Thread: English Anglicanism and Cultural Identity - or when's it time to stop holding on? 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=026723
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
I think this is purgatorial (I want to keep off DHs, but it might conceivably be All Souls....)
Seems to me that Anglicanism is bound up with naional consciousness in a way it isn't in other countries - I mean it's the default position to be CofE (in as much it's the default position when having any religion at all).
Which makes it all rather difficult when considering the competing claims of religions. For example, I agree with FiF on the DHs, but also that the CofE is THE church in England. However, I'm increasingly inclined to believe that there is no future for "my" camp outwith the Roman Catholic church, and would be received tomorrow, were it not for the fact that it feels like giving up on hundreds of years of history, and the church of my birth.
So, I suppose my question is to what extent one can (specifically within England) play off the two competing tensions? The RC view would of course be that the future of one's immortal soul should tip the balance, but it feels more culturally complex than that. Otherwise the Ordinariate wuld have been a given for many more people as soon as it was announced.
I do think if I wasn't English it would be easier to just change horses to the RC church?
I think I've just about cut through all the confusion in my own head to get to those questions, but I'm interested in what others think.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Anglicanism is much more than the C of E, and does not have the cultural baggage you attribute to it outside that particular branch. And by and large, the issues which excite FinF have been left in the past in many other Provinces.
[ 29. January 2014, 09:46: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
Ahem, in the event that Simon loses the plot completely and decides to set up a dedicated board for conservative Anglo-Catholics to bitch about how the Church of England has been going to the dogs since forever*, All Souls would be a most apposite name for it. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
*There is, of course, a school of thought which holds that the old Mystery Worship board fulfilled much the same function. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Anglicanism is much more than the C of E, and does not have the cultural baggage you attribute to it outside that particular branch. And by and large, the issues which excite FinF have been left in the past in many other Provinces.
That's exactly what I'm trying to get at. I completely agree with you, hence the thread title specifically being "English Anglicanism" and not Anglicanism per se.
It's also not about having a bitchfest about the direction of the CofE. I'm struggling with the very intertwined tangle in England of culture and faith, and looking for other thoughts which might make the way forward a bit clearer.
So, in England, how can people/do others untangle/pick the relationship between religious heritage and cultural heritage?
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
Oh and in my op, I did mean All Saints. Sorry...
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
As God lays on our hearts where we should worship at any time, I think a lot of prayer, with discernment by reason and consultation with others called to spiritual direction (who are neutral / liberal / open-minded denominationally), is the way forward.
It is good to know what influences us in our decision-making, and to be able to override it if necessary so that we put God first. God calls some into each of the denominations: some into and out of the Roman catholic church, others into and out of the English catholic church, yet others into and out of the 'Protestant' churches.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
betjemaniac
So you're saying that your branch of the CofE doesn't have a future, so you'd be in the RCC if that didn't mean abandoning what you feel to be your 'English' religious heritage?
I can't exactly see how your problem can be solved. Why would the CofE seek to abandon its national connections so as to make it easier for you and others to leave?? And, what would abandoning these national connections actually entail? Are you thinking of disestablishment?
IMO the CofE's status will eventually be reevaluated, but not exactly for the reasons you have in mind....
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I agree ... that the CofE is THE church in England.
So are we Nonconformist Christians not to be counted as part of the Church? Or, for that matter, as properly English?
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
Perhaps what is necessary is to rather literally think outside the box. First off, imagine the CofE no longer the Church-as-by-law-established (already a near meaningless concept in reality), and then imagine it not even being the National Church (as the CofS). You might settle for thinking of it as an historic foundational Church that happens to own a lot of ancient and venerable properties, the oldest of which it inherited by political accident from the Roman hierarchy, and that has also mid-wifed some signficant Christian denominations in the country, of which Methodism is perhaps the iconic example, but which itself no longer really occupies a unique place in the actual faith-life of tne nation; rather a denomination and sect amongst many, Christian and non-Christian.
It's hard to make these acknowledgements to reality, and various things do argue against the perspective I've just articulated. Yet, if we look at the actual realities on the ground, I think this perspective is justified.
The CofE is a good place for one's Christian journey, and I have been happy to call one of its parish churches, especially, home when living and visiting in the green and pleasant land these past twenty years. But objectively, it and the whole CofE are rather insignificant to the majority of the population, I'm afraid. How special is that?
Having said all this, while in America there might always be the slight chance that a geographical move or other developments could see me skipping out on the Episcopal Church in favour of a parish of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, in England I would never contemplate being anywhere but the CofE. Does that completely undercut the argument I've made? At a rational level I don't think so; but it does seem to witness to all the irrational, sentimental and nostalgic elements that contribute to one's personal identifications with social institutions.
[ 29. January 2014, 12:58: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posted by fabula rasa (# 11436) on
:
betjemaniac, I have two thoughts.
The first is that while we English Anglicans see the CofE as linking us back to our national history, it is equally valid for Roman Catholics to make the same claim. After all, the English church was Roman for a millennium, and the Roman church didn't just die--for the past 500 years it has maintained itself, in a huge number of ways, as (an admittedly niche) part of English life. It's a story of long, proud struggle, and I think that it is time that Anglicans recognised that. (It was interesting that when Richard III's bones were found, and the squabbling started about where and how they might be buried, one of the representations was that of course he was a member of the Roman church and should be buried according to its rites.)
The second observation I would make is that in 2014 there is only one important sense in which we are an Anglican country: we still have an Established church, which is looked to to provide the ritual and ceremonial in our national life. In no other sense does the CofE play a major part in what it means to be English today.
If a sense of cultural Englishness is important to you in church life, I think that you're on equally solid ground with the Romans. The only significant argument to the contrary, in my view, is in DH territory: that the RCC is much further away from English norms on matters around gender and sexuality.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I agree ... that the CofE is THE church in England.
So are we Nonconformist Christians not to be counted as part of the Church? Or, for that matter, as properly English?
You are welcome at the Church of England's Eucharist table, you have the right to be married by a CofE priest and to have your child or yourself baptized in a CofE parish.
So yes, the Church of England is THE church for all English Christians, whether or not they choose to participate or not.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
betjemaniac
So you're saying that your branch of the CofE doesn't have a future, so you'd be in the RCC if that didn't mean abandoning what you feel to be your 'English' religious heritage?
I can't exactly see how your problem can be solved. Why would the CofE seek to abandon its national connections so as to make it easier for you and others to leave?? And, what would abandoning these national connections actually entail? Are you thinking of disestablishment?
IMO the CofE's status will eventually be reevaluated, but not exactly for the reasons you have in mind....
Pretty well yes to your first question. No to everything else you've written because where you write "I can't exactly see how your problem can be solved" - *that* is the problem I'm trying to discuss, not disestblishment, or the CofE decoupling itself from the state.
More a question of how the public-school upper middle class worshipper (to indulge in pejoratives for a second) for whom the CofE and the state are intrinsically linked both in national identity and self-identity, goes about decoupling themselves (emphatically NOT the CofE) from one part of that (the religious one not the state one obviously) because there is an intrinsic disconnect in what they believe religiously, and what the CofE is believes.
Which is a problem which I think is restricted to England, because of the CofE's role in national history, and with which I'm currently wrestling. The backwoods shire Tories essentially having to denounce their own right arm. I appreciate some people change denomination without all this, which is why I'm specifically interested in the socio-cultural-class baggage of English anglicanism, and how it's navigated away from by individuals who have that baggage.
FWIW I think Raptor Eye gets it, and their reply is helpful.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
betjemaniac
... Why would the CofE seek to abandon its national connections so as to make it easier for you and others to leave?? ....
And why also should the CofE reshape itself to fit your requirements if that makes others feel they have no place there?
The CofE isn't a church for Anglicans. It's a church for Christians. It happens to think it's way is the best household within which English people can be Christians. I accept there may be some people who find that statement irritating. It doesn't need to provide a place where unbelievers, pagans, heathens, Dawkinsists, Moslems etc should feel at home, but it should be a place where Christians and those that aspire to be, can grow in their faith.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Which makes it all rather difficult when considering the competing claims of religions. For example, I agree with FiF on the DHs, but also that the CofE is THE church in England. However, I'm increasingly inclined to believe that there is no future for "my" camp outwith the Roman Catholic church, and would be received tomorrow, were it not for the fact that it feels like giving up on hundreds of years of history, and the church of my birth.
The difference is that in CofE, you are free to share DH positions with the RCC and remain a welcome member of the church. The CofE allows for a wide diversity of beliefs and worship practices.
In the RCC one is expected to assent to the authority of the church, which goes to a much finer detail on social issues than the CofE does.
If you are sure that RCC is THE church (as they define it, which also means their authority to interpret Scripture and tradition) then you should cross the river and join them. But simply thinking certain things about DH's doesn't seem to me sufficient. There are lots of churches (even within the Anglican Communion) whose beliefs on DH issues are identical to the RCC's.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I agree ... that the CofE is THE church in England.
So are we Nonconformist Christians not to be counted as part of the Church? Or, for that matter, as properly English?
No, that's absolutely not what I'm saying. I hope my reply to Svitlana upthread makes it a bit clearer what I'm actually driving at.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
betjemaniac
... Why would the CofE seek to abandon its national connections so as to make it easier for you and others to leave?? ....
And why also should the CofE reshape itself to fit your requirements if that makes others feel they have no place there?
The CofE isn't a church for Anglicans. It's a church for Christians. It happens to think it's way is the best household within which English people can be Christians. I accept there may be some people who find that statement irritating. It doesn't need to provide a place where unbelievers, pagans, heathens, Dawkinsists, Moslems etc should feel at home, but it should be a place where Christians and those that aspire to be, can grow in their faith.
By the same token, the CofE doesn't need to reshape itself to fit the aspirations of one party in the Church. I would personally find it more congenial if the CofE would all become high side of MOTR to nosebleed AffCath, but that would leave all the Lowies and Evos (as well as the FinF types) without a Church. The CofE is nothing if not comprehensive, regardless of what else it is or isn't; and it doesn't really have the option of forcing a house-style or theological position as does the mostly MOTR-highish TEC.
[ 29. January 2014, 13:12: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I agree ... that the CofE is THE church in England.
So are we Nonconformist Christians not to be counted as part of the Church? Or, for that matter, as properly English?
No, that's absolutely not what I'm saying. I hope my reply to Svitlana upthread makes it a bit clearer what I'm actually driving at.
Thank you. I actually did realise what you meant, which very much resonates with my upbringing (although I am only 1st generation English). It was just that your use of language seemed to imply something else, as well.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
You are welcome at the Church of England's Eucharist table, you have the right to be married by a CofE priest and to have your child or yourself baptized in a CofE parish.
So yes, the Church of England is THE church for all English Christians, whether or not they choose to participate or not.
All other Churches would equally welcoming (I hope) except that no-one has the right to be baptised or married in them. Indeed, we would regard the former, in particular, to be an unsupportable confusion between Church and State.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Enoch quote:
The CofE isn't a church for Anglicans. It's a church for Christians. It happens to think it's way is the best household within which English people can be Christians. I accept there may be some people who find that statement irritating. It doesn't need to provide a place where unbelievers, pagans, heathens, Dawkinsists, Moslems etc should feel at home, but it should be a place where Christians and those that aspire to be, can grow in their faith.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
betjemaniac
... Why would the CofE seek to abandon its national connections so as to make it easier for you and others to leave?? ....
And why also should the CofE reshape itself to fit your requirements if that makes others feel they have no place there?
I'm not sure how this comment follows on from what I said. I don't expect the CofE to 'reshape itself to fit' my 'requirements'.
FWIW, I don't consider myself to be 'in the CofE', although I worship in CofE churches fairly often these days. I wasn't raised in the CofE, and don't see myself as having a CofE identity. I talk about the CofE here because it's an institution that most of us have some awareness and experience of, but I don't know what I could contribute to the CofE other than my bum on a pew. I ought to be offering more than that, so eventually I'll have to move on.
quote:
The CofE isn't a church for Anglicans. It's a church for Christians. It happens to think it's way is the best household within which English people can be Christians.
But to be practical, the CofE wouldn't be able to cope if all the country's other Christians decided to make use of its services. It wouldn't be able to accommodate all their clergy (whose standards of training might not be acceptable). Someone like betjemaniac probably wouldn't appreciate the even greater decline in the influence of Anglo-Catholicism that would inevitably follow if all of England's Protestants expected the CofE to cater to their needs. (I don't know how things would work out if the Catholics all came in too!)
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
See, I just have no attachment to the CoE at that level. It's the church I belong to because in England at least, it's the only one that fits my theology. Were I in the US though, for example, I would happily jump ship to the ELCA.
I am deeply uncomfortable with tying Anglicanism up with English identity in a state-sanctioned way, if nothing else because it has historically been Bad News Indeed for my fellow Christians in Nonconformist churches and the RCC.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Most of the Anglicans here are of Ukrainian, German and Indian (First Nations) background. Probably only ¼ or ⅓ of us have any connection to England or the UK. On church advertising, it's not uncommon to see things like "a family (or community) church in the Anglican tradition", with the Anglican part being the form of liturgy at full extent. I didn't realize this fully until recently, that we don't have the cultural connection at all that the UK people experience.
Here also you can bet on perogies and jellied salad at potlucks.
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
it feels like giving up on hundreds of years of history
But didn't the C of E give up 1500 years of RC history when it broke away from Rome? I would see it as going back to the roots of your faith - an older and more mature tradition.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
it feels like giving up on hundreds of years of history
But didn't the C of E give up 1500 years of RC history when it broke away from Rome? I would see it as going back to the roots of your faith - an older and more mature tradition.
Mature tradition? Hmmm. Old fashioned, non-progressive and old timey maybe, considering all of the social issues. Rome just stopped speaking Latin at church a blink in time ago.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think it ties in with a particular view of 'Englishness' which not all English people share ...
Take the Church in Wales, for instance, part of the Anglican Communion. At one time the Anglicans were regarded as something of an 'outsiders' church - for the squirearchy and the comers-in or the indigenous Welsh who wanted to 'better' themselves ...
The non-conformist churches tended to have a more distinct Welsh identity.
Now, however, with the decline of nonconformity - particularly in rural areas, the Church in Wales is becoming quite a haven for Welsh speakers and people interested in their Welsh heritage ...
So the situation in Wales is very different to the situation in England. I'd also suggest that it is very different in London and other large cities where the CofE is increasingly becoming an increasingly immigrant/ethnic minority church ...
I know your point about English identity and Anglicanism wasn't intended to undermine the claims to English identity among the nonconformists - but I can understand Baptist Trainfan's point. Only today, in an article comprising old news-cuttings and snippets from the Liverpool Mercury I came across a letter signed by 12 nonconformist ministers in Birkenhead in the late 19th century complaining about a particular vicar's attitude.
This vicar - or bishop as they satirically referred to him - considered everyone resident in his parish to be the fitting subjects of his ministrations - even if they belonged to one or other of the 'dissenting' congregations. It was a cogent and well argued letter - the vicar was talking about building a mission hall half-a-mile down the road to minister to people who didn't walk the half mile up the hill to his church - whilst ignoring the fact that there was a nonconformist mission hall (supported by various of the dissenting groups) under construction just across the road from the spot he had in mind ...
I've come across a kind of True Blue, Tory type of Englishman who seem to regard Catholics as not quite as English as other English people ...
As if somehow they take on Italian, Polish or Irish blood as soon as they receive the Host ...
To an extent I can understand the view of the Roman Catholic church as somehow alien ... but it's only seen as alien because of 500 years of Protestant propaganda.
The Orthodox feel a lot more 'foreign' - other than the various 'convert parishes' but even there you'll find eccles cakes and bakewell pudding alongside exotic creamy Greek and Russian cakes.
I know, I had some smeared all over the back of my jacket because of the crush at an Easter vigil a few years back.
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on
:
Lots of people feel affiliated to the culture of one church while finding that their beliefs are closer to that of another church. We have a very elderly lady in our congregation who believes strongly in the moral and ethical stance of the Quakers, and appreciates the intellectual level of the conversations she has after their meetings, but if she goes there all the time she misses hymns, sermons, and large numbers of small children. So she simply divides her time between the two churches and everyone is happy.
If you are seriously considering the RCC I would suggest you find a Catholic church to attend at least some of the time as an observer. If you feel it will meet your needs in most respects, convert to RCC but find an Anglican cathedral where you can use evensong for a non-sacramental cultural hit of Englishness when you need it.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think it ties in with a particular view of 'Englishness' which not all English people share ...
That's a bit of English understatement! I'd imagine that only a tiny fraction of the English share it. Maybe one or two percent.
And it also ties in with a view of Anglicanism that not all the Church of England shares. I'd be surprised if a tenth of us do.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think it ties in with a particular view of 'Englishness' which not all English people share ...
That's a bit of English understatement! I'd imagine that only a tiny fraction of the English share it. Maybe one or two percent.
And it also ties in with a view of Anglicanism that not all the Church of England shares. I'd be surprised if a tenth of us do.
Hence my appeal to crowd sourcing...
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
Thanks for all the replies btw, some useful food for thought...
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Gamaliel - not just propaganda against the RCC but actual persecution. Laws against Catholics were kept even when those against Nonconformists were relaxed.
I do think the OP's vision of England is barely recognisable to most people in England, and I don't think that's a bad thing. Barely anyone lives in St Mary Mead with everyone going to old-fashioned Matins on a Sunday (probably nobody in fact). Betjemaniac, if you sincerely believe in what the RCC teaches and that it is the true church, join. Roman Catholicism is every bit as English as Anglicanism, it has just out of state matters for political reasons. There are many of us in the CoE who wish that could do the same.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Barely anyone lives in St Mary Mead with everyone going to old-fashioned Matins on a Sunday (probably nobody in fact).
Not many, but we are out there. I can think of a village up the road where everyone is a tenant and the squire bangs on their front windows with a riding crop on a Sunday if he thnks not enough people are in church. That is within 60 miles of London and other shipmates in the area will know exactly where I mean...
They also have a clause in their tenancies that says their curtains will be open by a certain time in the morning...
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
betjemaniac - I'd just endorse the suggestions from Aravis and Jade Constable. If you really do feel that the Catholic church's claims concerning itself are true then you need to motor on down there pronto.
All I would add on my own behalf is that I understand a reticence due to walking away from a lifetime's membership of the church that you grew up in. I don't think the CofE of your imaginings has been with us for decades to be honest. But even though I don't share your reasons for discomfiture, many here share a sense of unrest for a variety of reasons, and I don't exclude myself from that. I'm sure most here wish you well in your deliberations.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Barely anyone lives in St Mary Mead with everyone going to old-fashioned Matins on a Sunday (probably nobody in fact).
Not many, but we are out there. I can think of a village up the road where everyone is a tenant and the squire bangs on their front windows with a riding crop on a Sunday if he thnks not enough people are in church. That is within 60 miles of London and other shipmates in the area will know exactly where I mean...
They also have a clause in their tenancies that says their curtains will be open by a certain time in the morning...
Seriously? Is it a living museum? Feudalism is certainly something that should have died out, even when it hasn't.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Feudalism is certainly something that should have died out, even when it hasn't.
Feudalism is alive and well. Most of it is based on capital rather than land these days, but the principles are much the same. Of course the old fashioned landed sort is still in evidence up here. Getting the estate (that owns 95%+ of the island) to do anything is... difficult.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Barely anyone lives in St Mary Mead with everyone going to old-fashioned Matins on a Sunday (probably nobody in fact).
Not many, but we are out there. I can think of a village up the road where everyone is a tenant and the squire bangs on their front windows with a riding crop on a Sunday if he thnks not enough people are in church. That is within 60 miles of London and other shipmates in the area will know exactly where I mean...
They also have a clause in their tenancies that says their curtains will be open by a certain time in the morning...
Seriously? Is it a living museum? Feudalism is certainly something that should have died out, even when it hasn't.
No, it's a real village with real people, and to be quite honest that one's one of the more acceptable faces of feudalism in the locality. Others are far worse. It's also on your doorstep. Rural Northamptonshire and Oxfordshire (in particular; notwithstanding the Chipping Norton end of things) are a real 1950s time-warp as soon as you get off the main roads.
And if you really want to see estates functioning like it's 1897, get up to Northumberland or Invernesshire/Perthshire.
It doesn't affect many people granted, but for some of us this really is the 1950s but with internet )with all the easy, lazy cultural/religious assumptions that would imply.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
To be brutally frank, I think you could find people with your kind of Brideshead Revisited attitudes in the RC. I've met some.
I once met an otherwise lovely RC priest who couldn't stand the kind of popular Irish Catholicism to which it had been his lot to encounter/minister to and far preferred the aristocratic Catholicism of the old 'recusant' families ...
I think you'd find some parts of the RC Church in the UK to be home from home, quite frankly ...
Other parts of it would send you fleeing back to Much Bynding In The Marsh as soon as you can say 'Yoiks! Tally-ho!'
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To be brutally frank, I think you could find people with your kind of Brideshead Revisited attitudes in the RC. I've met some.
I once met an otherwise lovely RC priest who couldn't stand the kind of popular Irish Catholicism to which it had been his lot to encounter/minister to and far preferred the aristocratic Catholicism of the old 'recusant' families ...
I think you'd find some parts of the RC Church in the UK to be home from home, quite frankly ...
Other parts of it would send you fleeing back to Much Bynding In The Marsh as soon as you can say 'Yoiks! Tally-ho!'
Ouch, although I think you've spectacularly got hold of the wrong end of the stick and proceeded to beat around the bush with it.
Brideshead doesn't come into it at all, unless you were making a very nice point about the attitudes of Charles Ryder's father, or more possibly Rex Mottram. It's nothing to do with recusant families or a wistfulness for England's cathoilc past.
If we're going to bandy Waugh analogies then it's probably far more related to the hot-housed reflexive anti-catholic attitudes of Mr Brown in Vile Bodies, or Virginia's outburst to Guy in Officers and Gentlemen.
What I'm trying desperately to do is square my understanding of faith with the fact that actually coming-out (and I do use that term intentionally), would lead to familial warfare on a grand scale. In all seriousness. I think becoming a Roman Catholic would be earth-shattering for me.
Which has nothing to do with quails' eggs, and everything to do with the mass being the mass being the mass, whether it's a folk thing in an inner-city, or full on tridentine in an oratory. At the moment, the only way I can square the circle is a mixture of branch theory and saepius officio, which is why I'm trying to stay off the branch theory and stick to purely cultural, as that is the root of where my particular problem lies.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
sorry, hit add reply rather than preview post by accident. I meant "trying to stay off dead horses" not branch theory, and do I need to explain saepius officio, or is that well known on here? It was the CofE response to Leo XIII's pronouncement on Anglican orders in case anyone asks about the latin.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Fair enough, betjemaniac, I'm just teasing you.
You'll have to admit, with a Churchill/Union Jack avatar you are making something of a target for yourself ...
Seriously, I share your pain ... I can understand the tumult and the mixed emotions.
I know people who have crossed either the Tiber or the Bosphorus and both will say that they feel as if they have 'come home'.
I must admit, in many ways I'm more drawn towards Orthodoxy than Rome - but that might simply be residual Protestant prejudice on my part.
But I can see the appeal. The RCs here are lovely. I join them for lectio divina during Lent.
Rome, of course, is more 'innovative' than Constantinople and I've met Vatican II refugees over among the Orthodox.
In many ways, Roman Catholicism feels far more 'Protestant' to me than Orthodoxy does - I'm sure you wouldn't find it as much of a cultural shift as you imagine it might be.
The Orthodox, of course, see both the RCs and the Protestants as two sides of the same Western coin - the same bad penny ...
I can imagine plenty of Anglican converts to Rome not finding it quite 'Catholic' enough for their tastes ...
I'm not saying that applies in your case, in fact, I'm sure it wouldn't.
All these things are tricky. If we wanted to be strictly historical about these things then the 'Western Patriarch' would be the one to turn to rather than the various Orthodox jurisdictions.
I'm not sure where I fit. Probably not anywhere.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
What I'm trying desperately to do is square my understanding of faith with the fact that actually coming-out (and I do use that term intentionally), would lead to familial warfare on a grand scale. In all seriousness. I think becoming a Roman Catholic would be earth-shattering for me.
OK - this is a completely different situation than the one that you initially presented. It seems this is less an issue of letting go of an English identity, and more about your family specifically. And by using the term "coming out" it sounds much more like you are basically an RC at heart but are faking it in an Anglo-Catholic church to the best of your ability. In which case you should be honest with yourself and the people around you and just join the church you want to.
Are you sure that it is as extreme as you describe? Have you broached the issue and been told it would be a major meltdown for the family if you decided to join the RCC?
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
What I'm trying desperately to do is square my understanding of faith with the fact that actually coming-out (and I do use that term intentionally), would lead to familial warfare on a grand scale. In all seriousness. I think becoming a Roman Catholic would be earth-shattering for me.
OK - this is a completely different situation than the one that you initially presented. It seems this is less an issue of letting go of an English identity, and more about your family specifically.
No, it's an issue within the family (and friends) *because* of the identity and everything in the first post. I was trying to discuss it without having to bring my own circumstances into it. I realise that the behaviour patterns of the rural hunting set/squirearchy (Gamaliel was closer in his jest than he might have guessed) are fairly small stuff these days and outside the experience of most people, but for those brought up in them, and entirely surrounded by them, they're as rigid and unbending as they ever were.
The fact that I need to do it is exactly why I was asking in the first post how one decouples culture from faith successfully *when* or *in the circumstances* that one should need to? I'm entirely aware it's not and never will be an issue for most people. To be honest I'm actually finding parts of the Northern Ireland thread quite helpful at the moment as that seems more applicable.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
ISTM that the OP is really about far more fundamental issues of assertion of personal autonomy in the face of anticipated disapproval and rejection, as opposed to what most people would identify as the merely cultural (or "cultural" in the popular sense).
It thus seems to me that much of what I and others have had to say is fairly irrelevant to the true issues at hand. The bottom line is that if one doesn't believe the Eucharist celebrated at Anglican altars to be the true Eucharist instituted at the behest of OL&SJC, but contrariwise believes the Eucharist celebrated in full visible communion with the chair of St Peter to be true and complete, one - if one is a serious Christian - must leave the Anglicans to their defective rites and come into communion with the Bishop of Rome. And that despite all opposition that one may encounter. In such a situation, issues of cultural identity are the problem of those others - family and friends - who would disapprove one's assertion of autonomy and conscience.
Moreover, making the excursion across the Tiber doesn't prevent one from attending the life passages of one's friends and family celebrated in the Anglican Church: marriages, baptisms, etc.
Being authentic always comes with a price, I think, though sometimes the price and the length of the payments is not as daunting as one may initially have thought.
[ 30. January 2014, 12:22: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
For me as a Catholic (Roman) the days of talking about the non validity of Anglican eucharists are long,long past.However it is clear that Anglican bishops,priests and deacons have not been commissioned to serve in that wider,much wider (Roman) Catholic church.It doesn't make their service and their 'services' any less valid for their parishioners and those who are in communion with their bishops.
Just as the UK (mainly England) tends not to see itself as a part of Europe,though technically a member of the European Union,there is a certain insularity and anglocentric outlook on the part of the CofE.Some Anglicans (not all) would say that the CofE is the national Catholic church,but it does not see itself as bound in any way to act in concert with the wider Catholic church and certainly NOT obliged to take any orders from untrustworthy foreigners.It is the same with the European Union.
This is a cultural thing and religion should more be a cultual thing.Nevertheless for many people culture plays an important part.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
I suspect that most Anglicans, both in England and elsewhere, would not switch to RC if they found themselves unable to continue with their Anglican church, but be more likely to go to another Protestant denomination.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
...but, unless they were used to a particularly evangelical flavour of church, would find themselves in very unfamiliar surroundings. Whereas in the RCC (leaving aside certain mariological and similar devotions, which don't feature highly in the average RC parish mass) they would at least be in recognisable surroundings if not 'at home'.
Most anglican parish churches, even today, are centred on the Sunday eucharist in a way that few if any non-Anglican Protestant churches are.
(Having said that, I suspect that Ken may be generally right, because of the residual anti-catholicism present in the English mindset, or at least because there appears a much greater gulf between the RCC and others than amongst the others)
[ 30. January 2014, 16:44: Message edited by: Angloid ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Barely anyone lives in St Mary Mead with everyone going to old-fashioned Matins on a Sunday (probably nobody in fact).
Not many, but we are out there. I can think of a village up the road where everyone is a tenant and the squire bangs on their front windows with a riding crop on a Sunday if he thnks not enough people are in church. That is within 60 miles of London and other shipmates in the area will know exactly where I mean...
They also have a clause in their tenancies that says their curtains will be open by a certain time in the morning...
Seriously? Is it a living museum? Feudalism is certainly something that should have died out, even when it hasn't.
No, it's a real village with real people, and to be quite honest that one's one of the more acceptable faces of feudalism in the locality. Others are far worse. It's also on your doorstep. Rural Northamptonshire and Oxfordshire (in particular; notwithstanding the Chipping Norton end of things) are a real 1950s time-warp as soon as you get off the main roads.
And if you really want to see estates functioning like it's 1897, get up to Northumberland or Invernesshire/Perthshire.
It doesn't affect many people granted, but for some of us this really is the 1950s but with internet )with all the easy, lazy cultural/religious assumptions that would imply.
Ahh, but given my lack of car (and the train line serving Northampton going via Milton Keynes and Euston when it goes east and avoiding most of Northamptonshire) I tend to go west into Birmingham (and then to Manchester quite often) or into London. Sometimes Milton Keynes for shopping. I don't intentionally go into the country a lot...
In any case, my instinct would be to live somewhere else and cross the Tiber (or even cross the Tiber regardless) - which isn't very helpful for you, sorry.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Betjemaniac isn't most Anglicans, ken.
The more I see of evangelical Anglicanism, the more I realise that a lot of evangelical Anglicans aren't actually from Anglican backgrounds originally. The clergy are, but many in the pews come from Brethren, Baptist or independent church backgrounds and have ended up in the Anglican church for some reason or other - mostly to do with the availability of youth-work or some other reason to do with the meeting of particular 'needs'.
So it's easy to see how these people would end up in one or other of any number of Protestant denominations if they found it impossible to remain in the CofE for whatever reason.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Anglicans aren't actually from Anglican backgrounds originally. The clergy are, but many in the pews come from Brethren, Baptist or independent church backgrounds and have ended up in the Anglican church for some reason or other.
I agree. For many Christians under the age of (say) 50, they will go to whatever church they like - irrespective of how they were brought up. This is specially true of Protestants of course.
"Brand loyalty" has largely died ... it used to be that Baptists etc. living in the country would travel 20 miles to go to the "right" church, that is no longer the case. Now folk say "I go to the Methodist Church" rather than "I am a Methodist".
(This has huge issues for supporting denominational structures and initiatives, but that's another story).
[ 30. January 2014, 17:40: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Betjemaniac isn't most Anglicans, ken.
The more I see of evangelical Anglicanism, the more I realise that a lot of evangelical Anglicans aren't actually from Anglican backgrounds originally. The clergy are, but many in the pews come from Brethren, Baptist or independent church backgrounds and have ended up in the Anglican church for some reason or other - mostly to do with the availability of youth-work or some other reason to do with the meeting of particular 'needs'.
So it's easy to see how these people would end up in one or other of any number of Protestant denominations if they found it impossible to remain in the CofE for whatever reason.
That's certainly my experience of evangelical Anglicans.
If the CoE disappeared tomorrow, I'd say char-evos would go Vineyard or NFI or maybe Elim, con-evos would go to an independent evo church or more conservative Baptist places, MOTR would inevitably go Methodist or maybe URC, FiFs would obviously go to the RCC. No idea where the AffCaths could go (this has been an issue for me).
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
betjemaniac - have you considered Gamaliel's suggestion of the Orthodox Church? I believe Oxford is quite a hub of Orthodoxy in the UK and you may be within striking distance. Might family not have such a knee-jerk reaction to swimming the Bosphorus as the Tiber?
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The more I see of evangelical Anglicanism, the more I realise that a lot of evangelical Anglicans aren't actually from Anglican backgrounds originally. The clergy are, but many in the pews come from Brethren, Baptist or independent church backgrounds and have ended up in the Anglican church for some reason or other - mostly to do with the availability of youth-work or some other reason to do with the meeting of particular 'needs'.
I'm would agree with that as an evangelical background. Technically I'm from an Anglican background, although when I was about 2 my Anglican parent joined a fundamentalist Restorationist church which is what I grew up in.
A lot of people in my parish are not from Anglican backgrounds because many of us are not from the UK. So the Scandinavians are mostly Lutherans from their national churches, the Americans are mostly evangelicals, and the Australians are mostly Baptists or Pentecostals.
But the CofE is the only traditional Protestant church in England that combines liturgy, and a strong history and theology, with the freedom to worship as a charismatic evangelical. Depending on what country one is in, it might be a Lutheran church or a Presbyterian church that offers something similar. I'd rather be an evangelical in a traditional church, than in Vineyard or NFI and I don't think I'm alone in that regard, from the evos that I know.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
For many Christians under the age of (say) 50, they will go to whatever church they like - irrespective of how they were brought up. This is specially true of Protestants of course.
"Brand loyalty" has largely died ... it used to be that Baptists etc. living in the country would travel 20 miles to go to the "right" church, that is no longer the case. Now folk say "I go to the Methodist Church" rather than "I am a Methodist".
I've heard that this is a particularly evangelical/charismatic thing; it's not a feature of MOTR Protestantism, which doesn't have so many younger Christians anyway.
In betjemaniac's case, this sort of footloose attitude could allow him to develop a dual allegiance and attend both CofE and RC churches. After all, you don't have to do anything special to 'be' in the CofE. You don't have to attend every week, and most churchgoers don't anyway. If you're not allowed to take communion with the RCs when you visit them you can still do so with the CofE whenever you want, so where's the problem?
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
Depending on where you go, you may find that there are Roman Catholic congregations who are culturally English enough that you wouldn't notice much difference. Head office may be in Foreign Parts, but you might find there are RC bishops who are culturally very English who are enjoying increasing levels of decentralisation in the management of the institution.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I love going to Anglican churches both in England and outwith England.One just never knows what one is going to find.I've been to several Anglo Catholic churches as well as MOTR churches but a few weeks ago I went to an Anglican evangelical church.It was nothing like an evangelical Presbyterian church.It was people waving their hands in the air,checking their own copies of the Bible for every quote and a long time of 'worship' just as discussed on another thread.I found it very interesting but to me very unAnglican.Had the preacher not mentioned at one point the bishop I would really have doubted that it was an Anglican church.
I'm not just a voyeur I have to go for my work.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
If the CoE disappeared tomorrow, I'd say char-evos would go Vineyard or NFI or maybe Elim, con-evos would go to an independent evo church or more conservative Baptist places, MOTR would inevitably go Methodist or maybe URC, FiFs would obviously go to the RCC. No idea where the AffCaths could go (this has been an issue for me).
This AffCath would not hesitate in going straight to the RCC. I think that church would be glad of many of us counterbalancing the influence of the Ordinariate.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
If the CoE disappeared tomorrow, I'd say char-evos would go Vineyard or NFI or maybe Elim, con-evos would go to an independent evo church or more conservative Baptist places, MOTR would inevitably go Methodist or maybe URC, FiFs would obviously go to the RCC. No idea where the AffCaths could go (this has been an issue for me).
This AffCath would not hesitate in going straight to the RCC. I think that church would be glad of many of us counterbalancing the influence of the Ordinariate.
Perhaps that's what proves I'm not a real Anglo Catholic. I could no more join the RCC than fly unaided.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
If the CoE disappeared tomorrow, I'd say char-evos would go Vineyard or NFI or maybe Elim, con-evos would go to an independent evo church or more conservative Baptist places, MOTR would inevitably go Methodist or maybe URC, FiFs would obviously go to the RCC. No idea where the AffCaths could go (this has been an issue for me).
This AffCath would not hesitate in going straight to the RCC. I think that church would be glad of many of us counterbalancing the influence of the Ordinariate.
And I, a non-Ordinariate Anglican convert, would warmly welcome you, Brother Angloid! So long, that is, as you could do precisely what the Church asks of all of us in such a scenario, i.e, accept all her definitive teachings in faith.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
If the CoE disappeared tomorrow, I'd say char-evos would go Vineyard or NFI or maybe Elim, con-evos would go to an independent evo church or more conservative Baptist places, MOTR would inevitably go Methodist or maybe URC, FiFs would obviously go to the RCC. No idea where the AffCaths could go (this has been an issue for me).
This AffCath would not hesitate in going straight to the RCC. I think that church would be glad of many of us counterbalancing the influence of the Ordinariate.
I feel like this would be less easy for me as a woman, without wanting to stray into DH.
I also could not honestly receive the Eucharist since I could not honestly confess all my sins (as the RCC would see them) in Confession and be absolved. I would have a problem with the dishonesty more than anything else (which is perhaps why I'm unable to be a member of a church where most members disobey its doctrine in some way or another). Perhaps the RCC is not a place for INFJs
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Were I in the US though, for example, I would happily jump ship to the ELCA.
Except of course that it's now anachronistic to speak of "jumping ship" from ECUSA to the ELCA. As an Anglican you could enrol in an ELCA parish, be elected to its congregational council, and even sent as its synod delegate like any other Lutheran in good standing, without having to take any steps to revise your denominational designation.
(I have a lot other, more substantive thoughts brewing on a lot of the contributions to this thread, but they'll need decanting ... )
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Were I in the US though, for example, I would happily jump ship to the ELCA.
Except of course that it's now anachronistic to speak of "jumping ship" from ECUSA to the ELCA. As an Anglican you could enrol in an ELCA parish, be elected to its congregational council, and even sent as its synod delegate like any other Lutheran in good standing, without having to take any steps to revise your denominational designation.
(I have a lot other, more substantive thoughts brewing on a lot of the contributions to this thread, but they'll need decanting ... )
I didn't know that (or rather I am aware of Porvoo, just not the practicalities) - we have so few Lutherans here that I've never had to think about it that much.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Perhaps the RCC is not a place for INFJs
Maybe that's why as an INFP I'm less bothered! Though I wouldn't be able to function as a priest any longer: that might or might not worry me in the long run. As for signing up to all the doctrines, well I've already given assent to (the existence of) the 39 articles so with plenty of pinches of salt...
[pinch of code]
[ 31. January 2014, 09:56: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Perhaps the RCC is not a place for INFJs
Maybe that's why as an INFP I'm less bothered! Though I wouldn't be able to function as a priest any longer: that might or might not worry me in the long run. As for signing up to all the doctrines, well I've already given assent to (the existence of) the 39 articles so with plenty of pinches of salt...
Two thoughts, and I'm sorry if they sound harsh.
First, if you believe you were called to be a priest, doesn't that have a bearing on this? I recognise that this might feel a bit like being driven by a black dog into a duck decoy, with something at the end that they'd rather not think about. Nevertheless, how does a person feel they 'must', for reasons of conscience and personal integrity, follow a path that means they can no longer do what they believe all their adult life, God has called them to do, what is his commission for them? Have you really come to believe that you have spent your time exercising your ministry by misleading people, or is this just a sort of retirement project?
It's like back at the time when women were first ordained, there were clergy who seemed to think that they should be entitled to insist that the faithful go on paying them for the rest of their working lives for not exercising the ministry they had been called to do.
Second, on the 39 Articles, it puzzles me quite what it is that some people find so difficult about them. Some of them seem a bit tied to preoccupations of the sixteenth century. Does any part of Christendom these days believe in Works of Supererogation such that (quite correctly) the articles say they cannot be taught without arrogance or impiety? Most of what they say is unexceptionable and obvious. And since you are saying that you could become an RC by a sort of general assent rather than a lock, stock and two smoking barrels assent, you clearly don't disagree with the second half of Article 19.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
From person to person it varies, but there are Anglicans who struggle with Article 9, 17, 22, 28 - just off the top of my head.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Enoch: I am afraid you are taking me more seriously than I deserve. My comments were in response to the question 'where would you go if the C of E ceased to exist'. I'm not suggesting the RCC as it is at the moment, and myself, would be a perfect fit (though I've never felt a perfect fit in the C of E either).
It's a completely hypothetical and unreal scenario, but if by some miracle/catastrophe it came to pass there are ISTM three options (apart from abandoning the faith altogether): [1] some 'nonconformist' body; [2] the Orthodox; [3] The RCC.
I suppose I have a great deal in common with many Methodists, but the crunch would come with the conflict of expectations over worship: the centrality of the Eucharist might be believed in theory, but in practice (like many, but thankfully not most, C of E places) it's a hit and miss affair. Other mainstream Protestants, evangelical or not, would be too bleak an environment for me.
Aspects of Orthodox theology are appealing, and I suppose I just could get used to the worship, but the whole thing is culturally alien. Plus the fact that Orthodox churches are thinner on the ground anyway in this country.
So that leaves the RCC. Spirituality, liturgy, social teaching, is much more congenial to me than that found anywhere else. Post-Vatican-2 Catholicism and the sort of Catholic Anglicanism where I feel most at home, have a great deal in common. If the latter were to be wiped off the face of the earth I think I would welcome clinging to the Vatican raft. I'd have to jettison some things, not least my priesthood (though the RCs I know would affirm that nevertheless, even if I couldn't exercise it). But I wouldn't be abandoning as much as I would if I had to take one of the other options.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm not so sure that 'other' mainstream Protestant groups (ie. non Anglican ones) are quite as 'bleak' as they can at first appear ...
For my money, the Baptist scene has been enlivened by some post-evangelical and 'emerging' elements ... in a kind of Brian McLaren 'Generous Orthodoxy' kind of way and it's not unusual these days for there to be Baptists - both ministers and lay-people (if I can apply those terms in that context) to be interested in retreats, pilgrimages and even spiritual-direction, contemplative prayer and so on ...
Sure, the default position towards the eucharist is a Memorialist one but I've even heard that questioned ...
The URC seem to be quite in touch with their 'catholic' side to an extent too ... although they are generally a fairly ageing body which suffers from similar problems to Methodism.
I do detect some convergence across the board on aspects of spirituality that could be regarded as part of the 'grand tradition' which underpins us all.
As for groups like NFI and the Vineyard, some of them may yet surprise us. They're both too charo for me these days, though, but they still have some oomph about them and I'd suggest that both are likely to morph into a more quietist and slightly Quakerish direction in the future.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, the default position towards the eucharist is a Memorialist one but I've even heard that questioned ...
I'm not so much bothered by what people believe about the Eucharist (the reality of God's presence doesn't depend on our views about him), as the practice. A church which doesn't celebrate it as the central act of worship every Sunday (circumstances permitting) is, to me, a no-go area.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
From person to person it varies, but there are Anglicans who struggle with Article 9, 17, 22, 28 - just off the top of my head.
Presumably the same person would not have issues with 9 and 22 + 28.
I'd be puzzled how anyone could have an issue with 17 as it is, rather than what they might imagine it is supposed to mean. It's almost impossible to deduce exactly what it does mean, beyond being quite a good expression of the perplexity there has always been over the fundamental tension between election and choice.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not so sure that 'other' mainstream Protestant groups (ie. non Anglican ones) are quite as 'bleak' as they can at first appear ...
For my money, the Baptist scene has been enlivened by some post-evangelical and 'emerging' elements ... in a kind of Brian McLaren 'Generous Orthodoxy' kind of way and it's not unusual these days for there to be Baptists - both ministers and lay-people (if I can apply those terms in that context) to be interested in retreats, pilgrimages and even spiritual-direction, contemplative prayer and so on ...
Sure, the default position towards the eucharist is a Memorialist one but I've even heard that questioned ...
The URC seem to be quite in touch with their 'catholic' side to an extent too ... although they are generally a fairly ageing body which suffers from similar problems to Methodism.
I do detect some convergence across the board on aspects of spirituality that could be regarded as part of the 'grand tradition' which underpins us all.
As for groups like NFI and the Vineyard, some of them may yet surprise us. They're both too charo for me these days, though, but they still have some oomph about them and I'd suggest that both are likely to morph into a more quietist and slightly Quakerish direction in the future.
Methodism IME is basically low-to-MOTR Anglicanism without the booze - enough for it to be a no-go for me
More seriously, like Angloid says, I could not worship regularly at any church without the Eucharist at least every week. It's non-negotiable for me.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
17 doesn't look that perplexing to me. Other than that it (deliberately?) doesn't make clear whether or not those "curious and carnal persons" are done any good by being reminded of their state. And its rather straightforwardly Biblical and orthodox.
Some of them are very delightfully ambiguous and open-ended, especially the ecclesiastical ones from 19 to 23.
I think even the Pope would now say that the supposed Romish doctrines of purgatory condemned in 22 aren't what purgatory is really about.
1-8 are pretty much a statement of mainstream credal Chalcedonian Christianity, and 6 says what it says better than any other expression of it I can remember. 9-18 are more of the same but in a particularly Augustinian/Calvinist style of language which even most Roman Catholics ought to have no problem with (and most of the Presbyterian/Reformed at the time thought didn't go far enough)
The rules about the sacraments are designed to exclude some Catholic devotions but have just enough ambiguity in them to have allowed some very nit-picking legalistic Anglo-Catholics to pretend they were keeping them (starting with Newman himself before he jumped ship)
Only really dodgy ones are at the end, where they are more about 16th century English politics than doctrines of God. 35 and 36 are now irrelevant. 37 is mostly a statement of historical fact, though I know many Christians who would disagree with the last two sentences. A few might disagree with 38 as well, but very few. 39 is the only clearly unbiblical statement in all the Articles - and as such is superceded and nullified by 6!
So really there ought to be no reason any theologically orthodox Protestant couldn't wholeheartedly ratify them. Ambiguous, open-ended, and contradictory as they are.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
More seriously, like Angloid says, I could not worship regularly at any church without the Eucharist at least every week. It's non-negotiable for me.
Actually, I do. But I make sure I go somewhere else when it's not on offer.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
More seriously, like Angloid says, I could not worship regularly at any church without the Eucharist at least every week. It's non-negotiable for me.
Actually, I do. But I make sure I go somewhere else when it's not on offer.
Whoops! Apologies for the misinterpretation.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Understandable. My previous post gave the opposite impression. 'No go area' means 'no go' unless there is the Eucharist. It's a lovely group of committed Christians but their view of the importance of the mass is not the same as mine!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
More seriously, like Angloid says, I could not worship regularly at any church without the Eucharist at least every week. It's non-negotiable for me.
Actually, I do. But I make sure I go somewhere else when it's not on offer.
This is a good solution. If you live in a reasonable-sized town or city it should be possible to find at least one church offering Communion on any given Sunday, or perhaps at a service during the week.
From a practical point of view, hardly any Methodist church could offer Communion every week. There simply aren't enough clergy. The pulpits are filled by lay preachers more often than not. I suppose service times could be staggered to allow the clergy to get from one church to another, but I think this would create other difficulties in the Methodist context.
As for churchgoers in other denominations not sharing the same view of Communion as yourself - that's also an issue within the CofE itself, so it shouldn't really represent a barrier to worshipping fairly regularly with Christians in other denominations.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Yes. One of our local Baptist ministers preached (very well) at our CofE church last week and he took Communion with us. I've attended his church a few times, at least twice when an Anglican priest was also present, and those priests took communion there. No-one interrogates you on your understanding of the sacrament before you are allowed to eat and drink.
That's not true of all evangelical churches - many years ago I sometimes went to a Congregational church (now URC) where it was made very clear that only adult full members in good standing (of that church or another in communion with them) were to partake. It was a very holy thing, and not to be casually misused.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I don't receive communion every week because I don't go to church every single Sunday.
I do find that I become very quickly bored at non-eucharistic services these days, though. Particularly when all there is are a few hymns and a substandard sermon that goes on three times as long as it should do and says very little in the process.
At least with the more sacramentally inclined Anglicans the sermons tend to be short.
In my experience, the Baptists preach a lot better than evangelical Anglicans do. So, when I was in a Baptist church even though there was only one communion service a month I didn't mind the other two or three services as at least the sermons were ok.
I'm very disappointed at the general level of sermons in evangelical Anglican circles around here. I've heard a few good ones - but these are only memorable by being so few and far between.
If I attend a communion service, I'm less worried about how good, bad or indifferent the sermon is.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
If the CoE disappeared tomorrow, I'd say char-evos would go Vineyard or NFI or maybe Elim, con-evos would go to an independent evo church or more conservative Baptist places, MOTR would inevitably go Methodist or maybe URC, FiFs would obviously go to the RCC. No idea where the AffCaths could go (this has been an issue for me).
This AffCath would not hesitate in going straight to the RCC. I think that church would be glad of many of us counterbalancing the influence of the Ordinariate.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In my experience, the Baptists preach a lot better than evangelical Anglicans do. So, when I was in a Baptist church even though there was only one communion service a month I didn't mind the other two or three services as at least the sermons were ok.
I'm very disappointed at the general level of sermons in evangelical Anglican circles around here. I've heard a few good ones - but these are only memorable by being so few and far between.
I wonder why evangelical CofE preaching isn't better. If so many CofE evangelicals have come from other churches (as you said in an earlier post) you'd think they'd bring the preaching skills and style of those churches with them. Maybe strong evangelical preaching just doesn't fit in with the Englishness of 'English Anglicanism and cultural identity'. The stereotypical vicar isn't noted for his powerful preaching, so maybe there's residual fear of being too distinctive in that regard. Does the exception prove the rule?
I've only heard one CofE sermon that struck me as evangelical. It was about all the people that King David killed in battle. Perhaps it made more sense as part of a series of sermons on a theme, but it was a bit strange listening to it on its own!
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I know of evangelicals who worship in more 'catholic' churches because there they will usually hear three scripture readings (and a psalm) and the sermon more often than not will be based on scripture. In many (not all) evangelical Anglican churches there will be no more than two readings... sometimes, even at the Eucharist, only one, and not always the Gospel... and while the sermon might be longer it is more likely to be the preacher's pet theme or even a rant, rather than inspired by the scripture for the day.
I have to say that my experience of evangelical churches is usually more positive than that. My local con-evo parish always reads the three lectionary readings at the early Communion. My regular low-liberal church with mostly evangelically-formed preachers usually guarantees thoughtful and biblical sermons. But I think the critical, and second-hand, experiences above are common enough to be more than caricatures.
Incidentally, one of the best 'catholic', sacramental sermons I have heard was from an evangelical archdeacon, while one of the best evangelical calls for conversion came from a F in F anglo-catholic.
[ 01. February 2014, 19:23: Message edited by: Angloid ]
Posted by Ship's Stowaway (# 16237) on
:
Dear betjemaniac:
I understand what you are talking about with regard to cultural and historical ties to Anglicanism.
I live in one of Her Majesty's 13 Former Colonies (USA)and returned to the Episcopal Church two years ago after several decades 'away' in another faith.
My father's Episcopalian family, despite having lived in the U.S. and Canada for over 200 years, still has very strong ties to England and Scotland, which profoundly influenced me as a child.
For example, my family subscribed to British newspapers and magazines when I was a child (no internet in the 1950s and 1960s).
Our bookshelves were filled with British history and literature, stacked right next to several copies of the Book of Common Prayer.
This is a deep part of my identity as an American Episcopalian. And I'm not the only one.
My Anglo-Catholic parish has a small but steady stream of clergy moving back and forth between England and the U.S.
Our English-born rector only recently retired and escaped back to England after 30 years in the U.S. Our sister parish that we pray for regularly is in London.
So if these cultural and historical ties persist over 200 years after Her Majesty's Former Colonies Revolted, I would think the family and cultural ties in your case, being resident in England, would be much stronger and feel painful to defy.
That said, if you feel Roman Catholicism is the best form of Christianity for you, go for it!
There is such a long tradition of Catholicism in England -- kind of a Counter Reformation history to the official Protestant narrative -- that I think you'd feel at home.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The end of your post immediately brought to mind this passage from John Le Carré's A Perfect Spy, describing a house
quote:
...on the edge of Bath where English Catholics of a certain standing have elected to gather in their exile... they sat in the cluttered kitchen, surrounded by washing-up and vaguely votive bric-à-brac: a cracked ceramic plaque of the Virgin Mary from Lourdes; a disintegrating rush cross jammed behind the cooker; a child's paper mobile of angels rotating in the draught; a photograph of Ronald Knox. (...) It was a household in permanent and benevolent disorder, pervaded by the gentle thrill of religious persecution.
By the way, just to even things up, Le Carré can do equally scathing and slightly off-kilter portraits of Baptists, too.
[ 07. February 2014, 06:32: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Oh ... I don't know, Eutychus ... I've not read his off-kilter descriptions of Baptists but that one about English Catholics sounds pretty on the money ...
@SvitlanaV2. By good preaching I don't necessarily mean 'powerful' preaching in the oratorical and rhetorical sense ...
No, what I mean are sermons that don't treat you as if you are 11 years old.
I've heard some duff Baptist preaching in my time, but by and large, in the Baptist circles I moved in the preaching was intelligent, thoughtful and engaging and didn't treat you as if you were a child ...
The same applies, for the most part, to the Methodist preaching I've heard in my time.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there is plenty of good evangelical Anglican preaching around ... it's just that I've rarely heard it. At least, not around here.
Apart from one or two older, retired clergy who preach occasionally, I can't think of many evangelical Anglican pulpits around here where you can be sure of hearing a decent sermon.
Perhaps I'm just fussy. But I don't like being addressed as if I'm 12 years old ...
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I wonder why evangelical CofE preaching isn't better.
I don't think its worse than non-evangelical CofE preaching.
And it more often (though not always) manages to avoid the besetting sin of CofE preaching which is the five or ten minute "wee word", a limp little thought-for-the-day homily which has small connection to Scripture, and either says nothing at all much, or else recycles some cliched school assembly moralising in tentative uncommitted language.
The real problem is why is so much Anglican preaching crap regardless of churchmanship? And why does it sem to be getting worse?
Perhaps it always was mostly bad. Perhaps that's true of all denominations. Perhaps the rapidly increasing liturgicalism and ritualism of the CofE has pushed out preaching as a central concern. Perhaps part-time training courses give less opportunity to develop as a Scriptural preacher than the old-fashioned residential courses which were usually preceded or accompanied by a theology degree. (Though the part-time courses have other benefits). Perhaps it takes ten to twenty years to form a great preacher, and now that the typical ordinand is in their forties there simply isn't time to catch up. Perhaps there is a lack of confidence in the message we are preaching or (more likely) in our authority to preach it. (And perhaps that loss of authority is genuine, as our almost totally secular society does not care for our message or think we have any right to interrupt them with it, if they want us to speak at all they want us to speak in vague cliches). Perhaps the growth of pastoral concerns has made clergy more like social workers or counsellors and taken some emphasis away from preaching. Perhaps the increased burden of bureaucracy and administration just doesn't leave time for preparation. Perhaps we're all getting busier. Perhaps we're all getting lazier.
Maybe few people are capable of being a priest and a pastor and a preacher. We have to choose one to concentrate on (or two if specially blessed) and the Church of England seems mostly to want pastors and priests before preachers.
quote:
If so many CofE evangelicals have come from other churches (as you said in an earlier post) you'd think they'd bring the preaching skills and style of those churches with them.
I don't think its true that very many CofE evangelicals have come from other churches. They've been a quarter or a third of our clergy for the past 250 years. It is true that lay evangelicals are generally more ready to move between denominations and work with churches of other denominations but that doesn't make them any less Anglican. They just don't tend to have the hang ups about validity that some Anglo-Catholics have, or about legality that the old-style High Churchmen did (as did some 19th century evangelicals, whose tiny rump is perhaps preserved in aspic as the Church Society). So its no big deal to go to an Anglican church in one town and a Methodist in another.
But evangelicalism is a real and central part of the Anglian tradition - and has more historical justification for that claim than the "modern catholic" or Anglo-papist tendencies do - and its quite false to pretend that they are some sort of recent or alien importation.
[ 07. February 2014, 15:24: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Ken writes: quote:
But evangelicalism is a real and central part of the Anglican tradition - and has more historical justification for that claim than the "modern catholic" or Anglo-papist tendencies do - and its quite false to pretend that they are some sort of recent or alien importation.
There may be a pond difference here.... I am old enough to recall the surplice and scarf days of Ontario low-churchery and five years in the C of I gave me plenty of exposure to classical Anglican evangelicalism, but the manifestations I have seen in recent years of evangelicalism in Anglican Canada are very much US imports, from febrile and illiterate preaching styles to selection of topics and politics. Our authentic tradition has been abandoned and replaced by an import-- maybe youse English are luckier.
As far as preaching goes, Ken may be dead right on that it was never that good, and that this is a pan-denominational phenomenon. Training may have something to do with this-- I have my own theory that the weakness-to-absence of clerical knowledge of the scriptures in their original languages means that they have not focussed on getting behind a quick and superficial reading, but most of my clerical friends disagree-- certainly the part-time courses cut down on the amount of time on this. Noting the level of liturgical and ritual observation among most Anglican clergy, I do not think that excessive attention here is the problem-- perhaps they are spending too much class time on power point presentations.
By and large, most sermons I have heard are poor to awful (a rough estimate of about a thousand over the years). Canadian Anglican inadequacies are still much more superior than anglophone RC weaknesses in preaching, although that may not be a high bar. UCC sermons, in my experience, vary between a lengthier and appallingly more tiresome version of Anglican banality and a careful and classical three-point exposition -- you'll never know what you get but that's the fun of it. Presbyterian sermons tend to be the highest quality I've run into although at my age, my bladder can only rarely wait out the 25-35 minutes they seem to like. Generally, the Orthodox do not know what sermons are for, although I have heard some astonishingly good exceptions in OCA or Coptic churches. Providence has spared me occasion to attend services in Baptist and Holiness churches.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Them's fightin' words, Augustine. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
More to the point, a mutual acquaintance of ours maintains that the United Church et. al have maintained the laudable "protestant" tradition of preaching, while Anglicans have been caught up in the Ritualism movement, which did nothing for Anglican preaching.
My church is blessed with a good preacher as a minister. Which is complete Providence, as he never did a guest sermon during his Call, which is wrong. But our Presbytery wasn't up to much.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
while Anglicans have been caught up in the Ritualism movement, which did nothing for Anglican preaching.
Not true - the sermons of Fr. Stanton, Charles Lowder et al heralded a revival in preaching.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Perhaps the rapidly increasing liturgicalism and ritualism of the CofE has pushed out preaching as a central concern.
You keep saying this, Ken, but I see very little evidence of increased liturgicalism and ritualism within the CofE around here ...
If anything, I see the opposite.
I wouldn't mind so much if they replaced the older liturgical forms with something fresh, dynamic and challenging. But they don't.
They try to copy the Baptists or the Vineyard and they don't do it very well. Stick to what you're good at.
Anglicans are supposed to do liturgy and they can do it well if they put their minds to it.
I don't see how or why liturgy and ritualism in and of themselves should have a bad effect on preaching ... although this does seem to be the case in most instances, I will admit.
But if you pride yourselves - as many evangelical Anglicans do - that yours is a biblical faith based on the preaching of the word of God - then at least do it properly.
I don't dispute that evangelicals are and should be a key part of the whole Anglican melange - and I wouldn't deny that to Anglo-Catholics and MoTR types either ...
I think, though, that the family relationship between contemporary Anglican evangelicals and their 17th and 18th century forebears is certainly there ... but it's not as close as some would like to maintain.
Don't get me started but contemporary Anglican evangelicalism seems pretty piss-poor and dumbed down always round ...
I'm sure there are exceptions. Where are they though?
[Code fix -Gwai]
[ 07. February 2014, 18:34: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Yes, there's a big difference between traditional Anglican evangelicals who loved the Book of Common Prayer as a liturgy that embodied their biblical faith, and the pseudo-Baptists (not at all like real Baptists I suspect) who are into shallow emotionalism. Not to mention all the wishy-washy 'open Evangelicals' whose clergy trained at colleges where 'anything went' (liturgically of course; any gay students would have been hounded out) or at part-time courses with no consistent liturgical formation.
If there has been an increase in 'liturgicalism and ritualism' (which I doubt - as Gamaliel suggests, the trend may well be in the opposite direction) it is in treating traditional liturgies and ceremonies as ingredients in a 'pick and mix' menu rather than the basic underpinning of the Church's life.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Them's fightin' words, Augustine.
More to the point, a mutual acquaintance of ours maintains that the United Church et. al have maintained the laudable "protestant" tradition of preaching, while Anglicans have been caught up in the Ritualism movement, which did nothing for Anglican preaching.
My church is blessed with a good preacher as a minister. Which is complete Providence, as he never did a guest sermon during his Call, which is wrong. But our Presbytery wasn't up to much.
UCC preaching really rates its own thread, but as I have only heard about a dozen over the years, I am not much of an authority. I have found them either awful or literate and helpful-- my limited experience has not found any middle ground. At least I was not dozing off and was either impressed and edified or busily taking notes for my forthcoming volume on Inanities from the Pulpit. In my part of eastern Ontario, I think that the Presbie influence in the Union has been strong and we benefit by the Kirk's emphasis on careful preaching.
My Anglican experience suggests that ritually careful clerics tend to be fairly good preachers. In Canada, I have found the worst preachers to be clergy with strong personalities who seem to think that they can wing it without much preparation-- I find no high/low/middle divide on this. If I must generalize, the absolute worst Canadian sermons I have heard were from young Anglican evangelicals or Serbian Orthodox (I do not count the legendary 35-minute homily against anal sex which I heard one chilly Sunday morning at the 8.00 am at S Vartan's, as it stands in majestic isolation).
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It is true that lay evangelicals are generally more ready to move between denominations and work with churches of other denominations but that doesn't make them any less Anglican.
Doesn't it? Well, there's another solution for betjemaniac - become an evangelical Angilcan, then it won't matter which church you attend!
Evangelicalism is becoming such a broad term now that it should be possible to be an 'evangelical Anglican' who worships regularly with RCs.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It is true that lay evangelicals are generally more ready to move between denominations and work with churches of other denominations but that doesn't make them any less Anglican.
Doesn't it? Well, there's another solution for betjemaniac - become an evangelical Angilcan, then it won't matter which church you attend!
Evangelicalism is becoming such a broad term now that it should be possible to be an 'evangelical Anglican' who worships regularly with RCs.
I seriously doubt it. Reformed evangelical Anglicans would be horrified at the lack of solas, open evangelicals would be horrified at the formality and ritual.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Re: Augustine's point
As the second-largest church in Canada, the UCCan has its fair share of miserable preachers and due to our size, that a big number. Then there are the workaday jobbers, the ones whose sermons get things done but not much more; that's the majority. Then there are the really good preachers.
Though I wouldn't go looking just to the Kirk for good preaching; each of the UCCan's parents enjoyed good preaching and put an emphasis on it.
Hay Bay United Church, restored to its 1795 appearance, for example was and is a Methodist Preaching Box.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Evangelicalism is becoming such a broad term now that it should be possible to be an 'evangelical Anglican' who worships regularly with RCs.
I seriously doubt it. Reformed evangelical Anglicans would be horrified at the lack of solas, open evangelicals would be horrified at the formality and ritual.
There is not much difference in the way the liturgy is celebrated, between many 'open evangelicals' and many modern RCs. Less difference than between the former and most anglo-catholics. More importantly, there is a deep stress on personal faith and biblical spirituality among many (especially Jesuit-influenced) Catholics.
Anyway, 'evangelical Anglicans' are a broad spectrum of a broad church.
[ 08. February 2014, 09:10: Message edited by: Angloid ]
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
I think this is very true. A local parish-style Roman Catholic church (as opposed to a big cathedral-type church) can be surprisingly informal. Did someone once have a thread entitled - "Who gave all those nice Catholics guitars?" or similar?
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
Roman Catholicism is growing in affection with many evo Anglicans these days: the justification is that the Catholics might have some funny beliefs but at least they believe something, unlike those nasty liberals over there. (Well, something like that anyway.)
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Oh ... I don't know, Eutychus ... I've not read his off-kilter descriptions of Baptists but that one about English Catholics sounds pretty on the money ...
You want The Honourable Schoolboy to get his critique of Baptist religion.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
By good preaching I don't necessarily mean 'powerful' preaching in the oratorical and rhetorical sense ...
No, what I mean are sermons that don't treat you as if you are 11 years old.
I've heard some duff Baptist preaching in my time, but by and large, in the Baptist circles I moved in the preaching was intelligent, thoughtful and engaging and didn't treat you as if you were a child ...
The same applies, for the most part, to the Methodist preaching I've heard in my time.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there is plenty of good evangelical Anglican preaching around ... it's just that I've rarely heard it. At least, not around here.
Maybe Baptists (and certainly Methodists) expect the folk in the pews to be seasoned Christians, whereas CofE vicars, with their parish mentality, suppose there are lots of visiting 'seekers' to whom they must make themselves understood?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I think that's right, SvitlanaV2 and can understand the motivation ... but there must be a way of doing both at the same time without sounding patronising or pissing off anyone who can actually think for themselves ...
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe Baptists (and certainly Methodists) expect the folk in the pews to be seasoned Christians, whereas CofE vicars, with their parish mentality, suppose there are lots of visiting 'seekers' to whom they must make themselves understood?
Interestingly of the two evangelical parishes I attend (I split between the one I prefer near my old house, and the near my new house), the one that has mostly cradle attendees (who were baptized and married in the parish and so were their parents and grandparents) has weaker "seeker-friendly" preaching, and the one with a highly mobile transient congregation has much deeper and more intellectually challenging preaching.
In my experience the CofE is one of the more difficult churches about which to generalize.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
In my experience the CofE is one of the more difficult churches about which to generalize.
Understatement of the year?
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
In my experience the CofE is one of the more difficult churches about which to generalize.
Understatement of the year?
Decade, at least
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Enoch: I am afraid you are taking me more seriously than I deserve. My comments were in response to the question 'where would you go if the C of E ceased to exist'. I'm not suggesting the RCC as it is at the moment, and myself, would be a perfect fit (though I've never felt a perfect fit in the C of E either).
It's a completely hypothetical and unreal scenario, but if by some miracle/catastrophe it came to pass there are ISTM three options (apart from abandoning the faith altogether): [1] some 'nonconformist' body; [2] the Orthodox; [3] The RCC.
I suppose I have a great deal in common with many Methodists, but the crunch would come with the conflict of expectations over worship: the centrality of the Eucharist might be believed in theory, but in practice (like many, but thankfully not most, C of E places) it's a hit and miss affair. Other mainstream Protestants, evangelical or not, would be too bleak an environment for me.
Aspects of Orthodox theology are appealing, and I suppose I just could get used to the worship, but the whole thing is culturally alien. Plus the fact that Orthodox churches are thinner on the ground anyway in this country.
So that leaves the RCC. Spirituality, liturgy, social teaching, is much more congenial to me than that found anywhere else. Post-Vatican-2 Catholicism and the sort of Catholic Anglicanism where I feel most at home, have a great deal in common. If the latter were to be wiped off the face of the earth I think I would welcome clinging to the Vatican raft. I'd have to jettison some things, not least my priesthood (though the RCs I know would affirm that nevertheless, even if I couldn't exercise it). But I wouldn't be abandoning as much as I would if I had to take one of the other options.
Well, I'm on this side of the Tiber in spite of some of the "definitive doctrines" cited by Chesterbelloc and not because of them. But living where I am keeping my private beliefs about aspects of the RCC that are overdue for reform to myself, except for the recent questionnaire, is less of a problem. I should wish to continue to be a welcomed guest at AffCaff shacks etc, when I get a chance to travel - rarely these days.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0