[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

The Truth Will Prevail

Catalog

8chan Bitcoin address: 1NpQaXqmCBji6gfX8UgaQEmEstvVY7U32C
The next generation of Infinity is here (discussion) (contribute)
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Check out our friends at: /philosophy/ - Philosophy

File: 1437851588029.jpeg (1.06 MB, 3113x2395, 3113:2395, Canterbury_Cathedral_-_Po….jpeg)

 No.5359

Hello, in the spirit of communication and understanding, I have decided to create a general for discussion around the Anglican Communion. I will maintain this general to this end. Some quick question and answers to get us started

>What is the Anglican Communion

It is simply a collection of churches associated with (in 'communion' with) the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is not a relationship of direct authority and the Archbishop of Canterbury technically has no authority outside of his own diocese. As we shall see, rejection of central authority (other than God, obviously) is key to our faith. Currently we have 80,000,000 people who follow our Communion. Most of them are in Africa but generally our followers are everywhere.

>What do you believe

Simply put, it varies. However, generally the 39 articles set out our faith quite well (although they hold no direct authority anymore):

http://www.cofec.org/The%2039%20Articles%20of%20Religion.pdf

>Are you Catholics

A common confusion is found in our church, as many of us will refer to ourselves as 'Catholics.' This is because we claim to have apostolic succession, follow many of the traditions of the Catholic church and have clear Orders that are similar to Catholic Orders (and have had varying levels of recognition by both the Eastern and Roman church). Some Anglicans are much more Catholic than others: we have low and high church factions and a group of very dedicated 'Anglo-Catholics' who get quite close to being Roman.

>Are you Protestant

In so much as anyone who is not Roman or Eastern are Protestants, yes. Certainly, many Protestant (usually referred to as Reformers in our literature) influenced our church. As you see in the 39 articles, we believe in sola scriptura (more on that later), reject purgatory, are somewhat evangelical (like Anglo-catholics, there are Anglo-Evangelicals) and our priests can marry. However, for many Protestants, we don't go nearly far enough

>Associated texts

The King James Version of the Bible (Authorised Version) is traditionally preferred, the Apocrypha (included originally in the KJV) is used quite heavily, especially in the Book of Common Prayer (BCP). The BCP is exactly that, it is the traditional worship of our church. Although it isn't used as much these days. There is a modern version of the BCP, used by the Church of England, called 'Common Worship.'

>Do you follow Sola Scriptura

Simply put, yes. As written in the articles 'Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation.' However, tradition and the church is considered very, very important. With it being well suited to connect you to the scripture and the word of God.

>You seem like a muddled group

We are and that is kind of the point. We believe in unity, which is found through toleration and understanding of our fellow Christains (and man generally). Sadly, the troubles of the modern era has tested this to limit and our church is currently losing members in many regions. There are many splinter groups now.

>What about Women's priests and bishops

This is too big of an argument for me to get across in this OP. I will discuss it later in detail. Women priests have been seen as essential to the unity and harmony of the church. Many argue it goes against scipture, the majority do not (hence why we now ordain women). My own personl view is that we should not ordain women, however I view it is unimportant to myself and my own salvation. Some people are very strongly against women in these roles and have usually have access to bishops/priests.

>Resources

1611 Authorised Bible (alongside the Apocrypha):

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/

1662 Book of Common Prayer:

https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/book-of-common-prayer.aspx

39 Articles of Religion:

https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/book-of-common-prayer/articles-of-religion.aspx

 No.5361

Top tier thread.

I'll definitely read when I have time. Just wanted to say as much right now so you'd not feel ignored.


 No.5362

>go to Canterbury

>see Cathedral

>red hot luxury sports car in the parking lot

>look at plate

>666

I'm not even kidding. I may have a picture… I'll look for it.


 No.5363

Have you been to a BCP service? What's it like?

Also, is High Church much different to Low Church?


 No.5369

>>5362

how many 666 license plates are vandalized every year by Christians? You have a 1/1000 chance of getting one. More, if the 666 can appear at the front/middle and not just the end.


 No.5373

>>5363

>Have you been to a BCP service?

Yes, most churches still do them. Christmas, Easter and other events are nearly exclusively done with the BCP.

It's much like any other service I suppose. Although there is something about the words that add something to it. I guess some might get a nice feeling knowing you are worshipping much the same way people will have done 400 years ago in England.

>Also, is High Church much different to Low Church?

It depends, but yes, they are very different. Sometimes so different, that you have to marvel at the fact that the CoE (and Anglican Communion) has stayed together.

>>5362

I wonder if the driver got a kick out of parking there.


 No.5387

File: 1437931170584.jpg (1.27 MB, 1280x1024, 5:4, Tree_of_Life.jpg)

When referring to your articles of faith, I noticed you commented that these do not hold "direct authority" anymore. What does this mean? Does this mean that, should an Anglican parish decide to simply ignore one or several of these points they would not be punished or, at the very least, considered heretical?

>Most of them are in Africa but generally our followers are everywhere.

Why is this the case? You would think that the bulk of the Anglican church would be in England. Have they joined other religious or simply become irreligious?

>'Catholics.'

I can imagine then that it would strike you as unpleasant or the like should Roman Catholics call you heretical or such, and be upset with you for using the term. So, from your position, there is no loss of Apostolic Authority due to the (what seems to me) purely political reason for you church existing. I am of course referring to the Henry VIII incident. Is this correct? Also, how do you feel about this?

>There are many splinter groups now.

This would connect to my other question. Essentially, what do you have to do in the Anglican chruch to be politely asked to frick off. It seems pretty "progressive", what with the female priests and, in some cases, even homosexuals.

>My own personl view is that we should not ordain women,

How do you manage this discrepancy? That is to say, is it a purely mental concern than doesn't manifest itself physically, or do you actively avoid parishes where this is practiced? Or, perhaps always ask for a male to receive the spiritual ordinances you believe necessary?

Also, how bad is the "progressive" nonsense in your church? I mean this both in the local level and the grand scheme. Obviously, I've read and heard about it elsewhere, but I'd appreciate an honest review from an adherent.


 No.5388

>>5387

>What does this mean?

It just means that not everyone is expected to follow all the articles.

>simply ignore one or several of these points they would not be punished

We can't punish, as no one has direct authority except the church's own leaders. Never in Anglican history, have we had to kick a church out of the communion. But I suppose if they went too far, it would have to happen.

>Why is this the case?

The most successful Anglican missions (which were done through the Empire) were in Africa (well actually, China was our most successful mission but the nationalists/communists killed them all). And Africa's population has exploded, particularly in the areas that Britain controlled originally.

>Is this correct?

Our church doesn't exist due to Henry the VIII. It exists due to Augustine of Canterbury. It did not split due to Henry the VIII, he was just the first king to make the split (people seem to forget that Mary forcibly brought us back to Rome after Edward's death). Henry the VIII was just a politician, taking advantage of the time he found himself in.

>Roman Catholics call you heretical

I have only seen people on 8chan do this. Generally Catholics, and their church, act very pleasantly towards our church.

>what do you have to do in the Anglican chruch to be politely asked to frick off.

AFAIK, it's never happened. Churches have split from us (most notably the Methodists)

>How do you manage this discrepancy?

I don't think it matters who does priestly services for me. Only myself can bring myself to the Lord and salvation.

>Also, how bad is the "progressive" nonsense in your church?

Not an easy question to answer. We all have different views on what exactly is progressive nonsense.


 No.5389

File: 1437938329718.jpg (50.35 KB, 576x720, 4:5, The_Sacrament.jpg)

>>5388

>It just means that not everyone is expected to follow all the articles.

You mean, that not everyone outside of the church is expected to follow the articles, or that they are merely a suggestion for the members of the church?

>But I suppose if they went too far, it would have to happen.

What would be considered "going to far"?

> It did not split due to Henry the VIII, he was just the first king to make the split

Well, I'm just saying that, to the outsiders, this is the official point where your church ceases to be Roman Catholic and becomes something else.

> Generally Catholics, and their church, act very pleasantly towards our church.

Yes this tends to be the case with most human beings. However, I'd imagine their doctrinal position on your church would be that of at best heretical, and at the very least schismatic. Thrice so for the more "progressive" parts of it.

>Churches have split from us (most notably the Methodists)

Why did they do this, if it seems that one can do essentially anything within Anglicanism and still be in good standing? Did they simply dislike the "superficial" Romanism of the whole affair?

>I don't think it matters who does priestly services for me.

Is that so? I, for one, hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, an office in the Chrurch of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. You're saying to me that *I* could perform these same priestly duties for you, despite the vast differences in our beliefs, and you'd still consider them valid?

Or do you simply mean you have no problem with women specifically doing these things?

>We all have different views on what exactly is progressive nonsense.

You may tell me about your own opinion on the matter. I'll give a few guidelines. Anything relating to women in positions of authority, anything relating to how other faiths are to be interpreted doctirnally, anything relating to homosexuals, transgenders and other unrepentant, perverted individuals. Anything relating to cultural marxism (social justice stuff). Anything relating to Judaism and Jewry. Anything relating to racial issues.


 No.5392

>>5389

>or that they are merely a suggestion for the members of the church?

Generally yes, although it does vary. Obviously some are more important that others (believing in the resurrection etc)

>What would be considered "going to far"?

Declaring Jesus to the son of a whore and not God, that kind of thing I suppose. To be honest, I am not too sure myself.

>this is the official point where your church ceases to be Roman Catholic and becomes something else.

Which is fine I suppose. However, most of what makes the Anglican church what it is, came much later.

>Did they simply dislike the "superficial" Romanism of the whole affair?

Pretty much

>*I* could perform these same priestly duties for you

As long as you hold roughly the same beliefs and were respectful and knew what you were doing, I don't see why not.

Although I am not so sure about a Mormon.

>You may tell me about your own opinion on the matter

Maybe another time


 No.5399

File: 1437959620300.jpg (175.5 KB, 680x750, 68:75, Rhodesia_feels.jpg)

>>5392

>Obviously some are more important that others (believing in the resurrection etc)

So there *is* then a certain level of orthodoxy, certain principles that one simply must abide by.

>Declaring Jesus to the son of a whore and not God, that kind of thing I suppose.

So one has to be a Jew then? I'm half joking, obviously, but I get your point.

>However, most of what makes the Anglican church what it is, came much later.

Could you elaborate on this?

>Although I am not so sure about a Mormon.

Most likely not, but that was merely a way to ascertain exactly where it is you Anglicans draw the line when it comes to this issue. Meaning, why then is your apostolic authority important or meaningful in any way if, say, a protestant who believes similarly to you could administer the same priestly ordinances than your honored clergy?


 No.5400

>>5399

>Could you elaborate on this?

Henry VIII was a Catholic, through and through. So he resisted nearly all changes to the Church during his reign. He son (Edward) was a full on Protestant but died young.

Mary brought the Church back to Rome and was oppressive but had no heirs. Elizabeth the 1st was when the first of the big changes started to set in place but it was really the times of James and Charles the 2nd where the most occurred.Also lots happened during the 19th century.

>ost likely not, but that was merely a way to ascertain exactly where it is you Anglicans draw the line when it comes to this issue

I'm quite Low Church keep in mind. An Anglo-Catholic would require an ordained priest (Male) to do everything.


 No.5401

>>5400

>I'm quite Low Church keep in mind.

Not familiar with this terminology. Does this mean that you lean more towards "protestant" theology and practice as opposed to the more "Romish" people? I might incorporate that text into my vocabulary, by the way, very interesting.

>An Anglo-Catholic would require an ordained priest (Male) to do everything.

Another question. You use this term to mean someone more conservative or strict in their interpretation of the scriptures and your church's articles of faith, correct? You personally seem to lean more on the, well, not-so-strict interpretation; which is an assumption on my part based solely on what you've disclosed here.


 No.5402

>>5401

>Does this mean that you lean more towards "protestant" theology

Yes.

>use this term to mean someone more conservative or strict in their interpretation of the scriptures and your church's articles of faith, correct?

No, it just means someone who is High Church and acts more like a Roman Catholic

>You personally seem to lean more on the, well, not-so-strict interpretation

Not really.


 No.5493

Thanks for all the questions so far. I've realised I might not be perfect at this but God willing, I don't stray too far from the mark.

As I said, I will maintain this general for anyone else.


 No.5677

>>5359

>>>What about Women's priests and bishops

>This is too big of an argument for me to get across in this OP. I will discuss it later in detail.

OP needs to deliver.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]