite tempted to check them out to see if what you say is the case here. There is a church that is A and B but not C so might go there first...

Without getting into Dead Horses, why do you think the differences between FiF A-Cs and others exist? Are FiFs more connected to the history of the movement? Is there also more of a feeling of not caring what other Anglicans think? As an affirming A-C, I am interested in how those of us who cannot feel comfortable in FiF circles can still learn from them and not be relegated to children's corner preaching. I yearn for proper slum parish A-C churches without FiF stances on Dead Horses - am I wanting the impossible? I can't see that I am.

In your experience, how do FiF churches in deprived areas taking up the mantle of slum parish churches? Is there much local social activism?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
This is interesting. Certainly what I'm thinking about in this thread is my perception that Anglo-Catholics aren't really being told about how to be Anglo-Catholics any more, and part of that is that they're not being told about Tradition. ...
Yes, there is bland preaching. The example you cite about Jeremiah and taxes might have evidenced this. But with the state of general spiritual commitment, knowledge and awareness these days, might not even the best parish priest conclude that the prime job is that people need to be told about how to be Christians rather than how to be the particular niche sort of Christian the priest might prefer them eventually to become.
I think that is very true. The problem I think is linked with the ghettoisation of anglo-catholicism (made worse by FinF and similar groups... and I'm not trying to revive dead horses or score points: if people have conscientious reasons for doing and preaching what they do I can't criticise.) But a result seems to be that many Anglo-catholics from at least the middle of the last century, unlike the Tractarians before them, seem to have given up the idea of transforming the whole C of E and to have settled for being a more or less exotic sect on the fringe.

On the other hand, many priests and people have grasped the 'catholic vision' and engaged with the wider church; many committed and orthodox anglo-catholics are working in middle of the road or even evangelical parishes and this needs a different strategy. I wouldn't have thought that sermons on the Desert Fathers would be any less acceptable in such a context than in a 'full-on' a-c shrine (my prejudice leads me to think maybe more so), but there are some topics and practices which need to be introduced more subtly.

I don't think there is much future for a Church of England that is just an uneasy federation of different sects. We need to be able to learn from the traditions and wisdom of each other. Archbishop Justin with his HTB background and Benedictine spirituality is a sign of hope in this respect, as are the religious orders (the Franciscans in particular, who embody evangelical catholicism). And the cathedrals of course.

The Desert Fathers would go down well at my previous Reformed-influenced church - indeed, more 'intellectual' sermons went down a treat (although were much longer than any A-C or RC sermon!). Not sure many would associate them with being Catholic though - many at the church would distinguish between Catholics and Christians. It IS in historically anti-Catholic East Sussex though.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

Hi Jade,

some good questions there. Overall, and I get why this is so but I don't think it's helpful, I think it's a pity if people are ruling out churches on the basis of their stance on dead horses. Admittedly, I'm going the other way, but I don't let it stop me - it just doesn't come up in every service and if you like/appreciate/value everything else then it's got to be worth a visit from time to time.

Taking them in turn (and I've got to learn to multiquote but this is the first time I've ever needed to so hopefully the hosts will bear with what I'm about to do just this once as I'd rather italicise your questions and respond rather than just create/curate a festival of cocked up coding!):

Q: Without getting into Dead Horses, why do you think the differences between FiF A-Cs and others exist? Are FiFs more connected to the history of the movement? Is there also more of a feeling of not caring what other Anglicans think?

I think these three are intrinsically bound up, so it's quite astutely put. Certainly there can be a bit of a persecution complex, which isn't present in the AfCath places to quite the same degree (no one in those churches *tends* to think rightly or wrongly that everyone else is out to get them). Consequently they can self-select, as people will drive from miles around to get to them rather than just going to church at the end of their road.

Now, AfCaths can be and are just as aware of the history of the movement, so I'm not slighting them, but it seems IME that the history of the movement is present and all-pervasive for the FiFs because, quite apart from anything else, it provides an inspiration and rationalisation for the ghetto mentality. "They coped so I must" sort of thing.

Next, it's down to the fact that for the people who are self-selecting, it's a conscious choice. It's totally counter-cultural and counter the prevailing spirit within the CofE to seek out FiF, which means that it isn't often done by accident (although read my response to your final question below to see why I don't think this is the whole story). People know what they think, and a higher level of background knowledge can be assumed because it is assumed that it has been an informed choice.

Q: As an affirming A-C, I am interested in how those of us who cannot feel comfortable in FiF circles can still learn from them and not be relegated to children's corner preaching. I yearn for proper slum parish A-C churches without FiF stances on Dead Horses - am I wanting the impossible? I can't see that I am.

No, you're not wanting the impossible, but it is a question of circumstance I think. Oxford does ok because Staggers is the patron of many of the "slum" churches. They don't impose the resolutions, or exclude female priests (in fact, they'll appoint them if that's what the parish wants), but it seems to me that this does focus the mind a bit in terms of the other attributes and what's expected...

Q: In your experience, how do FiF churches in deprived areas taking up the mantle of slum parish churches? Is there much local social activism?

In a word, massively. I'm not saying it doesn't happen elsewhere at all, but it seems to me that often the DH issue can cover up/blind people to the reality of what's happening on the ground.

Take for example St ------- - a FiF flagship. J-------- is a very odd place, because house prices have gone through the roof in the past ten years but it's cheek by jowl with, and interspersed by, a high density of social housing and urban deprivation. Community spirit in the area is however incredibly strong. I haven't worshipped there for a couple of years now but in my time it was usual to see the vicar walking the terraced streets in his biretta just saying hello to people, or popping into the pub. Everyone knows him and who he is, even if they don't turn up every week - and he is approachable. At the same time, there are still people in ------ who have lived there all their lives who grew up with the church as the heart of the densely packed little area and for whom *nothing has observably changed.*

In part, I reckon this is because the arrival of FiF refugees from outside the parish (and city) has kept the church well attended, and kept it usual to see a great throng of people going through the door every Sunday, or parading in the streets on festal days. Consequently, the church has never been forced to compromise. Also, for the people living round there who don't know much about church, they see what FiF is doing as entirely normal, and, rather like HTB for example, I wonder if it isn't easier as a "Seeker" or mildly curious to drop into a service which has loads of people and where churchgoing is observably some sort of societal norm than it is to summon up the courage to go into a massive building with about 20 people in it where you're going to be clocked straight away.

all of that is drifting slowly away from social action (sorry!) but I think it's actually bound up with it. It can get a bit "call the midwife" but often in the inner city FiF parishes the church is still a large and real force. There's an element of "forward to the 1860s" about it to be sure, but in my experience of FiF churches it is total and genuine both in terms of what's being preached in the church, and what's being lived outside it. For all the gin and lace stereotypes I don't think the great slum priests of the past would find much to quibble with in terms of what's being done by FiF today.

I'd better close by reiterating that I'm categorically NOT saying noone else does it, or that FiF are uniquely awesome, or anything like that. I do think circumstance has tended to make FiF really quite good though outwith the dead horses, which I've been very careful to try and avoid.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

I'd also add that IME the business of the church acts to suck in local people so it isn't bussing in a congregation in that sense. This is pluccking figures out of the air, but in one place where I used to go it was about 50:50 genuine "parishioners" vs weekly travellers, but that the consequently overall numbers meant that the raw total of genuine parishioners was higher than it would have been without the travellers. Success was breeding success....

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Thank you for your response. Re Dead Horses, I am mostly thinking of women's ordination as being the no-compromise issue for me personally due to the damage experienced in conservative evangelical circles regarding this issue. However I get the feeling that conservative catholics are perhaps less strident than conservative evangelicals about Dead Horses generally? As an example from the other side - my church is AffCath but actually Dead Horses are almost never mentioned there either. It just doesn't come up. It's just that we know what the attitude would be if it DID come up.

(hosts, I hope that is sufficiently Purgatorial and not DH-worthy - am not debating the merits of DH positions at all)

For me personally, having been in the situation before, a 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' situation is spiritually damaging. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, I mind not being able to be open and honest.

In Northampton by far the biggest church group into social activism is the Jesus Army, which possibly smothers other church activity. I'm not sure any of our FiF churches are in down-at-heel areas - most churches that are, are Nonconformist chapels or other CoE churches (including AffCath ones).

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Thank you for your response. Re Dead Horses, I am mostly thinking of women's ordination as being the no-compromise issue for me personally due to the damage experienced in conservative evangelical circles regarding this issue. However I get the feeling that conservative catholics are perhaps less strident than conservative evangelicals about Dead Horses generally? As an example from the other side - my church is AffCath but actually Dead Horses are almost never mentioned there either. It just doesn't come up. It's just that we know what the attitude would be if it DID come up.

(hosts, I hope that is sufficiently Purgatorial and not DH-worthy - am not debating the merits of DH positions at all)

For me personally, having been in the situation before, a 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' situation is spiritually damaging. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, I mind not being able to be open and honest.

In Northampton by far the biggest church group into social activism is the Jesus Army, which possibly smothers other church activity. I'm not sure any of our FiF churches are in down-at-heel areas - most churches that are, are Nonconformist chapels or other CoE churches (including AffCath ones).

I would give Northampton's FiF churches a whirl and see what, if anything, you can learn from them to take away, or if you could cope with going regularly. Worst case you've only got to go once after all!

Or, when you've finished in Northampton, move to Oxford, where Ss Mary and John, or St Alban the Martyr (among others) absolutely fit what you're looking for...

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

With the hope that this, too, does not stray into DH territory, the reason that DH issues are not mentioned in Aff Catholic churches is that they are not issues for them at the local level. They may be at diocesan, provincial or national levels, where they will go in to bat for OoW and so forth, but that does not need discussion in the parish.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
With the hope that this, too, does not stray into DH territory, the reason that DH issues are not mentioned in Aff Catholic churches is that they are not issues for them at the local level. They may be at diocesan, provincial or national levels, where they will go in to bat for OoW and so forth, but that does not need discussion in the parish.

Totally agree (and obviously it works both ways - FiF parishes do not have some Paisleyite rant every sunday about how everyone else is wrong either).

To drag this back away from the brink of swerving onto the wrong board, I would hope that under the new FiF regime we ought to be in a place where there is much more scope for sharing the good work that is being done by both AfCath and FiF in terms of the distinctiveness of Anglo-Catholic teaching. IME it is happening within both camps, albeit, I think, more consistently on the FiF side of the fence. This isn't about persuading the others that one side or other is right, but by and large the papalists have gone, and the realists are left, and they/we have got so much to give/share/add to the CofE more generally.

There you go - hope. The reports of the death of the distinctiveness of Anglo-Catholic teaching have been much exaggerated!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I can see why there might be link between FiF and the more rigorous proclamation of the traditional basics of Anglo-Catholic doctrine on the one hand and AffCath and not doing so. If one were 'Catholic' and intellectually rigorous, it would be much harder to see how one could legitimately drop one part of the tradition without dropping all of it. If one were 'Catholic' and less intellectually rigorous, consistency is less of a problem, but then, intellectual credibility is probably going to be only one driver among many in one's preaching. It's simply less important.

I can see that the Dead Horse issue that has defined FiF people is one on which it is very difficult to move yourself if you are Anglo-Catholic and the sort of person to whom intellectual and historical integrity is important, particularly if its intellectual completeness is part of what drew you to that way of expressing Christian faith in the first place. There have historically never been women priests. Neither Rome nor Constantinople have gone in that direction. It is precisely that sort of person who is likely to be able to proclaim Anglo-Catholic doctrine in its fulness with persuasive conviction, the sort of person that Adeodatus describes in the OP.

What, of course, throws the secular media which doesn't understand or know very much about Christianity these days Tangent, Digression and Dead Horse alert is that if you are the sort of person to whom intellectual and historical integrity is important but are not Anglo-Catholic, ordination of women is not a big issue for you, but it is very difficult to move yourself very far on the other dead horse issue. So the secular media finds it impossible even to imagine, yet alone see, that there is a significant number of ordained women who are 'traditional' on that other issue. End of Tangent, Digression and Dead Horse alert

This isn't primarily about dead horses. They are only collateral to what is really about how faith is to different sorts of people. I do rather fear, though, that if the Hosts don't intervene to say this is getting too near the DH threshold, some other shipmate will leap in with the dread letters MBTI.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

To (hopefully) take this out of DH territory and put it in more general terms, I can see that it's about having a faith of integrity - literally, an integrated faith where everything fits together. Given that RC teaching has that internal logic, FiF teaching does too. For me, the issue is the divide between AffCath types who are picking and choosing, and then AffCaths like myself who see flaws in the internal logic and want to correct them, without losing the structure of that logic as a whole. For me, it's the difference between repairing loose stitches in a garment that is not wearable in order to make it wearable, and cutting it up in order to make something else that looks a bit like the original. For me the issue is that traditionalists in the CoE fail to see that there is a difference.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I can see that it's about having a faith of integrity - literally, an integrated faith where everything fits together.

It's one understanding of faith - amongst more - that seemingly has an internal integrity. It isn't unique in that regard.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I can see that it's about having a faith of integrity - literally, an integrated faith where everything fits together.
It's one understanding of faith - amongst more - that seemingly has an internal integrity. It isn't unique in that regard.

That's what I had taken Jade to mean to be honest, there's no reason why anyone shouldn't strive for that, and it doesn't lead necessarily to FiF AC, or RC theology. But it *is* an argument in support of coherence, whether you're high, low, broad, methodist, URC or whatever, and for knowing *why* you think/do things, rather than just doing them.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I can see that it's about having a faith of integrity - literally, an integrated faith where everything fits together.
It's one understanding of faith - amongst more - that seemingly has an internal integrity. It isn't unique in that regard.

Absolutely, it's not unique - but I was just comparing it to a less integrated AffCath model.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Of course, Forward in Faith is all but unknown here. There are a few members in Melbourne, but AFAIK only one in NSW, and a scattered few throughout the rest of the country. Most dioceses would be called Aff Cath in the UK, with such exceptions as liberal Canberra/Goulburn and C18 Tasmania. Even Ballarat will now ordain women. In those circumstances, it makes little sense to talk of integrity being a characteristic only of FinF.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Of course, Forward in Faith is all but unknown here. There are a few members in Melbourne, but AFAIK only one in NSW, and a scattered few throughout the rest of the country. Most dioceses would be called Aff Cath in the UK, with such exceptions as liberal Canberra/Goulburn and C18 Tasmania. Even Ballarat will now ordain women. In those circumstances, it makes little sense to talk of integrity being a characteristic only of FinF.

I don't think even within Anglo-Catholicism FiF has the only integrated model - speaking as a non-FIF A-C, there are areas where I see a lack of integration. However, in the CoE where FiF manages to keep more distinctive A-C teaching (in general), there is clearly a difference between FiF and AffCath in these areas.

Would be interested to hear about A-C churches that fall outside of both those categories, in England that is.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0