Clouseau

The 39 Articles remain the basis of the Anglican position on internal and external matters, and have not been replaced, re-written or abandoned, except that ECUSA has determined that they are of historic value only, which makes them spectators on any substantive issue. They are used in ecumenical dialogue, in matters of internal discipline. The Archbishop of Nigeria recently warned his clergy that they must adhere to them.

Ray Moscow

Clouseau, it's a major derail to argue what is and is not "Anglican" here.

I'll just repeat my statement that the Anglican communion [in general] recognises seven sacraments but only two as "essential".

And yes, most of my (former) Anglicanism comes from the US branch. Does yours come from the African branches?

Interested lurkers can read a bit more here.

Ray

Clouseau

Let us see official evidence. And not wiki-trash, please.

windsofchange

Sometimes it's hard to tell. I belong to the Byzantine Catholic Church, which is almost identical to the Eastern Orthodox church in theology, liturgy and culture. Yet it's still very much a "Catholic church" because it's in union with Rome.

I think the closer you get to the ancient mainstream churches, the more they start to look alike. Some Anglican churches seem more Catholic than St. Peter's. There are certainly doctrinal differences when you get close enough to examine them.

And Ray is correct that the "39 Articles" don't necessarily reflect today's Anglican church. Remember that it began more as a political entity to facilitate Henry VIII's divorce, rather than an attempt to redefine Christianity, so at the beginning it was pretty much similar to the Catholic church in sacraments & theology.

Clouseau

Those churches are not what keeps Anglicanism going, though, because Anglos do not pay their own way, and neither do liberals. There are those who fondly imagine that Anglicanism is only a stone's throw from Rome; but don't ignore what I wrote about the CoE's finances coming largely from evangelicals. If it were not for the 39 Articles, those people would probably not remain in the CoE, and the CoE would soon cease to exist (though it may not survive anyway). Then the Anglos would have to do the very unBritish thing of going to Rome- or else lose interest.

Sarpedon

In both cases the differences were, at their outset at least, purely political.

As an ex anglican, I can say that I can walk into a catholic mass and be able to follow along, with only the occasional jarring difference in terminology.

Having been to russia, and walked in on an orthodox mass, I can say it was completely alien to me. The priest was standing amidst the congregation, rather than by the altar, and was leading the congregation in a haunting back and forth hymn. The various rituals performed were completely unknown to me, except for the eucharist.

Architecturally, orthodox churches are centrally planned, with emphasis on the space where the congregation gathers. Catholic/anglican churches are indistinguishable one from the other, planned like auditoriums, with the altar being the clear focus.

The only thing that is more similar between the catholic and orthodox churches is the emphasis on saints, which is even more dramatic in the orthodox, while they tend to be more downplayed among anglicans.

Ray Moscow

Clouseau, why don't you start your own thread about what is and is not "Anglican"?

I'm sure that will be a bit hit with the regulars here.

Clouseau

If you don't know what is Anglican, you can't answer the thread question.

The Nigerian church numbers 17 million, btw.

Clouseau

The Reformation would have come to England without Henry's marital problems. The staunch Catholic Henry was both help and hindrance to the Reformers, who expedited reforms almost before he was cold.

Sarpedon

The fact that northern europeans were culturally disinclined to be led by Italian Popes is a political difference.

I agree that it was bigger than any one man.