Anglican schism

[mrmitchell]

Personally I feel a split should be avoided but if they insist I won't terribly miss any backwards faction.

[Ben Kenobi]

Only if you believe Timothy was written by him and ignore the consensus among scholars that it wasn't.

Are these the same scholars that date the Pentateuch to after the exile?

[Ben Kenobi]

is one way of looking at it. But I can't help but think that if the RCC were still in union with the orthodox church, then christianity as a whole would be much stronger. The great schism seems like a huge loss, in hindsight.

Maybe it is incorrect for me to project our experiences in this regard onto the Anglican church.

How so? The Anglicans also schismed from the Roman Catholics.

I would think the same desires for unity between the Catholics and Orthos would be the same as between the Catholics and Anglicans.

You are hardly 'projecting' one onto the other.

[DanS]

You are right in that I thought that the Anglicans were protestants rather than schismatics (from the RCC pov). It is true that there were two RCC/Anglican schisms rather than a quitting of the church, but wouldn't the Anglican church of nowadays be properly described as protestant and not schismatic?

At a minimum, Anglicans are classified differently than the schismatic churches, such as the various orthodox churches who don't recognize the primacy of Rome.

As you can probably tell, I'm pretty hazy on the details with regard to the Anglican church.

[trev]

In Australia, an uninformed person would look at all our denominations and groupings and decide that Christianity is very devided. But in actual fact, these days people do not look much at the 'name' of the church, but instead float between the different groupings, choosing the church whose size, arrangement of service, type of music, availability of personal involvement, location, doctrine etc best suits them. There is now tending to be more variation in relation to many of these matters within each grouping than between groups, with even pastors, ministers etc switching between the groups as well as congregations. Within the Anglican church here, there is wide chasms between certain dioceses already, with very limited interaction and movement of priests between particular diocese as they each seek to maintain their own doctrines. But many of the people ignore the organizational matters and just attend a church that suits them and many times probably do not even know the name of the denomination they are attending, because of a tendency for many groupings to use the title 'community church' for the local church congregation with the suburb name attached.
A split at the organizational level would actually have almost no impact at the local congregational level as people would still float about just the same seeking the church that suits them.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are right in that I thought that the Anglicans were protestants rather than schismatics (from the RCC pov). It is true that there were two RCC/Anglican schisms rather than a quitting of the church, but wouldn't the Anglican church of nowadays be properly described as protestant and not schismatic?

Anglicans broke from Rome in rejecting the authority of the pope, to set up a national leader, the King of England as the head of the church. Even though there was an Archbishop of Canterbury, the position has been subsidiary to the title of Defender of the Faith, first declared for good ol' Harry 8.

The doctrinal differences between the Anglicans and the Catholics didn't emerge until later, after the schism, rather than as a cause for the schism.

In this, and this is one of the reasons why the Anglicans refer to themselves on par with the Orthos, because they retain the historical episcopate, but claim to just be another branch. Three forks, but one church. Roman Catholic, Ortho, and Anglican.

Their 'protestant' capacities emerged from Luther, but were really borrowed as the church saw fit, and even in their confessional statement, you will find Anglican churches disagree as to the number of points, and whether adherance to their confession is necessary for membership within the Anglican communion.

At a minimum, Anglicans are classified differently than the schismatic churches, such as the various orthodox churches who don't recognize the primacy of Rome.

Yes, through their later actions to adopt many of the doctrines professed by Luther. However, they are unique among the protestants in their nature of their schism.

[Ben Kenobi]

A split at the organizational level would actually have almost no impact at the local congregational level as people would still float about just the same seeking the church that suits them.

Why does a church happen to be in a particular neighbourhood? To shift from an organisational matter, to a congregational matter is a big one. Essentially, the churches without a congregation would be unable to sustain themselves, and would have to close, while the ones that would be able to have a group of people attend, would survive.

Plus, how many of these churches rely upon the organisational links between the various Anglican churches? Without these links, each congregation has a much more difficult time, unless they become the same model as my mennonite church, in getting so big, it just doesn't matter anymore.

[Sikander]

Anglicans are the shismnit!

[Ben Kenobi]

Good to see this got resolved!

[Sava]

did it?
anglican is just another stupid fake denomination
like prebysterinais
and methosidst