Help me to understand Anglicanism

[Sloga]

Moderation:
This topic has been split from the thread: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13407.0.html

Forgive me for my ignorance, but I've always looked at the Anglican church as an offshoot of the corrupt Catholic Church. Unfortunately, two wrongs dont necassarily make a right. But I also know that the formation of the Anglican Church resulted from a marital divorce, or SOMEWHERE along those lines. The Pope would not allow the King to divorce his wife who could not conceive, so the Church of England was formed?? One again, dont shoot me for my blindness, but help me see. I Have tremendous respect for protestantism/anglicanism, but there are some things I struggle to understand.

 

[Friul]

Henry VIII wanted a heir for succession, but appeared unable to achieve one with his wife, Catherine of Aragon.  So, since it was seen as the woman's fault, he wanted an annulment under the grounds that he married his brother's widow (which he did) and that was technically grounds.  He appealed to the Pope, Clement VII, for it.  Now, Catherine obviously did not want Henry to leave her for his mistress, Anne Boleyn.  The Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire was Charles V and he was her nephew.  Charles pressured the Pope not to allow it, and he did refuse to grant the annulment.  Boleyn had protestant leanings, and Cromwell and Archbishop Cranmer (important statesmen in the English court) were becoming more and more sympathetic to it.  Cromwell was chief advisor and proposed to Henry to abolish Roman rule and for Henry to become the head of the Church of England.  Henry secretly wed Anne and parliament passed the Statute in Restraint of Appeals (no appeals to Rome were allowed now).  Archbishop Cranmer declared Henry's first marrige invalid and his marriage to Anne to be valid.  Act of Succession reinforced this.  Anne was crowned Queen and Henry was excommunicated by Rome.  The Ecclesiastical Appointments Act, Act of Supremacy, and Treasons Act were passed.  Now, elected Bishops were from a pool nominated  by the King, the King was the Head of the Church, and it was high treason to reject this.  Practices stayed mostly 'Roman' for Henry's rule, then more protestant under Edward's, then Roman Catholic under Mary, and sort of Anglo-Catholic under Elizabeth.

That was an extremely brief version of the story.  Backroom deals and politics, plus the popularity of protestantism also had major roles.

 

[prodromas]

Although the "origin" of the Anglican church seems to be a reason to write it off it is not. The Anglican church is an honest attempt to find a medium between the early church and the Protestant reformation. It is a beautiful church with many Holy men and woman serving the lord in there own way. The church unlike many Protestants have wide-ranging opinions on important matter for example the Eucharist some believe it to truly be the blood and body of Christ other believe it to only be a memorial. The high church Anglican's are closer to Orthodox then the Catholics are (this is personally what I believe) and that their practices are not significantly different.

 

[Ebor]

First, I would say, in fairness, that not all aspects of the RC were corrupt in the early 1500's nor are is that the case today. 

Now on to the Anglicans.   Friul has laid out some of the basics.  First off, this was not a break due to differences of Belief. Nor was it a mere case of "Henry VIII wanted fun with a new woman".  There is a great deal of history and politics involved.  Henry's father had become king following the Wars of the Roses (the houses of Lancaster and York contesting for power) as Henry VII.  He had 2 sons, Arthur and Henry, as well as daughters. But it was the male heir that was crucial in continuing the family line and rule.  Arthur was the oldest and heir to the throne.  Marriages were made to secure alliances, so Arthur was betrothed to Catherine of Aragon a daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella.  She eventually came to England and the two were married in November 1501 when Arthur was 15.  He died in April 1502. That made Henry the second son the new heir. 

In order for Henry to marry Catherine the Pope had to give a "dispensation" permitting it since she had been his brother's wife for about 6 months (recall Biblical restrictions on marriage).  So in some sense, the marriage was already outside the usual bounds.  Now the point of getting a male heir:  all of Catherine and Henry's children died before adulthood except Mary (later Mary I, aka "Bloody" Mary), so no sons.  One question was "Was the lack of sons due to God not approving of the not-quite-regular circumstances of the marriage?  The Tudor line was still relatively new to the throne and there was plenty of English history that involved struggles for control (Wars of the Roses, the Matilda/Steven civil wars of the early 12th century (think the time of the "Cadfael" mysteries), Richard II etc.) so it was politically vital to have male heirs.

Henry wanted/needed a *legitmate* son. He had illegitimate sons and daughters so he knew that he could father boys and the conclusion was that it was his irregular marriage to Catherine that was the problem. He asked for an annullment so that he could marry "properly", in accordance with what was supposed to happen.  This was not a new idea.  There are many cases of royalty and nobility having divorces or annullments granted by the Pope.  I've listed some in other threads here iirc, so if desired I can find examples to back up this idea.  But the then Pope, Clement VII, was a virtual prisoner of Catherine's nephew, Charles V the Holy Roman Emperor who had taken control of Rome.  So to support his aunt, Charles had influence over the Pope to keep Henry from getting his annullment. 

So some questions were "Who would succeed Henry?"  "Who would rule England, an  Englishman or a "foreigner"?  "Who would hold secular power over England, the King or the Pope/Charles V?" "Could other powers then make England a subject country?"  To get the marriage annulled required an ecclesiastical ruling and if not from the Pope, then from the Primate of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Henry did not want to stop being Christian, but to have an independent (Autocephalous?) English Church. 

Before people's eyes glaze over, it's time for a 'tea break'    Does that help and should I continue?

Ebor

edited to correct spelling

 

[Jibrail Almuhajir]

Wow!  I certainly learned quite a bit; thanks Ebor.  (Eh, you're not going to quiz us on this are you? )

 

[Ebor]

No, no quiz.  Just don't ever say something like "The Anglican/Episcopal Church is based on divorce and a promiscuous king." or something like that. 


Ebor

 

[Ebor]

Moderation:
This topic has been split from the thread: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13407.0.html

Forgive me for my ignorance, but I've always looked at the Anglican church as an offshoot of the corrupt Catholic Church. Unfortunately, two wrongs dont necassarily make a right. But I also know that the formation of the Anglican Church resulted from a marital divorce, or SOMEWHERE along those lines. The Pope would not allow the King to divorce his wife who could not conceive, so the Church of England was formed?? One again, dont shoot me for my blindness, but help me see. I Have tremendous respect for protestantism/anglicanism, but there are some things I struggle to understand.

Not knowing about something isn't "blindness" and you were asking for information, for knowledge which is a Good Thing.  I don't think anyone could 'shoot' you for asking questions.   

Please feel free to ask more if I am not clear or there is something you would like to know more about.

Ebor

 

[Ebor]

Something that I forgot to put in above was that Henry, being the second son, had been educated with a possible eye to joining the clergy.  That was a fairly common pattern in English history: Oldest son inherits the title, lands, etc.  Second son (while kept in reserve as it were, early mortality being what it was) looks to some other path or career in the Church or Law or the like.  So Henry was well versed in Christian thought and literature as well as the arts and other subjects.  According to some of my reading, a possible path for him was planned that he would become the ABC (Archbishop of Canterbury) eventually while his brother ruled England. 

Ebor

 

[Fr. George]

Something that I forgot to put in above was that Henry, being the second son, had been educated with a possible eye to joining the clergy.  That was a fairly common pattern in English history: Oldest son inherits the title, lands, etc.  Second son (while kept in reserve as it were, early mortality being what it was) looks to some other path or career in the Church or Law or the like.  So Henry was well versed in Christian thought and literature as well as the arts and other subjects.  According to some of my reading, a possible path for him was planned that he would become the ABC (Archbishop of Canterbury) eventually while his brother ruled England. 

Ebor

I didn't know that... Very interesting.

 

[pathofsolitude]

ALL HAIL HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II THE SUPREME GOVERNOR OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND!!!

:  :  :

 

[Keble]

ALL HAIL HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II THE SUPREME GOVERNOR OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND!!!

I believe the correct acclamation is "God save Her Majesty."

 

[ignatius]

I really really really like John Wesley.... I understand he was an Anglican Pastor and the founder of Methodism. I really like reading his works. Very cool stuff!

Sorry for dropping in with my John Wesley plug but my brother was named after him too...  :laugh:

 

[trifecta]

Ebor,

Thanks for your replies.  The whole Henry VIII thing makes more sense to me now.

But my question to you is about Real Presence.  One of the reasons I no longer
consider myself a Protestant has to do with RP.  The Anglican position on it seems
strange to me.  It seems to me that some Anglicans believe the Eucharist to be
RP and some don't . . . and that's okay.

I believe in RP, but I may have (not quite sure) more respect for the no RP
position than this middle position.  At least the no RP position is consistent
(except, of course, for the part when a man of the cloth says to you "This
is the body of Christ" and doesn't believe that it is).

The Anglican position seems to be that whether or not the Eucharist is RP is up
to the communicant.  That gives the communicant the power to decide
whether this bread/wine is the body/blood of Christ, which IMHO borders
on magical.



And Ebor, as one of a handful of Orthodox posters on a fundamentalist
board, I can definitely relate to your status as a minority on a board!


Respectfully submitted.

 

[lubeltri]

I would add that the real establishment and consolidation of the Church of England as we know it (ahem . . . at least as we knew it until recently) was under Elizabeth I's 45-year reign (1558-1603). It is usually called the Elizabethan Religious Settlement (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabethan_Religious_Settlement). England could have gone either way before Elizabeth.

Henry VIII was not a "Protestant"---in fact, he burnt subjects espousing typical Protestant theological beliefs. His issue was supremacy, not theology. (Elizabeth was also very conservative, BTW---high-church, pro-vestments, traditional theology, prejudiced against married clergy.)

 

[Ebor]

I really really really like John Wesley.... I understand he was an Anglican Pastor and the founder of Methodism. I really like reading his works. Very cool stuff!

Sorry for dropping in with my John Wesley plug but my brother was named after him too...  :laugh:

You are quite correct.  John Wesley was an Anglican to the day he died.  He looked on his "method" as a way of devotions and practice within the C. of E. 

And it's perfectly OK with me that you dropped it in.    Please feel free to join in more if you like.

Ebor

 

[Ebor]

Ebor,

Thanks for your replies.  The whole Henry VIII thing makes more sense to me now.

I am glad to be of service.    The whole situation was alot more complicated then "the king wanted a new playmate" or "Your Church was based on divorce" which has been a common remark (not *here*).

But my question to you is about Real Presence.  One of the reasons I no longer
consider myself a Protestant has to do with RP.  The Anglican position on it seems
strange to me.  It seems to me that some Anglicans believe the Eucharist to be
RP and some don't . . . and that's okay.

I believe in RP, but I may have (not quite sure) more respect for the no RP
position than this middle position.  At least the no RP position is consistent
(except, of course, for the part when a man of the cloth says to you "This
is the body of Christ" and doesn't believe that it is).

The Anglican position seems to be that whether or not the Eucharist is RP is up
to the communicant.  That gives the communicant the power to decide
whether this bread/wine is the body/blood of Christ, which IMHO borders
on magical.

This is a good question.  If you are willing we can discuss it and I will give you my idea about it. Please feel free to disagree or offer your view. 

I do not think that it is so much "up to the communicant" though I can see how that might seem. Looking back at 30+ years as an Episcopalian here are my first, somewhat disorganized first thoughts.

First, so that those who may not know about Anglican Eucharistist practice, the elements are bread and wine.  While it's possible that there might be grape juice used somewhere (such as a liturgy for a group of recovering alcoholics) the standard is wine.  It used to be a jest to ask if a friend had visited a new parish "Port or Sherry?"    But as long as it's wine we can use it (with a bit of water): Burgundy, champagne, etc. 

The bread has to be some kind of baked grain product, with or without yeast.  Sometimes for small groups or taking to the sick or for other reasons the "Angelic Fish Food" i.e. wafers will be used.  Other times I've seen, pita, whole wheat, oatcakes (St. Andrew's Day). One time in college (It might have been Easter) the main service was *Packed* and there was concern about running out. So one of the students/acolytes was sent across to the local "WaWa" market and returned with some sliced whole wheat bread on the paten. 

None of this is done to be flippant or careless.  It's just that Gospels and the rubrics say "Bread and wine" and that leaves alot of room for what can be used for example in emergencies.

Now as I understand it from being an Anglican: with the Eucharistic service the ordinary bread and wine are changed somehow, though still looking like bread and wine.  We partake because Our Lord told us to do so.  We are obeying His command even if we don't understand Consubstantiation/Transubstantiation etc.  He said "Take, Eat. This is my Body and Blood".  Doing so in faith is the point. 

I'm probably not being clear here, so please help me refine any ideas.  I will try to explain with an example from my life.  Our youngest has mild Down Syndrome.  He is learning to read and write and speak and he is not "stuck" he's just "delayed".  But when he is a teen or an adult and the time comes for him to take communion, I don't know just how much he will understand.  He will see bread and wine and eat and drink.  The partaking in obedience to the command, with the faith that goes with that is what matters, maybe. 

And, the post above about the "Elizabethan Settlement" reminding me of this quote that is supposed to be from that Queen:

Christ was the word that spake it.
He took the bread and break it;
And what his words did make it
That I believe and take it.

That doesn't nail things down, I don't think, but it might be helpful.

And Ebor, as one of a handful of Orthodox posters on a fundamentalist
board, I can definitely relate to your status as a minority on a board!

  Though a minority, yet it is an agreeable place (and they don't mind bad jokes, quotes and my being a History and Tolkien geek      )

Ebor

 

[Ebor]

I would add that the real establishment and consolidation of the Church of England as we know it (ahem . . . at least as we knew it until recently) was under Elizabeth I's 45-year reign (1558-1603). It is usually called the Elizabethan Religious Settlement (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabethan_Religious_Settlement). England could have gone either way before Elizabeth.

Henry VIII was not a "Protestant"---in fact, he burnt subjects espousing typical Protestant theological beliefs. His issue was supremacy, not theology. (Elizabeth was also very conservative, BTW---high-church, pro-vestments, traditional theology, prejudiced against married clergy.)

This is correct.  And it is also part of what Anglicans consider as making them the "Via Media" the "Middle way between the two general groups of RC and Protestant thought. 

The consolidation of the Church of England was also influenced by politics.  The years following Henry's death were full of turmoil.  Edward did not live long, and there was competition for the throne and power which can be seen with the attempted crowning of Lady Jane Grey as Queen. ("The Nine Day Queen").  Then Mary took the throne and by her marriage (suggested by Charles V, remember him?) to his son Phillip of Spain there was the concern of a foreign ruler again as well as the returning of England to Rome.  Phillip became king about a year and a half after their wedding, so there was the Queen of England wife to the King of Spain. 

Well, when Mary died, Elizabeth ascended the throne.  And there were power seekings and politics and threats from other countries again as well as declarations that she was illegitimate (Clement not having allowed the annullment) and therefore could not inherit the throne.  Switch back to Church of England, and come up with the Elizabethan Settlement which was an improvement over previous laws on religious practice.

The threat from Spain was not imagined btw.  Recall that the Spanish Armada was intent on invading and taking England for several reasons, one being to return it to RC and another being that Spain had controlled the Netherlands for some time, and that country was revolting against that rule and getting help from England.  England and Spain were major contenders in the Exploration and Colonization of the New World and other parts of the globe, so that was another aspect.  So Spain/Rome were interwoven and a threat to English sovereignty, economics, trade, political influence, expansion and more.

Like I wrote above... it's very complicated and spans time and the Earth.  (I wonder if that sound a bit umm pretentious.  It's not meant to.    )

Break time!

Ebor

 

[trifecta]

I do not think that it is so much "up to the communicant" though I can see how that might seem. Looking back at 30+ years as an Episcopalian here are my first, somewhat disorganized first thoughts.


Now as I understand it from being an Anglican: with the Eucharistic service the ordinary bread and wine are changed somehow, though still looking like bread and wine.  We partake because Our Lord told us to do so.  We are obeying His command even if we don't understand Consubstantiation/Transubstantiation etc.  He said "Take, Eat. This is my Body and Blood".  Doing so in faith is the point. 

I'm probably not being clear here, so please help me refine any ideas.  I will try to explain with an example from my life.  Our youngest has mild Down Syndrome.  He is learning to read and write and speak and he is not "stuck" he's just "delayed".  But when he is a teen or an adult and the time comes for him to take communion, I don't know just how much he will understand.  He will see bread and wine and eat and drink.  The partaking in obedience to the command, with the faith that goes with that is what matters, maybe. 

Well, this makes more sense than my "whatever the communicant thinks it is" explanation, so this helps.   Similarly,
Orthodox believe it is still the Real Presence of Christ, whether we believe it or not. 

I attended an Anglican (actually, at the time, Episcopal) Church for a while years ago.  I was allowed to receive communion even though I was not a member of the church.  I recently asked a friend who still attends there about
RP.  He said some believe communion is RP, some don't.

So does the Anglican Church think communion is RP or not?  Or do they not know? 


As for Anglicanism not being Protestantism, I can understand how you would make the argument, but . . .
don't the Anglicans believe in Luther's 5 solas (although they would not call it that), especially
sola scriptura and sole fide (faith alone)?  These are distinct Protestant beliefs.  So, as they say,
if it walks like a duck . . .

Thanks for reading, and no offense meant with the duck remark.

 

[pathofsolitude]

I recently asked a friend who still attends there about
RP.  He said some believe communion is RP, some don't.

So does the Anglican Church think communion is RP or not?  Or do they not know?

See: http://web.mac.com/brian.douglas/
[It may take a long time to load.]

I have personally analyzed every major Anglican theologian on the matter.

Cranmer approached the Zwinglian 'memorialist' view. The majority of theologians in the sixteenth century held to the Calvinist 'dynamic presence' view wherein the bread "is" the body to us by way of representation [not by virtue of the consecration but by the faith of the recipient] and is a means of grace. Then in the late seventeenth century many started believing a totally unique view that is now the standard Anglican view: by the consecration of the priest, the bread objectively [independently of faith, so even for unbelievers] becomes the very body in power and effect, so that eating the bread is the exact same thing as eating the literal body. No Anglican believed in consubstantiation [but one or two suggested its a possibility] prior to the Oxford Movement of the nineteenth century. More Anglicans hold to the original Calvinist view than hold to consubstantiation. Mostly only highchurchers, who are heavily influenced by the Oxford Movement, believe in consub.

As for Anglicanism not being Protestantism, I can understand how you would make the argument, but . . .
don't the Anglicans believe in Luther's 5 solas (although they would not call it that), especially
sola scriptura and sole fide (faith alone)?  These are distinct Protestant beliefs.  So, as they say,
if it walks like a duck . . .

Though 'sola fide' is in the 39 articles, many Anglicans today would say that works also justify in some sense after one is already justified by faith. As for 'sola scriptura', scripture is regarded as 'containing everything necessary for salvation' and 'every doctrine must be proved from scripture', but tradition is also regarded as important. The Anglican formula is: Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. So they really dont believe in sola scriptura. At least not the Continental Protestant version of it.

P.S. I dedicate this post to my Anglican detractor Keble. 

 

[Heorhij]

I just wanted to say that I so much enjoyed reading Ebor's and other knowledgeable people's posts in this thread. History is my love, my joy since childhood. I became a biologist by pure chance, and sometimes I regret that I did not dedicate my life to history, historical research. Thank you all so much!

 

[lubeltri]

I just wanted to say that I so much enjoyed reading Ebor's and other knowledgeable people's posts in this thread. History is my love, my joy since childhood. I became a biologist by pure chance, and sometimes I regret that I did not dedicate my life to history, historical research. Thank you all so much!

Wow, George, I did not know that about you. It has been mine since childhood too.

Well, at least you have a paying job. You can still be an amateur. Something I think amateur historians have more fun anyway.

 

[ialmisry]

Something that I forgot to put in above was that Henry, being the second son, had been educated with a possible eye to joining the clergy.  That was a fairly common pattern in English history: Oldest son inherits the title, lands, etc.  Second son (while kept in reserve as it were, early mortality being what it was) looks to some other path or career in the Church or Law or the like.  So Henry was well versed in Christian thought and literature as well as the arts and other subjects.  According to some of my reading, a possible path for him was planned that he would become the ABC (Archbishop of Canterbury) eventually while his brother ruled England. 

Ebor

Henry wrote a defense of the Seven Sacraments against Luther, for which the pope of Rome gave him the title "Defender of the Faith" (yes, that's where the British monarch gets the title, not from being head of the Anglican church. sort of like the irony that the pope of Rome named the English king "King of Ireland.").

Btw the way Anglicans have become Orthodox via the WRO DL of St. Tikhon.  Their is a Anglican usage rite for those swimming the Tiber.

 

[Sloga]

Wow... I'm happy this thread was started. I have a much better understanding of Anglicanism. And I'm sorry if I gave anyone the perception that I had simply "written off" the Anglican Church. I have always lacked the knowledge of the church so I would not dare criticise it. If anything, after reading here and doing research, I have gained much respect for the Anglican Church.

 

[Keble]

Though 'sola fide' is in the 39 articles, many Anglicans today would say that works also justify in some sense after one is already justified by faith. As for 'sola scriptura', scripture is regarded as 'containing everything necessary for salvation' and 'every doctrine must be proved from scripture', but tradition is also regarded as important. The Anglican formula is: Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. So they really dont believe in sola scriptura. At least not the Continental Protestant version of it.

Amazingly enough, this is nearly entirely correct.

Generally Anglican theological principles trace back into Richard Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. This brings us to the much-maligned "three legged stool": scripture, tradition, and reason. It's maligned because Hooker didn't use that particular image, and because it sets up a false equality between the three sources. And it's not merely a description of how to do theology, but also about how theology is done-- by everyone.

And it means that nobody really executes pure Sola Scriptura, because there is always some external tradition and thinking directing interpretation. I should remark that "tradition" as used here encompasses far more than it is taken to mean in Orthodoxy; it includes all that one knows of previous exegesis of the matter, both the good and the "erroneous".

This tends to imply a theology that isn't directed entirely by its past nor by a set of formulas. However, it also tends to imply rejection of certain principles which contradict this theory of theology. So we don't accept as a principle that tradition (as defined in Orthodoxy and Catholicism) is never wrong. If it survives examination, then it continues to be believed.

The more fundamental aspect is that everything tends to be seen very sacramentally and not especially theologically. Traditionally we haven't been heavily into theologizing about the eucharist because on one level we see it as theologizing. It is what it is, and theology cannot change it; and since we are not founded in theological conformity, we've tended not to care that much about anyone's theory about what happens. Within Anglicanism a fairly generic version of substantial change has come to dominate; for example, the 1979 American BCP has "be the body and blood" instead of the older "be for us". But it simply isn't our issue.

 

[Ebor]

Well, this makes more sense than my "whatever the communicant thinks it is" explanation, so this helps.   Similarly,
Orthodox believe it is still the Real Presence of Christ, whether we believe it or not. 

I'm glad that you find it understandable.

I attended an Anglican (actually, at the time, Episcopal) Church for a while years ago.  I was allowed to receive communion even though I was not a member of the church.  I recently asked a friend who still attends there about
RP.  He said some believe communion is RP, some don't.

It is fairly common, in my experience, that Episcopal communion offered to any baptized Christian who wishes to partake.  If one wishes to only have a blessing, the "Please do not feed the Animals" sign is to approach the rail with one's arms crossed on ones chest (which is the sign as I recall for EO who *are* looking to commune.  Sign language has such variety  )

So does the Anglican Church think communion is RP or not?  Or do they not know? 

In the Anglican Communion a priest is the only one who can (I think the phrase is) "confect" the Sacrement. We have an ordained priesthood (leaving aside Apostolicae Curae which we don't agree with and was answered by Saepius Officio) who are the only ones who can do certain Sacraments.  So the liturgy of the Eucharist is not just handing out bread and wine but Bread/Body and Wine/Blood even though the elements still look and taste like what they are made of.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Or do they not know?" though.  I apologize for being dim.  Perhaps Keble's post will be helpful in understanding this point.

As for Anglicanism not being Protestantism, I can understand how you would make the argument, but . . .
don't the Anglicans believe in Luther's 5 solas (although they would not call it that), especially
sola scriptura and sole fide (faith alone)?

No, Anglicans do not hold rigidly to the 5 solas.  "Faith without works is dead" is a big thing in my experience.  Keble has explained about "Scripture, Tradition and Reason". 

  These are distinct Protestant beliefs.  So, as they say,
if it walks like a duck . . .

Thanks for reading, and no offense meant with the duck remark.

No offense taken.  I'm trying to come up with an image to contrast with it, like "We're more of an Amazonian Grey Parrot who can sound like a duck sometimes (when it's not sounding like an owl, a falcon or a telephone"  ;D  I met a parrot once who could to an excellent phone imitation including a person saying "hello?")

Ebor

 

[Ebor]

I just wanted to say that I so much enjoyed reading Ebor's and other knowledgeable people's posts in this thread. History is my love, my joy since childhood. I became a biologist by pure chance, and sometimes I regret that I did not dedicate my life to history, historical research. Thank you all so much!

I'm very glad that you're enjoying this thread.  (I sometimes can get carried away on a subject and wonder if readers' eyes are glazing over and they're crashing over sideways in boredom.  )

Real History is has so many fascinating things and people, and the way things are connected or what is happening at the same time in different parts of the world can be very interesting and exciting.  For instance: at the very same time but on opposite sides of the Earth two great works of literature were being written down: the epic Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf in England and The Tale of Genji by Lady Murasaki Shikibu in Japan.  Two rich and complicated cultures with centuries of history and so different.

And I can tie *that* to the original topic with the case of William Adams an English sailor in the Elizabethan era who was part of the fleet against the Spanish Armada and eventually made it to Japan where he was known as "Anjin-sama" or "Miura Anjin" "Lord Pilot" or the "Pilot of Miura".  There were RC there already and they wanted him and the rest of the crew killed (More religion conflict with the Spanish and Portuguese/RC).

Ebor

 

[Ebor]

Henry wrote a defense of the Seven Sacraments against Luther, for which the pope of Rome gave him the title "Defender of the Faith"

This is quite correct.  Thank you for mentioning it. 

Btw the way Anglicans have become Orthodox via the WRO DL of St. Tikhon.  Their is a Anglican usage rite for those swimming the Tiber.

Yes, I know of both of these.  I apologize if this sounds too blunt, but from my reading there are Bishops in both EO and RC who would just as soon *not* have either rite in their Churches.

And *some* Anglicans have become EO with the WR.  I personally know others who went Byzantine Liturgy.

Ebor

 

[Ebor]

Wow... I'm happy this thread was started. I have a much better understanding of Anglicanism.

I am very glad that you have found it helpful. Is there more you would like to know?  Such as about the Book of Common Prayer (each member Church of the Anglican Communion has its own with the "bones" being the same but other things that are more local.) or other things?

And I'm sorry if I gave anyone the perception that I had simply "written off" the Anglican Church.

I never got that impresson, I assure you. 

I have always lacked the knowledge of the church so I would not dare criticise it.

Well considering that there are those who criticize the Anglicans while not knowing much about them (maybe what they see in the news) you show charity and consideration as well as thought. 

If anything, after reading here and doing research, I have gained much respect for the Anglican Church.

Thank you.  It is very nice to read that.

Ebor

 

[lubeltri]

It is fairly common, in my experience, that Episcopal communion offered to any baptized Christian who wishes to partake.  If one wishes to only have a blessing, the "Please do not feed the Animals" sign is to approach the rail with one's arms crossed on ones chest (which is the sign as I recall for EO who *are* looking to commune.  Sign language has such variety  )

We also cross our arms if we wish to receive a blessing in lieu of Holy Communion.

You are right on your first point. I don't recall ever going to an Anglican service that practices closed communion. I used to receive before I was confirmed in 2006. My high point was receiving in Kings College Chapel, Cambridge.

A close Continuing Anglican friend of mine always likes to tell me that I have "dual citizenship," that my confirmation is also recognized by the Anglicans. Being very friendly towards traditional Anglicanism, I always liked to hear it.

 

[lubeltri]

Yes, I know of both of these.  I apologize if this sounds too blunt, but from my reading there are Bishops in both EO and RC who would just as soon *not* have either rite in their Churches.

An interesting question will be the response of the Holy See to the recent petition by the nearly half-million-strong Traditional Anglican Communion "seeking full, corporate, sacramental union" with Rome.

Pope Benedict and the cardinals were said to have discussed this very petition over the weekend.

I'm praying for a generous response, including a greater accommodation for the Anglican Use. This would be a corporate union, not a trickle of individual converts.

 

[trifecta]

Thanks for the well-researched answers, path, Ebor and Keble!

That doesn't mean that I like the answer itself.  For example, let's
take Path's quote of the prevailing Anglican opinion:

by the consecration of the priest, the bread objectively [independently of faith, so even for unbelievers] becomes the very body in power and effect, so that eating the bread is the exact same thing as eating the literal body.

Take out the phrase "in power and effect" and you have Real Presence, agreed?

But a modifying clause's purpose is to, well, modify the meaning.  So, it seems to me,
that what Anglican communion is, according to this view, is virtually identical to
body and blood of Christ.  Sounds a bit too analogous to homo-i-osus to me.

Then, there is the issue that communicant (which need not be Anglican) doesn't have
to believe this view, and could even think of it as a Zwinglian memorial meal. 

Thirdly, not all Anglicans theologians agree on the prevailing view and the Zwinglian
view is an accepted if minority one.

So, back to the original question.

"Do Anglicans believe in Real Presence or not?  Or do they not know?"

The conclusion I reach from the above is that the Anglican answer is
they do not know.  Edited to add: More specifically, the Anglican
Church does not know.  Individual Anglicans may choose to
believe RP or not.

Like Ebor writes, Anglicans accept the Communion by faith
and don't question further, or as Keble seems to say, it's not our issue.
So, they, as a church, don't really know.  Am I right?

Sorry for my tone.

 

[Ebor]

Thanks for the well-researched answers, path, Ebor and Keble!

That doesn't mean that I like the answer itself. 

Can you tell us why you don't like the answer please?  And if I may ask, what do you think the answer is?  I want to understand your point of view as much as possible.

But a modifying clause's purpose is to, well, modify the meaning.  So, it seems to me,
that what Anglican communion is, according to this view, is virtually identical to
body and blood of Christ.  Sounds a bit too analogous to homo-i-osus to me.

I'm pondering the idea of "virtually identical".  Then regarding the Body of Christ, there is His Risen Body which ascended after 40 days and there is the bread and wine of the Eucharist that is the Body and Blood on altars around the world many times a day.

Then, there is the issue that communicant (which need not be Anglican) doesn't have
to believe this view, and could even think of it as a Zwinglian memorial meal. 

God is who and what He Is and not limited or constrained by the views of people, it seems to me.  God does things for his creation without our knowledge or agreement. 

The conclusion I reach from the above is that the Anglican answer is
they do not know.  Edited to add: More specifically, the Anglican
Church does not know.  Individual Anglicans may choose to
believe RP or not.

Like Ebor writes, Anglicans accept the Communion by faith
and don't question further, or as Keble seems to say, it's not our issue.
So, they, as a church, don't really know.  Am I right?

Sorry for my tone.

Well, if I may, I would ask you what do you mean by *know*.  Why is this important to you that others "know" as opposed to believe?  What test or analysis could be done for some kind of proof?  Knowledge would be based on some kind of data.  What has been or must be demonstrated to show that there is Real Presence?

Why would this be applied to Anglicans and not to RC or EO? 

What is required to make bread and wine into the Body and Blood?  The elements, the prayers and epiclesis would seem to be necessary.  Well, Anglicans have all those and an ordained priesthood.

I am not trying to be flip or disagreeable or give offense and I apologize if I have done so.  I'm trying to ask you what you think and why.

Ebor

 

[trifecta]

Can you tell us why you don't like the answer please?  And if I may ask, what do you think the answer is?  I want to understand your point of view as much as possible.

Thanks for engaging with me, Ebor.  The question is "Do you believe that your church's communion is the Real Presence (i.e., the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ)?"  I think the answer is "yes."  Most Protestants (with the notable exception of Lutherans) say "no."  But I don't understand how an Anglican answers this question.  It's a yes or no question, which is why I find the Anglican answer frustrating (i.e, I don't like the answer itself). 

The Anglican answer seems to me to be "some of us think it is, some of us don't." 

I'm pondering the idea of "virtually identical".  Then regarding the Body of Christ, there is His Risen Body which ascended after 40 days and there is the bread and wine of the Eucharist that is the Body and Blood on altars around the world many times a day.

This is your view, which I like.  But in many in your church do not believe this.  Ask an EO or RC my initial question (Is it RP?) and the answer is always "yes."

But your church seems to allow its members is to disagree and remain members in good standing.

God is who and what He Is and not limited or constrained by the views of people, it seems to me.  God does things for his creation without our knowledge or agreement. 

Now this makes sense.    No argument here.

Well, if I may, I would ask you what do you mean by *know*.  Why is this important to you that others "know" as opposed to believe?  What test or analysis could be done for some kind of proof?  Knowledge would be based on some kind of data.  What has been or must be demonstrated to show that there is Real Presence?

Hmm,  I guess I mean  believe.  "Do you believe in RP?"  Faith is a matter of belief, not knowledge.  But, when we say "I don't know," we are not saying "I don't believe."  As I said in the last post (although maybe not so clearly), the Anglican church  doesn't appear to know whether or not communion is RP.  It seems to me that Anglicans (people) can believe in RP or not, Anglicans theologians can debate the issue, and their explanations of RP are not so simple (it becomes the body in power and effect), therefore, the Anglican church does not know whether communion is RP.

Both of you Anglican posters seem to say this in different ways.  You say that we receive it in faith, but not necessarily understanding.  (EO don't claim to understand RP, but we believe that it is RP; RC do claim some understanding with transubstantiation).  Keble says "it's not our issue."   

Why would this be applied to Anglicans and not to RC or EO? 

I hope that I have made this clear.  It is church doctrine in RC and EO that communion is RP, no qualifications
like "in effect;" it is RP.  In the Anglican Church, you appear free to believe whatever you want about RP.

What is required to make bread and wine into the Body and Blood?  The elements, the prayers and epiclesis would seem to be necessary.  Well, Anglicans have all those and an ordained priesthood.

I am not arguing about the mechanics of it.  You guys do fine with that. 

Thanks for reading.

 

[GreekChef]

Both of you Anglican posters seem to say this in different ways.  You say that we receive it in faith, but not necessarily understanding.  (EO don't claim to understand RP, but we believe that it is RP; RC do claim some understanding with transubstantiation).  Keble says "it's not our issue."   

I wouldn't say that transubstantiation is understanding, per se.  If it is, then we as EO DO have an understanding of RP.  We recognize, in Holy Communion, implications of the incarnation, as well as a concern for the entire totality of being-- we see creation being divinized and deified.  Transubstantiation says that bread and wine are NOT bread and wine, that what is left after the consecration are "accidents."  This is not what EO believe.  As EO, we believe that, just as Christ existed in two natures in one reality, we see two natures within the Eucharist- divine and created.  This is very introductory as far as Eucharistic theology goes, of course.  It gets a lot deeper than this.  As to whether we EO understand the Eucharist, well of course we can't understand it fully, that is why it is mystical.  Just because we can't fully understand the Eucharist, though, doesn't mean we throw it out and leave the people to their own devices as to whether or not it is RP.  I would venture to say that there are plenty of Fathers and Saints who have a pretty good grasp on the subject.  St. Nicholas Cabasilas comes to mind.

What we do have in common with RC's, in CONTRAST to Anglicans is that, rather than thinking of God when we see bread and wine, or thinking we might see God in bread and wine, we fully believe, without a doubt, that we PERFECTLY see God in bread and wine within the Holy Eucharist, and through it we truly commune and are united with Him. 

Hope this is at least a little clear.

 

[Ebor]

A close Continuing Anglican friend of mine always likes to tell me that I have "dual citizenship," that my confirmation is also recognized by the Anglicans. Being very friendly towards traditional Anglicanism, I always liked to hear it.

I hadn't heard this one before.  I like it. 

Ebor

 

[Ebor]

Thanks for engaging with me, Ebor. 

You're welcome.  It's a pleasure to discuss and not be ranted or sneered at. 

The question is "Do you believe that your church's communion is the Real Presence (i.e., the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ)?"  I think the answer is "yes."  Most Protestants (with the notable exception of Lutherans) say "no."  But I don't understand how an Anglican answers this question.  It's a yes or no question, which is why I find the Anglican answer frustrating (i.e, I don't like the answer itself).   

Thank you for explaining.  But is it really a "yes or no question"?  What about "I don't know."? or "It is, but it is also bread and wine."?   Some people prefer hard plain answers and others can be at ease with a degree of uncertainty, it seems to me.

Also, you are asking this question of individual persons who (at least here and those you might have known in person) are part of the laity.  Or you might have asked a priest, too.  But these would all be individuals rather then the Voice of the Anglican Communion.  It makes me wonder, and I'm not trying to be rude with this, whether there is such uniformity in the RC.  Or if an RC person at mass said that he/she didn't know if there was the Real Presence but they're supposed to come and partake because that's what they were taught, so they do, would that make them ummm "not really RC?" or that they should not partake?

The Anglican answer seems to me to be "some of us think it is, some of us don't." 

That is only part of the answer.  And there are many things that happen without people fully understanding them or that are not affected by a person's opinion. I could think that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't affect the real Earth or it's physical form.  Also, my thinking would be wrong about it's shape, but I would still be experiencing the real things on it.

This is your view, which I like.  But in many in your church do not believe this. 

Or, to use the example I mentioned above, maybe they do not understand it on the same level as you do or they are not ready to fully accept the idea, but they do want to obey the words of Jesus so they "Take and eat".  I do not know what people believe in their deepest being.  But it could be that God touches each person that seeks him in a way that they can, in their human limitations, respond to.  If a person is coming back to Christianity after a long time away and is searching but might be confused or uncertain, the little steps God-ward are better then not trying at all because a huge leap that she/he doesn't think can be done is demanded by another human being.

Ask an EO or RC my initial question (Is it RP?) and the answer is always "yes."

Well, see my question to you above.

But your church seems to allow its members is to disagree and remain members in good standing.

Families are like that, or should be, at least on some points of disagreement, and sometimes a member does go 'off the track' but locking him out might not be the right way to help him see his error.  And it depends on the situation; we're not as 'free-wheeling' as some would think we are. Not everything is a binary situation in life, I think that more things are more 'grey' then easy 'black and white'.    and then again there are procedures and ways that things are dealt with.   

Hmm,  I guess I mean  believe.  "Do you believe in RP?" 

This suddenly reminded me of a joke a former Baptist once told me:  "A Texas Baptist is once asked if he believes in the existance of Infant Baptism.  He replies, "Heck yes, I've seen it done."       I'm not trying to be difficult, just that 'belief' has different applications.

And by that change of word then my Church does believe in the Real Presence; it is the official belief of the Anglican Communion that there is the Real Presence in our Eucharists, not in the 'substance and accidents' Aristotelian-Transubstatiantion mode, but Real nonetheless.  Consubstantiation is the model.

Please forgive me if this is too personal, but it seems that you're trying to nail down that Anglicans don't have the Body and the Blood, though we believe that our Eucharist is just that, though not in the same terms as the RC. Is this the case or am I mis-reading (which I freely admit is possible).  Also, this seems to be of some importance to you; could you possibly explain if this is the case and why, please?  If you prefer to not answer, I apologize for asking and withdraw the question.

I hope that I have made this clear.  It is church doctrine in RC and EO that communion is RP, no qualifications
like "in effect;" it is RP.  In the Anglican Church, you appear free to believe whatever you want about RP.

It is our doctrine as well.  Yet all of these Churches are made up of millions of individual Human Beings with their own thoughts and beliefs.  I'm probably not being very clear here, but it seems to me that in your posting you're classifying EO and RC as groups while for the Anglicans you are speaking of individuals.  I need to re-read this and ponder a bit more maybe.

I am not arguing about the mechanics of it.  You guys do fine with that. 

Well, we have that part right, at least. 

I hope very much that nothing I have written has offended you or been too personal.  It is not my intent at all to do that.  I'm just trying to work out the ideas and clarify what we mean in this topic.

Ebor

edited to improve some syntax

 

[trifecta]

The question referred to below, is "Do you believe your church's communion is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ?

Thank you for explaining.  But is it really a "yes or no question"?  What about "I don't know."? or "It is, but it is also bread and wine."?   Some people prefer hard plain answers and others can be at ease with a degree of uncertainty, it seems to me.

I think it is a "yes" or "no" question.  I'll admit, however, that there are some variations on a theme -- does it stay as bread and wine, who must initiate the process in church--but the basic question remains, as is the resurrection of Christ.  It either happened or it didn't.  But "I don't know" is a strange answer for a church to claim.  Orthodoxy, as I understand it, can deal with uncertainty, but it depends about what.  For example, it can't deal with uncertainty about the resurrection of Jesus (which some Anglican writers do, as I understand).  Orthodoxy has a less clear definition of salvation--but that's good, because there is no formula for salvation in the Bible.  That's a good type of uncertainty.

I think Greek Chef's response answers many of your questions:

What we do have in common with RC's, in CONTRAST to Anglicans is that, rather than thinking of God when we see bread and wine, or thinking we might see God in bread and wine, we fully believe, without a doubt, that we PERFECTLY see God in bread and wine within the Holy Eucharist, and through it we truly commune and are united with Him. 

Please forgive me if this is too personal, but it seems that you're trying to nail down that Anglicans don't have the Body and the Blood, though we believe that our Eucharist is just that, though not in the same terms as the RC. Is this the case or am I mis-reading (which I freely admit is possible).  Also, this seems to be of some importance to you; could you possibly explain if this is the case and why, please?  If you prefer to not answer, I apologize for asking and withdraw the question.

Well, Ebor my man,  please remember you asked    It is one thing that moved me away from Protestantism.  From my reading of the Bible, John 6  and I Cor 10, 11 and the Gospel accounts do not seem 100 percent certain to be talking about Real Presence.  However, the proponderence of the evidence tilts in the direction of RP, IMHO.    But, really, who cares what I think?  What about the early church fathers?  What about early saints?  A casual reading of St. Ignatius shows how important the Eucharist is.  None of the early church fathers wrote against RP, and most wrote in favor of it.  What about 1600 years of church history, when RP was consistently practiced?  Does God work through his church?

To Protestants, none of this apparently counts for much.  They look the same approach that I first did--picked up a Bible and read it.  Big deal.  If 1600 years of consistent church practice doesn't count for anything, what in history does? 

The Anglican position --which I still don't quite understand-- seems to be a "middle road position" between RP and anti-RP.  But it still IMHO goes against the 1600 years of church history.  That is why it is important (and in my mind, why I consider Anglicans to be Protestant). 

It is our doctrine as well.  Yet all of these Churches are made up of millions of individual Human Beings with their own thoughts and beliefs.  I'm probably not being very clear here, but it seems to me that in your posting you're classifying EO and RC as groups while for the Anglicans you are speaking of individuals. 

I understand how you can get this from what I wrote.  So, let me clarify.  Yes, there are RCs (and maybe some EOs) who don't believe in RP, but they not supposed to.  The difference with Anglicanism to me is that Anglicans are allowed to support the anti-RP position (syntax point: I say anti- here to avoid a double negative).  Please clarify about your church's position if I am incorrect.  It seems to me and from what I read here and elsewhere, the Anglicans position equivocally supports RP, but the Zwinglian position is okay too.  This seems to support some kind of middle ground that Anglicans claim between Protestants and Catholics, which seems to be the overall Anglican tendency. Please correct my incorrect descriptions of your church.

 

[prodromas]

Trifecta I understand where your coming from really but Through Pm's and emails Ebor has shown me that the Anglican church is (I hate this word) valid because there is diverse opinion in the church and the Anglican church does not choose to explicitly state on some major points in Christianity which is sort of like the Orthodox "It's a mystery" except with differing opinion. Just to clarify about how important the Eucharist is to some protestants I have met I have a friend who is Pentecostal who completely humbled me by explaining there routine before accepting the Eucharist and it was so pious and humble it really made me think how I take the Eucharist but actually believe what it is.

 

[Ebor]

The question referred to below, is "Do you believe your church's communion is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ?

I think it is a "yes" or "no" question.  I'll admit, however, that there are some variations on a theme -- does it stay as bread and wine, who must initiate the process in church--but the basic question remains, as is the resurrection of Christ.  It either happened or it didn't.   But "I don't know" is a strange answer for a church to claim. 

I have emphasized the words in your passage because it is where there seems to be a conflation of the individual person and the official doctrine of a Church.  It is the individual, such as my son with Downs Syndrome, who might say "I don't know" but still partake of the Eucharist because it is the command of Our Lord.  The official doctrine of the Anglican Churches is "Yes, it is the Real Presence."  The Anglican Church does not go for explainations of Substance and Accidents and Transubstantiation and things like if a host is defiled it bleeds (as I have read some legends say).  It is Bread/Body and Wine/Blood and God makes it that way. We "Take and Eat".

 Orthodoxy, as I understand it, can deal with uncertainty, but it depends about what. 

I submit the same is true of Anglicanism.

 For example, it can't deal with uncertainty about the resurrection of Jesus (which some Anglican writers do, as I understand).

They are individual Anglicans, not the Voice of the Church.  And there are and have been *plenty* of objections and countering statements to them. And again, for some people, they don't know or haven't made the 'leap of faith' but they are trying as well as they can to follow God.  We're not all on the same level or lap; each is running his own race as it were towards the Goal.

I think Greek Chef's response answers many of your questions:

I apprecate GreekChef joining us and posting.  But I would ask how much knowledge she has of the Anglican Church also.  Living somewhere is different from reading about it or visiting, it seems to me. 

Well, Ebor my man,  please remember you asked    It is one thing that moved me away from Protestantism.  From my reading of the Bible, John 6  and I Cor 10, 11 and the Gospel accounts do not seem 100 percent certain to be talking about Real Presence.  However, the proponderence of the evidence tilts in the direction of RP, IMHO. 

And as you wrote, that is your opinion and I acknowledge that.  But many may read the same passages and not see the 'tilt' but still read that Jesus says "Do this" so they obey.

What about 1600 years of church history, when RP was consistently practiced?

I'm sorry, I'm unsure about this sentence. (I'm a bit dim today)  "practiced"?

  Does God work through his church?

Yes and in many ways. 

To Protestants, none of this apparently counts for much. 

Umm, not trying to be difficult here, but there is no generic bloc of "Protestants" and for many individual protestant persons the old writings do count for something.

They look the same approach that I first did--picked up a Bible and read it.  Big deal.  If 1600 years of consistent church practice doesn't count for anything, what in history does? 

For many they did no do that, they were taught by their parents and grandparents and clergy and accepted just as happens to some who are RC or EO from what I gather.  And if I may bring this up, it was abuses and ill-usage by those claiming to represent God that were sometimes the impetus to protesting and leaving RC.  Sometimes cruelty or other vices can overshadow things that may be good.

The Anglican position --which I still don't quite understand-- seems to be a "middle road position" between RP and anti-RP.  But it still IMHO goes against the 1600 years of church history.  That is why it is important (and in my mind, why I consider Anglicans to be Protestant).   

Well, we call ourselves the Via Media    This may be the point where we must agree to disagree.  The Anglican Communion has Real Presence as its doctrine, but we don't do checks at the rail before we partake.... middle way

With respect. 

Ebor

 

[trifecta]

Ebor,

And as you wrote, that is your opinion and I acknowledge that.  But many may read the same passages and not see the 'tilt' but still read that Jesus says "Do this" so they obey.

I understand your point about the obedience.  It sounds a lot of sense, actually, and
it helps me to appreciate your church's viewpoint better.

I fear that you missed my point here, as evidenced by your quote above.  The point wasn't that I read scripture and therefore, the conclusion I came to is the right one.  I may think I am wonderful interpreter of Scripture but why should anyone else?  And, yes, I can understand how someone can pick up a Bible and come to the opposite conclusion.

But most Protestants stop there--due to their committment to sola scriptura.  The point was that for 1600 years RP was the church's unaltered stance about communion (and thus communion was "practiced" in such a manner).  Was the Holy Spirit not guiding the church during all those years?

 
Umm, not trying to be difficult here, but there is no generic bloc of "Protestants" and for many individual protestant persons the old writings do count for something.

I am glad to hear this, but in my many years as a Protestant, I have never heard a sermon which quoted any church Father other than Augustine (and even that was rare).  I think the typical view of Protestants towards early church writings is they are fine as long as they don't disagree with what we think today.   

Sorry to rant.  :-[  Actually, I think Anglicanism is one of the better Protestant confessions. 


Can I ask another question? 

What is the role of the Queen of England in your church?  I have heard everything from a
Papal substitute to just another parishoner (well not quite).  I have imagined her is a
kind of spiritual head of state (not unlike her role as political head of state).  She has no real power
but is some kind of figurehead of the church.

Thanks again for reading.