(no subject)
Dec. 18th, 2018 09:48 amAn article, which might be of interest to some readers, on the links between Anglo-Catholicism, Theosophy, and the Occult.
James Bond, stickit minister.
Inspired by a line in "Spectre", but not in any sense a spoiler for the film.
( It was that or the priesthood. )
Inspired by a line in "Spectre", but not in any sense a spoiler for the film.
( It was that or the priesthood. )
(no subject)
Nov. 8th, 2012 08:49 amSo, it looks likely that we have a new Archbishop of Canterbury - Justin Welby of Durham.* Slightly surprising, inasmuch as he isn't very experienced, but I think on the whole he's a decent choice, and there's some hope he has some administrative talent, which would not go amiss. And he does give the impression of saying his prayers, which is a good thing in an Archbishop.
I've frequently heard him described as a conservative evangelical, but I can't quite work out why. He's certainly an evangelical - it is, after all, their turn - but the conservatism I've seen less evidence of, apart from the fact that he's opposed to gay marriage, but it's almost impossible to find bishops who are in favour, and that includes people who would normally be called liberals.** Of course, that may just be a function of him not having been high-profile for very long, and I may be missing something, but it equally may arise from the media not being very good (understandably enough) at reading the subtleties of things.
*Rotten luck for Durham; he's only been in post a year, and before that they had N.T. "Tom" Wright, who though a distinguished scholar, was never actually there....
** I believe that +Buckingham (the one with the interesting but poorly laid out blog) and +Salisbury have come out in favour, but they obviously won't go any further, +Salisbury because of his marital situation (married a divorcee), and +Buckingham because he says what he thinks too bluntly.
ETA: I left the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds off the list (thank you, bookwormsarah), but the point remains. Also, I am reminded that Welby lists the encyclical "Rerum Novarum" (the one in which Leo XIII sketched out Catholic social teaching on industrial relations and the like, endorsing unions, among other things) as the greatest influence on his moral thinking. Which probably won't please Conservative (as in party politics) Anglicans, but again is a count against him being all that much of a conservative evangelical, because regardless of political stance, endorsing Papal teaching is not something that that crowd tends to do.
I've frequently heard him described as a conservative evangelical, but I can't quite work out why. He's certainly an evangelical - it is, after all, their turn - but the conservatism I've seen less evidence of, apart from the fact that he's opposed to gay marriage, but it's almost impossible to find bishops who are in favour, and that includes people who would normally be called liberals.** Of course, that may just be a function of him not having been high-profile for very long, and I may be missing something, but it equally may arise from the media not being very good (understandably enough) at reading the subtleties of things.
*Rotten luck for Durham; he's only been in post a year, and before that they had N.T. "Tom" Wright, who though a distinguished scholar, was never actually there....
** I believe that +Buckingham (the one with the interesting but poorly laid out blog) and +Salisbury have come out in favour, but they obviously won't go any further, +Salisbury because of his marital situation (married a divorcee), and +Buckingham because he says what he thinks too bluntly.
ETA: I left the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds off the list (thank you, bookwormsarah), but the point remains. Also, I am reminded that Welby lists the encyclical "Rerum Novarum" (the one in which Leo XIII sketched out Catholic social teaching on industrial relations and the like, endorsing unions, among other things) as the greatest influence on his moral thinking. Which probably won't please Conservative (as in party politics) Anglicans, but again is a count against him being all that much of a conservative evangelical, because regardless of political stance, endorsing Papal teaching is not something that that crowd tends to do.
(no subject)
May. 29th, 2012 02:09 pmThis article in the Daily Telegraph is, broadly speaking, a good overview of the politics surrounding the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury - with the caveat that I cannot imagine where the journalist has picked up the idea that Sentamu "is first preference for the liberal/Catholic/High wing." He's not, remotely. (The answer, incidentally, is probably Graham James of Norwich, though actually there is no obvious Catholic candidate, liberal or conservative, since the Bishop of Ely has only just got there, and the Bishop of Reading is only a diocesan).
More on same-sex marriage
Apr. 21st, 2012 10:24 amThe text of a letter to the Times supporting gay marriage:
Signatories include the Bishop of Buckingham, the Very Rev'd Jeffery John, Dean of St Albans, and some more deans and some retired bishops.
... We welcome current moves by the House of Bishops to consider again its view of civil partnerships and human sexuality. We hope this will lead to a recognition of God’s grace at work in same-sex partnerships and call on the Church to engage in theological discussion and prayerful reflection on the nature of marriage.
We also welcome recent reported statements by the Bishop of Salisbury and the new Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral calling on the Church to affirm same-sex couples who want to take on the commitment of marriage.
It is our belief that the Church of England has nothing to fear from the introduction of civil marriage for same-sex couples. It will be for the churches to then decide how they should respond pastorally to such a change in the law.
Signatories include the Bishop of Buckingham, the Very Rev'd Jeffery John, Dean of St Albans, and some more deans and some retired bishops.
(no subject)
Apr. 19th, 2012 12:26 pmThe Bishop of Buckingham (or @alantlwilson as he is known elsewhere) on gay marriage:
I am Evangelical enough to believe that Christ is, in fact, risen and we are, actually, his body in the world, charged in Matthew 28 to be good news to the whole creation, by observing his commands. He didn't say “keep everything the same” let alone “suppress gays.” He did say “Love your neighbour as yourself” and “Judge not that ye be not judged.” He did say “take the beam out of your eye before you try and remove the mote from someone else's” and “Love as I have loved you.”
Is there anything unclear about any of that? I don't think so.
This short address by the Archbishop of Wales is the most encouraging take on the subject I've heard from a senior British Anglican (not my branch of the Communion, but it's something that our neighbours have more sense). He's trying to start an honest debate on how the church should respond to the institution of civil partnerships and possibly same-sex civil marriage, and identifies as the key question
how do we hold together faithfulness to Scripture and tradition with the wider New Testament call to love our neighbour?
And his final paragraph makes it fairly clear where his sympathies lie:
The question then as now is, will the church protect and support pastorally, faithful, stable, lifelong relationships of whatever kind in order to encourage human values such as love and fidelity and recognise the need in Christian people for some public religious support. As Helen says in the novel "Nightwatch" by Sarah Walters – a novel written in 1947, "what could she do to say to the world that Julia was hers?" She could have gone on to ask "what can the church do to show that this relationship is not simply something between my partner and I but that somehow God is in our midst as well and longs for our wellbeing". It is a discussion we need to have.
It's slightly embarrassing - though a compliment to Sarah Waters(!) - that he thinks "Nightwatch" is from 1947, but that's a minor point, and I am happy that ++Barry has set out the terms of debate in the way he has.
how do we hold together faithfulness to Scripture and tradition with the wider New Testament call to love our neighbour?
And his final paragraph makes it fairly clear where his sympathies lie:
The question then as now is, will the church protect and support pastorally, faithful, stable, lifelong relationships of whatever kind in order to encourage human values such as love and fidelity and recognise the need in Christian people for some public religious support. As Helen says in the novel "Nightwatch" by Sarah Walters – a novel written in 1947, "what could she do to say to the world that Julia was hers?" She could have gone on to ask "what can the church do to show that this relationship is not simply something between my partner and I but that somehow God is in our midst as well and longs for our wellbeing". It is a discussion we need to have.
It's slightly embarrassing - though a compliment to Sarah Waters(!) - that he thinks "Nightwatch" is from 1947, but that's a minor point, and I am happy that ++Barry has set out the terms of debate in the way he has.
(no subject)
Jan. 26th, 2012 05:09 pmIncidentally, I finally got round to watching Call the Midwife, which was originally brought to my attention by Sam Wollaston slagging it off. I should have taken this as a recommendation, but I actually didn't go and look for it until Fr Vice-Principal talked about it in his address at morning Mass.
Anyway, it's very good - it's the story of a newly qualified midwife in the fities who takes a job at what she thinks is a private hospital, but turns out to be a community of Anglican nuns whorun a midwifery service in Poplar.
I don't know how accurate the midwifery is, but it's a very good portrayal of a religious community as made up of actual human beings, and the rhythm of its life, sympathetically portrayed without being saccherinely pious, it's well acted, and there are a lot of believable female characters. It passes the Bechdel test without any effort.
Possibly worth noting that episode 2 (I missed the first one) contains a distressing story about a fifteen year old prostitute and a church agency's treatment of her, which while not "The Magdalene Laundries" doesn't give her anything approaching a happy ending. It's also possibly not a great watch if you're overly squeamish about childbirth, though mostly it made me intensely grateful for modern medicine. That apart, though, I'd strongly recommend it (and you can always look away at the bloody bits, they don't predominate).
Anyway, it's very good - it's the story of a newly qualified midwife in the fities who takes a job at what she thinks is a private hospital, but turns out to be a community of Anglican nuns whorun a midwifery service in Poplar.
I don't know how accurate the midwifery is, but it's a very good portrayal of a religious community as made up of actual human beings, and the rhythm of its life, sympathetically portrayed without being saccherinely pious, it's well acted, and there are a lot of believable female characters. It passes the Bechdel test without any effort.
Possibly worth noting that episode 2 (I missed the first one) contains a distressing story about a fifteen year old prostitute and a church agency's treatment of her, which while not "The Magdalene Laundries" doesn't give her anything approaching a happy ending. It's also possibly not a great watch if you're overly squeamish about childbirth, though mostly it made me intensely grateful for modern medicine. That apart, though, I'd strongly recommend it (and you can always look away at the bloody bits, they don't predominate).
Preferment
Dec. 5th, 2011 03:30 pmWhat I think is still the only Rev. fic on the internet. I do hope it hasn't turned into secretly a woobie! Archdeacon, though...
Title: Preferment.
Characters: The Archdeacon. His Blackberry.
Summary: ( The Archdeacon's career has hit a bit of a plateau )
Title: Preferment.
Characters: The Archdeacon. His Blackberry.
Summary: ( The Archdeacon's career has hit a bit of a plateau )
Fascinating things I learned today
Nov. 1st, 2011 03:10 pmHugh Latimer (yes, Oxford Martyr, burnt-in-the-Martyr's-Memorial-while-trying-to-test-a-new-kind-of-candle Hugh Latimer) commended the practice of praying for the dead.
(no subject)
Oct. 27th, 2011 11:35 amAfter the prolonged spectacle of the Dean and Chapter of St Pauls making asses of themselves over the Occupy London protests, I'm heartened by Giles Fraser's integrity (though I'm appalled that it's become necessary for him to do it, and I cannot think what the Chapter have been thinking, other than that they're running round like headless chickens in an unnecessary panic).
Despite the icon, I might note that Cramner, no bleeding heart liberal to say the least, broadly agrees with me.
Of course, I always wondered how long Giles Fraser could stick it at St Pauls...
Despite the icon, I might note that Cramner, no bleeding heart liberal to say the least, broadly agrees with me.
Of course, I always wondered how long Giles Fraser could stick it at St Pauls...
(no subject)
Oct. 23rd, 2011 12:29 pmI can't believe I haven't linked to these utterly brilliant posters for Christ Church Broadway, New Haven.
I think my favourite is "Bread and Wine, Body and Blood - Change you can believe in", but I like "Tonight we're going to worship like it's 1099" - though really, in that cotta, it's more 1899, or possibly 1929... But being serious, they do a fantastic job of communicating what the parish is committed to - worshiping God, unashamedly in the Catholic tradition, and doing things well and with care and aesthetic sense, while not taking itself too seriously.
I think my favourite is "Bread and Wine, Body and Blood - Change you can believe in", but I like "Tonight we're going to worship like it's 1099" - though really, in that cotta, it's more 1899, or possibly 1929... But being serious, they do a fantastic job of communicating what the parish is committed to - worshiping God, unashamedly in the Catholic tradition, and doing things well and with care and aesthetic sense, while not taking itself too seriously.
(no subject)
May. 27th, 2011 10:51 amAm currently too cross and depressed about the state of the C of E (see recent reports in the Guardian) to want to talk about it.
So have an exciting new piece of choral music instead:
I feel that the opening versicles lack a bit of punch, but do keep listening; the Lord's Prayer in particular is sublime.
So have an exciting new piece of choral music instead:
I feel that the opening versicles lack a bit of punch, but do keep listening; the Lord's Prayer in particular is sublime.
From ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
aedifica
in novels set in Great Britain, I keep seeing references to people being "church" or "chapel". What does that mean?
This terminology has, as far as I know, died out. "Church" is the established church, i.e. the Church of England, and people who are "chapel" were members of one of the Protestant "non-conformist" churches, which might mean Methodists (the largest group), Presbyterians (who later became the URC), Congregationalists, or Baptists, etc., probably. There's often a class element to who belonged to which denomination; Methodism tended to be most successful with the 'respectable' working class, and there's a big overlap with the emerging Labour movement. "Church" people tended to be better off, and for a long time "Chapel" people were barred from standing for parliament etc (as were Catholics, though it was easier to conform enough to satisfy the law if you were Chapel than if you were RC).
Don't be confused by the Scottish tendency, still apparent at times to refer to Roman Catholic churches as 'chapels'. It should also be noted that the national church in Scotland is the Church of Scotland, which is Presbyterian (though it is more independent of the state than the C of E is, and it can't really be called 'established). 'Episcopalians,' as Scottish Anglicans are called, are a very small minority.
aedificain novels set in Great Britain, I keep seeing references to people being "church" or "chapel". What does that mean?
This terminology has, as far as I know, died out. "Church" is the established church, i.e. the Church of England, and people who are "chapel" were members of one of the Protestant "non-conformist" churches, which might mean Methodists (the largest group), Presbyterians (who later became the URC), Congregationalists, or Baptists, etc., probably. There's often a class element to who belonged to which denomination; Methodism tended to be most successful with the 'respectable' working class, and there's a big overlap with the emerging Labour movement. "Church" people tended to be better off, and for a long time "Chapel" people were barred from standing for parliament etc (as were Catholics, though it was easier to conform enough to satisfy the law if you were Chapel than if you were RC).
Don't be confused by the Scottish tendency, still apparent at times to refer to Roman Catholic churches as 'chapels'. It should also be noted that the national church in Scotland is the Church of Scotland, which is Presbyterian (though it is more independent of the state than the C of E is, and it can't really be called 'established). 'Episcopalians,' as Scottish Anglicans are called, are a very small minority.
(no subject)
May. 14th, 2011 11:08 amThe Bishop of Buckingham continues to be my favourite member of the C of E's episcopate. Here he comments on the (utterly iniquitous and wicked) proposed Ugandan homosexuality law: Straining at a tiny but contentious gnat, it swallows a sociopathic, genocidal camel.*
Double points, from an Anglican perspective, for pointing out that the same people who go on about ECUSA breaching the Lambeth moratorium are simultaneously breaking what was agreed at Lambeth, in the other direction.
I'd be the last person to deny that the Anglican Communion has a lot of problems and failings, some of them pretty serious. But - even though I don't always agree with all of what he says - I find the fact that + Alan not only has a purple shirt, but hasn't let it stop him calling things the way he sees them, very cheering.
* As usual on CiF, the comments generate more heat than light, on both sides. And I see Marcionism is still not dead.
Double points, from an Anglican perspective, for pointing out that the same people who go on about ECUSA breaching the Lambeth moratorium are simultaneously breaking what was agreed at Lambeth, in the other direction.
I'd be the last person to deny that the Anglican Communion has a lot of problems and failings, some of them pretty serious. But - even though I don't always agree with all of what he says - I find the fact that + Alan not only has a purple shirt, but hasn't let it stop him calling things the way he sees them, very cheering.
* As usual on CiF, the comments generate more heat than light, on both sides. And I see Marcionism is still not dead.
(no subject)
May. 11th, 2011 01:35 pmizhilzha asked:
Is there a particular meaning to the pattern on the robes that the priest and his deacon/sub-deacons wear during Mass? One looks (sensibly) like a cross, but the other like an "H" (seen from the back).
Alas, this is one that doesn't have a particularly meaningful answer (at least as far as the sub-deacon and the deacon's vestments go).
On terminology: Izhilzha is talking about a High Mass*, which is a Mass celebrated by the priest with the assistance of a deacon and a subdeacon, and several servers, who carry candles, or swing the thurible, or help set up the altar for the consecration of the bread and wine. You don't need all this for a valid Mass, but if you just have the priest (who may or may not have a server to help her) then it's a Low Mass. High Mass is very definitely an Anglo-Catholic thing (within Anglicanism, that is).
Deacon: deacon is the lowest grade of ordination. Deacons can carry out weddings and funerals. You get permanent deacons, who spend all their life as deacons and concentrate on pastoral ministry, but you have to spend a year as a deacon before you are ordained a priest. You also don't stop being a deacon when you become a priest, so often in the context of a Mass, the deacon will be another priest from the parish. The deacon's main role in the service is to assist the priest, and to read the Gospel. Sub-deacons can be lay people (I've done it a number of times), but still get to wear the fancy vestments; their role in the service is mostly confined to reading the Epistle and looking pretty/ pious.
There's no rules about what you can or can't put on a chasuble or dalmatic (what the deacon wears) or tunicle (what the sub-deacon wears), though if you've ever spent any time at bad vestments you may come to think it isn't a bad idea.
Often the chasuble will have a cross on the back (and front), as in this nice black set**; the symbolism is obvious, especially in an eastward facing Mass, where the priest spends a large chunk of time facing away from the congregation, so as you look at the altar you can also focus on the cross (rather than on the priest's face, as in a westward-facing Mass). But you might just have a panel of ornamental fabric - as in this rather fine antique French set. The only real rule is that the deacon and sub-deacon's kit is less fancy; the 'H' shape, or vertical bars, is common, but I don't believe it has any meaning.
The chasuble/ dalmatic/ tunicle is worn over a cassock, an amice (which is a square white cloth with strings at the corner which you tie round your neck to hide your collar) and an alb, a long white collarless garment. All the vestments have short prayers associated them which the priest says as he puts them on, though the only one I can remember off hand is the one for the amice which says something about the helmet of salvation (this makes more sense than you'd think, because to put it on securely you have to put the cloth on your head, tie the strings round your chest, and then pull the amice proper down and adjust it so it lies well). Actually it has a practical purpose as well as a symbolic one, because it stops you sweating into the alb or, worse still, the chasuble/ dalmatic. Amices are much easier to wash.
The dalmatic, incidentally, used to be Byzantine court dress; most of the vestments seem to originate in ordinary "good" clothes.
* There's a good guide to what happens at Mass, with some reasonable pictures, here. NB that the 'fogginess' of some of the pictures is not poor picture quality, it's smoke.///
**The whole gallery is worth a look, if you're interested in vestments, as it explains what the priest wears, but I warn you that (a) Fr Yenda apparently can't spell and (b) he has disgustingly camp taste in lacy albs and (c) very few people actually wear maniples these days, though - unlike albs made entirely from lace - I think that's a bit of a shame. Though given my natural clumsiness, possibly I shouldn't try to revive the custom, as it ceases to be pious and reverent when you catch the chalice as you turn round....
Is there a particular meaning to the pattern on the robes that the priest and his deacon/sub-deacons wear during Mass? One looks (sensibly) like a cross, but the other like an "H" (seen from the back).
Alas, this is one that doesn't have a particularly meaningful answer (at least as far as the sub-deacon and the deacon's vestments go).
On terminology: Izhilzha is talking about a High Mass*, which is a Mass celebrated by the priest with the assistance of a deacon and a subdeacon, and several servers, who carry candles, or swing the thurible, or help set up the altar for the consecration of the bread and wine. You don't need all this for a valid Mass, but if you just have the priest (who may or may not have a server to help her) then it's a Low Mass. High Mass is very definitely an Anglo-Catholic thing (within Anglicanism, that is).
Deacon: deacon is the lowest grade of ordination. Deacons can carry out weddings and funerals. You get permanent deacons, who spend all their life as deacons and concentrate on pastoral ministry, but you have to spend a year as a deacon before you are ordained a priest. You also don't stop being a deacon when you become a priest, so often in the context of a Mass, the deacon will be another priest from the parish. The deacon's main role in the service is to assist the priest, and to read the Gospel. Sub-deacons can be lay people (I've done it a number of times), but still get to wear the fancy vestments; their role in the service is mostly confined to reading the Epistle and looking pretty/ pious.
There's no rules about what you can or can't put on a chasuble or dalmatic (what the deacon wears) or tunicle (what the sub-deacon wears), though if you've ever spent any time at bad vestments you may come to think it isn't a bad idea.
Often the chasuble will have a cross on the back (and front), as in this nice black set**; the symbolism is obvious, especially in an eastward facing Mass, where the priest spends a large chunk of time facing away from the congregation, so as you look at the altar you can also focus on the cross (rather than on the priest's face, as in a westward-facing Mass). But you might just have a panel of ornamental fabric - as in this rather fine antique French set. The only real rule is that the deacon and sub-deacon's kit is less fancy; the 'H' shape, or vertical bars, is common, but I don't believe it has any meaning.
The chasuble/ dalmatic/ tunicle is worn over a cassock, an amice (which is a square white cloth with strings at the corner which you tie round your neck to hide your collar) and an alb, a long white collarless garment. All the vestments have short prayers associated them which the priest says as he puts them on, though the only one I can remember off hand is the one for the amice which says something about the helmet of salvation (this makes more sense than you'd think, because to put it on securely you have to put the cloth on your head, tie the strings round your chest, and then pull the amice proper down and adjust it so it lies well). Actually it has a practical purpose as well as a symbolic one, because it stops you sweating into the alb or, worse still, the chasuble/ dalmatic. Amices are much easier to wash.
The dalmatic, incidentally, used to be Byzantine court dress; most of the vestments seem to originate in ordinary "good" clothes.
* There's a good guide to what happens at Mass, with some reasonable pictures, here. NB that the 'fogginess' of some of the pictures is not poor picture quality, it's smoke.///
**The whole gallery is worth a look, if you're interested in vestments, as it explains what the priest wears, but I warn you that (a) Fr Yenda apparently can't spell and (b) he has disgustingly camp taste in lacy albs and (c) very few people actually wear maniples these days, though - unlike albs made entirely from lace - I think that's a bit of a shame. Though given my natural clumsiness, possibly I shouldn't try to revive the custom, as it ceases to be pious and reverent when you catch the chalice as you turn round....
FONSFAQ - Becoming an Anglican
May. 11th, 2011 11:19 amnecromommycon asked When people convert to Anglicanism, as opposed to being born to it, what sort of process do they go through?
fallingtowers followed up with: A related question: If one does not live in the UK, can one even convert to Anglicanism? To which denomination does one then belong (Episcopalians?), and which parish does one attend?
Both good questions, though the answer to both depends a bit on who and where you are.
In terms of church law, there are three basic processes by which people become Anglica, depending on what degree/ kind of church membership they already have; this also affects the kind of preparation/ teaching (catechisis) they would be expected to attend. In practice it gets more complicated than that, but I'll get to that in a moment. In all cases, the person would be expected to have spent some time worshiping in an Anglican parish (or chaplaincy) and to have had a couple of conversations with the incumbent (that is, the priest in charge or vicar/ rector).
(a) A person who has not been baptised.
(b) A person who has been baptised by another denomination who baptise "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" but has not been confirmed by a bishop whose orders are recognised by the Anglican Communion* (basically the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox. We also recognise the orders of the Old Catholics, the Mar Thoma Church, and the Philippine Independent Church, but we're in full communion with them, so their members wouldn't need to 'convert' anymore than I would need to convert to become an Episcopalian if I moved to the States).
(c) A person who was confirmed by a Roman Catholic or Orthodox bishop.
People in category (a) have to be baptised and confirmed. Confirmation, in the Anglican understanding, is a sacrament, and can only be done by a bishop (this is the other reason Lutherans need to be confirmed to become Anglicans; the apostolicity question can be argued about, but the Lutheran habit of having confirmations be carried out by the pastor means it's not the same thing as the Anglican/ Catholic understanding). In confirmation, the person being confirmed affirms their faith and promises to live as a Christian, and they are annointed by the bishop. In the case of adult converts, baptism and confirmation would usually be done at the same service (in which case they are confirmed straight after the baptism, and don't have to repeat their baptismal vows).
People in category (b) are confirmed by the bishop.
People in category (a) and (b) would typically need to go through a course of instruction in the Christian faith, usually referred to as "confirmation classes". People who are being confirmed in their teens also have to go to these, though there are invariably separate classes for adults and teenagers. What exact form these take varies a lot depending on the individual church and on the size of the group. Some places use Alpha courses, or Emmaus (which is a bit like Alpha, but from a more catholic perspective; it has a lot more emphasis on teaching about the sacraments). Many places will use a home-made course. If there's only one or two people being confirmed, things can be a lot more informal and unstructured, though it would be good practice to have some sort of structure to make sure you don't miss anything important (you might use the Nicene Creed and work through it statement by statement. Some very old-school people use the Catechism, though it's a rather dry method and not one I'd go for myself).
People in category (c) may or may not be invited to tag along to confirmation classes, depending on how much they know about the Christian faith in general. They'd certainly have to have a chat with their priest about what it means to be an Anglican, in particular, and why they want to become one. There is a short bit of liturgy for people in this category to formally "be received" as members; it's quite simple and involves answering questions to affirm your faith (a bit like renewing baptismal vows), your recognition of the Church of England (or whichever bit of the Communion we're talking about) as part of the holy, catholic, and apostolic church, and your wish to be part of it. Unlike confirmation and baptism, it's not a sacrament, and there's no dramatic liturgical gesture, unless you count a handshake from the priest afterwards, which I wouldn't, really.
Actually, though, the categories get a bit blurred, particularly as Anglican churches will permit you to receive communion if you are a member of a Trinitarian church and would be allowed to in your own denomination. This means that in practice, a lot of people who were brought up in other denominations (Presbyterianism, say) and drifted into Anglicanism without a violent crisis of faith may have been going to an Anglican church and receiving the Sacrament for years before they ever get confirmed, if they ever do; usually people in that category don't unless they end up going forward for ordination, and obviously you have to be confirmed before you can be ordained. In fact, depending on people's family circumstances, some ordinands only realise that this needs to be done when they discover, shortly before ordination, that they haven't got a certificate proving their confirmation. But of course they don't need instruction, they just need, to quote a priest of my acquaintance "shoved in front of a bishop", and I've heard of this being done quite informally over a lunchbreak at theological college...
The other factor is that, at least in the Church of England, people are apt to identify membership with Being on the Electoral Roll, which allows you to vote in the Parish Church Council election. You don't need to be confirmed for that, and in fact you can be on the roll if you are a member of another denomination, as long as you are a communicant member of a church which believes in the Trinity. So this means that A, who is a member of the Church of Scotland and lives in Scotland, but has a second home or otherwise often visits a particular parish in England and worships there, might be asked to go on the Electoral Roll. By some measures this is "becoming a member of the Church of England", while remaining a Presbyterian, at least while in Scotland, but I wouldn't call it conversion, exactly.
... that ended up rather longer than I planned.
The answer to the other question is simpler. You can become an Anglican anywhere there is an Anglican church; whether you call yourself an Anglican or an Episcopalian depends where you are, but it doesn't really make much difference (by and large Anglican is the usual term, and Episcopalian is confined to places where there are strong cultural reasons for not wanting to identify as something that sounds suspiciously close to 'English', i.e. America and Scotland, but I don't know where the Rwandans and the Spanish fit into this). People sometimes assume that the Anglican Communion is co-terminus with the British Empire, but though there's an element of truth, it's not the whole story, and there are Anglican churches in places which were never British colonies (Japan, for instance): there's a full list here. There's also the Church of England (Diocese of Europe), which is notionally a chaplaincy aimed at ex-pats (because we shouldn't be stealing Roman Catholic or Orthodox sheep), but in practice locals do attend and become members (I know an Austrian who is training for the Anglican priesthood as a result of his encounter with the Diocese of Europe).
* This recognition has to do with the Apostolic Succession, that is a chain of ordinations going back to the apostles, rather than with doctrine as such, which is why the Lutherans, say, aren't on there, despite the fact that they have bishops and in some ways are quite theologically similar to a lot of Anglicans.
(no subject)
May. 11th, 2011 12:38 am"High Church" and "Anglo-Catholic" - synonyms or not?
No, or at least, not exactly. Anglo-Catholics are, at least in Anglican terms (the Orthodox are always going to be higher than you) as High Church as it gets, but there are plenty of high church Anglicans who wouldn't call themselves Anglo-Catholics.
Defining Anglo-Catholicism is harder than it used to be, largely due to the issue of the ordination of women, and the willingness of the media to buy the claims of some 'traditionalist' Anglo-Catholics (i.e. the opponents of women's ordination) that Anglo-Catholics, by definition, are opposed to it. This is not in fact the case.
There's been some attempts to use the term 'liberal catholics' for Anglo-Catholics who are in favour of the ordination of women, but I personally dislike the term, partly because 'liberal' in a theological context has a lot of baggage (and might be taken as implying you don't believe in many doctrines that I would wish to affirm), but mostly because it's been used so loosely that it really is synonymous with 'high church', though you're much more likely to hear "Shine Jesus shine" or "Be Still for the Glory of the Lord" at a church that calls itself liberal catholic.
The other problem with definition is that people tend to think that Anglo-Catholic, or indeed high-church, is primarily a statement about worship style. Of course it's true that Anglo-Catholic worship is characterised by a love of bells, smells, tat, and elaborate liturgy, but the most important elements are doctrinal (Keble or Pusey didn't give a damn about chasubles, after all): a strong commitment to episcopacy as vital to being a church (this goes for high church people too), the centrality of the Eucharist, Eucharistic devotions such as Benediction and a belief in transubstantiation or its modern cousin transignification, use and promotion of the sacrament of reconciliation (better known as confession), and so on. There also tends to be a suspicion or outright dislike of penal substitution combined with a strong devotion to the Passion (usually the Christus Victor theory is preferred). Anglo-Catholics can also be distinguished by their love of Mary - it's quite usual for Anglo-Catholic High Masses (always referred to as such) to conclude with the recitation of the Angelus, often centred on a staute or image of Mary - and often by prayers to other saints, which you wouldn't get among the merely high church. Prayer for the dead is also perfectly normal (though high church people will also often do this).
Anglo-Catholics are a bit of a peculiar subculture, even within the church, though they seem to produce a disproportionate number of young, often very bright, vocations to the priesthood, though it's fair to say that other sections of the church are usually better at youth work. On the other hand, it seems to appeal to a lot of students.
No, or at least, not exactly. Anglo-Catholics are, at least in Anglican terms (the Orthodox are always going to be higher than you) as High Church as it gets, but there are plenty of high church Anglicans who wouldn't call themselves Anglo-Catholics.
Defining Anglo-Catholicism is harder than it used to be, largely due to the issue of the ordination of women, and the willingness of the media to buy the claims of some 'traditionalist' Anglo-Catholics (i.e. the opponents of women's ordination) that Anglo-Catholics, by definition, are opposed to it. This is not in fact the case.
There's been some attempts to use the term 'liberal catholics' for Anglo-Catholics who are in favour of the ordination of women, but I personally dislike the term, partly because 'liberal' in a theological context has a lot of baggage (and might be taken as implying you don't believe in many doctrines that I would wish to affirm), but mostly because it's been used so loosely that it really is synonymous with 'high church', though you're much more likely to hear "Shine Jesus shine" or "Be Still for the Glory of the Lord" at a church that calls itself liberal catholic.
The other problem with definition is that people tend to think that Anglo-Catholic, or indeed high-church, is primarily a statement about worship style. Of course it's true that Anglo-Catholic worship is characterised by a love of bells, smells, tat, and elaborate liturgy, but the most important elements are doctrinal (Keble or Pusey didn't give a damn about chasubles, after all): a strong commitment to episcopacy as vital to being a church (this goes for high church people too), the centrality of the Eucharist, Eucharistic devotions such as Benediction and a belief in transubstantiation or its modern cousin transignification, use and promotion of the sacrament of reconciliation (better known as confession), and so on. There also tends to be a suspicion or outright dislike of penal substitution combined with a strong devotion to the Passion (usually the Christus Victor theory is preferred). Anglo-Catholics can also be distinguished by their love of Mary - it's quite usual for Anglo-Catholic High Masses (always referred to as such) to conclude with the recitation of the Angelus, often centred on a staute or image of Mary - and often by prayers to other saints, which you wouldn't get among the merely high church. Prayer for the dead is also perfectly normal (though high church people will also often do this).
Anglo-Catholics are a bit of a peculiar subculture, even within the church, though they seem to produce a disproportionate number of young, often very bright, vocations to the priesthood, though it's fair to say that other sections of the church are usually better at youth work. On the other hand, it seems to appeal to a lot of students.
FOSNAQ: Anglicanism: 1
May. 7th, 2011 03:09 pmThe first question came from liadnan, and was seconded by cjbanning:
Is Anglo-Catholic tat like Roman Catholic tat? My friend once found a loo roll holder that played Ave Maria, although my own personal favourite is the clock that plays Tantum Ergo on the hour. (I am also the proud owner of the 2010 Westminster Cathedral Chapter Calendar. Vince Nichols is Mr January.)
I had referred to tat in the original post; I'm now wondering if this is an exclusively British term, ascjbanning, an American Anglo-Catholic, didn't know it.
Anyway: 'tat' in Anglican use (not just Anglo-Catholic usage, at least among the clergy; evangelical laypeople probably have no need of the term) does not mean tacky gifts or devotional objects, which are not generally an Anglican thing,* apart from those Archbishoply Christmas tree ornaments which look vaguely like ++Rowan and ++John. Rather, it is the accepted slang term for vestments (stoles, albs, cottas, cassocks, chasubles, etc., and sometimes by extension clerical shirts, though those aren't technically vestments). It's generally used with a degree of irony or self-satire, and mostly by people who do get quite fussy about vestments, and who will go off on lengthy rants about how much they hate cassock albs. They probably also have Watts & Co's homepage bookmarked, and procrastinate by looking for antique vestments on eBay. They will undoubtedly also have strong views, one way or the other, on the subject of lace.
See also: tat queen, n., derogatory (or self-ironic), a cleric or lay person who spends an inappropriate amount of time (or: slightly more time than you do) thinking about tat, or who favours more lace than you do. E.g. "Did you see John's new alb? Lace from the nipples down! He's such a tat queen!"
tat fair, n., sale of vestments/ clerical garments, usually in context of clerical suppliers hawking their wares round theological colleges.
* Though this doesn't stop Anglo-Catholics having a fine collection of tacky Roman Catholic objets d' - something. I, alas, can only boast a glow-in-the-dark figurine of Our Lady of Loreto (she's very handy; if I leave my keys next to her, I can find them in the dark), but you've got to start somewhere.
liadnan, and was seconded by cjbanning:Is Anglo-Catholic tat like Roman Catholic tat? My friend once found a loo roll holder that played Ave Maria, although my own personal favourite is the clock that plays Tantum Ergo on the hour. (I am also the proud owner of the 2010 Westminster Cathedral Chapter Calendar. Vince Nichols is Mr January.)
I had referred to tat in the original post; I'm now wondering if this is an exclusively British term, as
cjbanning, an American Anglo-Catholic, didn't know it.Anyway: 'tat' in Anglican use (not just Anglo-Catholic usage, at least among the clergy; evangelical laypeople probably have no need of the term) does not mean tacky gifts or devotional objects, which are not generally an Anglican thing,* apart from those Archbishoply Christmas tree ornaments which look vaguely like ++Rowan and ++John. Rather, it is the accepted slang term for vestments (stoles, albs, cottas, cassocks, chasubles, etc., and sometimes by extension clerical shirts, though those aren't technically vestments). It's generally used with a degree of irony or self-satire, and mostly by people who do get quite fussy about vestments, and who will go off on lengthy rants about how much they hate cassock albs. They probably also have Watts & Co's homepage bookmarked, and procrastinate by looking for antique vestments on eBay. They will undoubtedly also have strong views, one way or the other, on the subject of lace.
See also: tat queen, n., derogatory (or self-ironic), a cleric or lay person who spends an inappropriate amount of time (or: slightly more time than you do) thinking about tat, or who favours more lace than you do. E.g. "Did you see John's new alb? Lace from the nipples down! He's such a tat queen!"
tat fair, n., sale of vestments/ clerical garments, usually in context of clerical suppliers hawking their wares round theological colleges.
* Though this doesn't stop Anglo-Catholics having a fine collection of tacky Roman Catholic objets d' - something. I, alas, can only boast a glow-in-the-dark figurine of Our Lady of Loreto (she's very handy; if I leave my keys next to her, I can find them in the dark), but you've got to start somewhere.
