Changing denominations

A mixture of availability and nationality I suppose: I'm not Russian or German and, although there are English-speaking Orthodox churches in the UK (usually under the Antioch Patriarchate) there isn't one of those within about 60 miles of where I live and Lutheran churches are similarly thin on the ground in this country, although I'd be quite happy in worshipping in either such place if they were nearby. Anglican churches however are two-a-penny here: I can think of 5 within walking distance of my house!

 

Don't think so

 

Only the pivotal (for him at least) Tract 90 and I fully understand his "to be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant" (although I would throw in a "fully" there as the penultimate word) - there is for example nothing in the Early Church that is on all fours with what we today regard as 'classis' evangelical soteriology, but rather it is all about "putting on Christ" and "being in Christ" through being baptised into the Church and participation in the Eucharist - but I'm not sure I 100% agree with his conclusions. As I see Church History, I have no problem with the Undivided Church up until 1054. Thereafter, however, the unity of the deposit of truth was rent asunder so that no one 'successor' branch of that Church can claim a monopoly of truth over the others: the Western Church, for example, shorn of its balancing Eastern counterpart, fell into the errors produced by medieval scholasticism (Purgatory as a rigid fully-developed doctrine with consequent errors re indulgences, similar over-definition of the Real Presence with the insistence on transubstantiation etc) to the extent that it was in need of reformation. I would then regard both the Magisterial Reformation and the Council of Trent and other counter-reformation actions as valid attempts to reform the errors of medieval Catholicism and, in so far as the former have preserved the episcopal pattern and Apostolic Succession of the Undivided Church, I would regard them as just as valid 'successor churches' to that Undivided Church as the Roman Catholic Church post-Trent; all are reformed (or Reformed) Western Christianity.

 

A too-cosy relationship with the State and with nationalism, frequently of the more unpleasant variety, is one which immediately springs to mind (think most recently of the Serbian Orthodox priests blessing the Bosnian Serb paramilitaries); also a tendency to ossification and stultification* and an obsession with trivia (yes I know 'Orthodox' means 'correct worship' but when you get to falling out over whether to make the Sign of the Cross with two fingers or three, that sort of makes the kind of evangelical-fundamentalist splits I've experienced look like a tea party!).

I'm sure there's more but that's what comes to mind at the moment.

*In many respects it's as if the clock stopped at 1054 - while the West can be accused of moving too far from 1054, the East perhaps can be accused of not moving far enough...

 

Which bit?

 

No, no, no: I'm asking you to clarify! My previous post makes a lot of claims re the Anglican Communion and you're asking how the Communion fits in. The question I suppose I have is "which claim do you want me to justify?" You're effectively asking a number of questions in one.

If you're asking "how does the AC relate to the pre-1054 Undivided Church?", then I would refer to their use of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds as basic statements of faith, their use of liturgy (the Prayer Books for example have a Penitential Rite, a Liturgy of the Word virtually identical to Catholicism and Orthodoxy, prayers of intercession, and a Liturgy of the Eucharist pretty similar to Catholicism and Orthodoxy complete with Sursum Corda and similar Eucharistic Prayers with just the epiclesis slightly differently worded to reflect the more nuanced version of the Real Presence to which I've earlier referred), threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, etc

If you're asking "how is the AC a valid successor to medieval Catholicism?", then I would refer to the statements about liturgy above and in particular point you to the continuation of the Sarum Missal which is still used today and is a liturgical survivor from the medieval Catholic Church in England and thus arguably more on all fours liturgically with medieval Catholicism than the modern Catholic Church, the preservation of Apostolic Succession with the consecration of ++Matthew Parker in 1559 and accompanying 'branch theory' etc

If you're asking "how is the AC reformed or Reformed?", then I would direct you again to the Prayer Books (in particular 1549, 1552 and 1662), the 39 Articles of Religion of 1563 and direct you to the websites of contemporary Anglican groups like Reform.

Does that answer whichever question you were asking?

 

Various links, in no particular order:-

Book of Common Prayer, 1662

Later Prayer Books

Cranmer's 1549 Prayer Book

Sarum Missal

Cranmer's 1552 Prayer Book

39 Articles

Wikipedia info on Reform, since their website seems to be down!

 

Cheers!

Another Anglo-Saxon church, c.705 (Bradford-on-Avon is near Bath.)

And, if you like old churches, here's a list of churches in my diocese - in addition to the one's I've earlier mentioned, I would recommend the ones at Bedhampton, St Mary's Alverstoke, Bishop's Waltham, Blendworth, Bramshott, Havant, Portchester, Rowlands Castle, and Wickham (NB Other churches on the site may look old but in fact date from the 19th century).

Enjoy!

 

CA, on the issue of continuity of Orders pre- and post-Reformation you may want to consider the Roman Catholic view in +++Leo XIII's encyclical Apostolicae Curae and the Anglican response, Saepius Officio

 

Just discovered an interesting comparison here of the 39 Arts with Cranmer's 42 Articles of 1553 (NB: they're in the original language!)