(Conservative High Church) Anglicanism and Orthodoxy

Are there any conservative high church Anglicans here? I would be surprised if you are still part of the Anglican Communion. You are probably one of the various splinter groups that rejects gay marriage, gay and women priests, and other errors.

Have you heard of Western Rite Orthodoxy? I have, and that is what I prefer. Although I do not have an Anglican heritage, many Western Rite Orthodox do. In fact, one can argue that most Western Rite Orthodox are former Anglicans. Many Western Rite Orthodox even argue that this is the fulfillment of Anglicanism: in their historiography, the English Church was Orthodox/Catholic prior to the Norman Invasion, at which point the English church was essentially held captive until reborn during the reformation. In one view, we see Anglicanism as existing in parallel with Orthodoxy in the rejection of the Pope and the conservative consideration of only seven ecumenical councils.

holycatholicanglican.org/about_us.php
holycatholicanglican.org/resources/great_schism.php

Those articles are by an Anglican website.

On the other hand, we see Anglicans converting to Western Rite Orthodox as "returning" to their Orthodox past. In this conception, the English church was Orthodox until the Norman Invasion. Western Rite Orthodox, largely using Anglican materials, thus provides Anglicans with the pre-Norman Orthodox English Church.

icxc.ca/history.html

That article is by a Western Rite Orthodox Church.

The two appear to be very similar: conservative high-church Anglicans and Western Rite Orthodox.

I am curious how such Anglicans can justify being Anglican compared to entering Western Rite Orthodoxy.

Surely you would not attempt to lure me, a Western Rite Orthodoxy, away from this global communion to be part of your splinter group, yes?

Attached: Holy Card Final red outer edge tan inner with cathedral with prayer final final.jpg (1050x1801, 205.6K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Medieval_England
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I have a friend who grew up in the same nondenom church as me. I became Orthodox, he became Anglican. For anyone who takes the route he did, I see it as a way to reclaim some modicum of tradition while not denying that Protestants are (today, in real terms) "a part of the Church".
I don't know that the Western Rite would help in this case, as the barrier to Orthodoxy is not the rite itself but the Orthodox church's exclusive claims.

However, I hope and pray that these Anglicans are joined to the Church, by whatever means.

(Also, if I'm not mistaken, these splinter groups do not really "break communion" with the rest of the Anglicans, right? It is possible you are talking about different splinter groups than I am.)

What's evensong and why is it done in saturday afternoons?

We all know why the Anglican church rejected the pope, and it wasn't because of theology

The Orthodox don't have a pope, and that is because of theology. That they rejected Papism for the wrong reasons doesn't mean that Papism is right.

I'd love to see Western Rite pick up, but it barely exists. I don't think there's one parish in my entire state (and it's a big state). It seems there's as much a chance of seeing that get popular as seeing Rome go back to pre-Schism form.

Hello there, i seem to be your target demographic. I am in communion with the Catholic and Apostolic Anglican Church. The reason i won't convert isn't about theological differences its because High Church Anglicanism is extremely parochial. I feel too attached to my home parish to ever leave it and knowing that i worship in the same building that my ancestors did for over 900 years solidifies my ties. Besides that i'm not looking for perfection and the liturgy is extremely beautiful.

I was going to a HCCAR parish for a while (GOARCH now). Pretty comfy, since I think it was me, one other guy, and what I assume were the priest and his family. Left because i got a LARPy feel from it, but the people were very nice.

That's great. I feel extremely bad for Anglicans and I think it's one of the great tragedies of our time.

Lol

Orthodox believe the west was fully Orthodox until the schism. The Norman invasion was in 1066, and the schism began in 1054. What is so funny?

Just enjoying it whilst it lasts tbh. I may even join the church myself and see how far I can get up the heirarchy. If I get close enough to the top I might be able to make a difference.

That England was Orthodox in 1066, and not in lockstep with its Mother Church, Rome. It’s delusional from the ravings of Vladimir Moss.

Yup. High Church Anglican in a non-TEC/CofE group here. Actively working within our Church to heal relationships with canterbury and bring Anglicanism back to the traditional faith.

I've attended two Western Rite services and I have not felt the spirit at all. There was lots of liturgy and everyone was very kind, but it just felt very empty compared to my home parish. That being said, I love Orthodoxy and if we don't see progress with Canterbury I could be convinced to join.

Attached: 1499373858699.jpg (2048x1356, 1.9M)

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Medieval_England
So Anglo-Saxons were in lockstep with Rome, and when the Normans invaded they replaced the former churchmen (who were in lockstep with Rome) with new churchmen (who were in lockstep with Rome), abolishing some of the former practices (that were in lockstep with Rome) and bringing in their own practices (that were also in lockstep with Rome)?

Are you sure?

way more in common with the Latins than the Greek, you know, just going by cultural proximity

True, but being culturally Latin/Western doesn't stop you from being Orthodox.

Leave it to papists to also be historical revisionists.

Attached: Mildred_von_Minster.jpg (288x411 86.89 KB, 36.64K)

Thanks for sharing those beautiful icons. I'd never seen them before :>

This is what happens when all your intellectuals are reclused monks from rural Russia

Have fun with that intellectualism

Attached: heresy.jpg (810x450, 343.12K)

Yes, I am sure. The same English Church that taught the Filioque and was in the same mind in terms of the faith, whose Metropolitans were conferred the pallium by the Pope, who looked to the Pope for the making of Bishops and who looked to Rome as their Mother Church with great affection. Indeed, the same English Church, including the same deposed Bishops, IIRC, that accepted its new practices and churchmen with grace. As for the replacement of Bishops, that was done by William the Conquerer because the Anglo-Saxon episcopacy supported Harold Godwinson nd not him.

Somehow the Phanar believe the English were Orthodox with all that entails.

Attached: 34B7751E-AAB4-46EC-BA5D-B4F8E3D7CE5D.jpeg (420x588, 40.32K)

The only revisionist is Vladimir Moss and his ravings.

The Orthodox believe the West was fully Orthodox before the schism. The question is when it ceased to be, and 1066 is a year which would fit the timetable. Perhaps you would prefer 1054, but its doubtful that the Anglo-Saxons cared much about the East at that time.

And the Papacy let him depose faithful Catholic bishops without good reason? The Papacy would later tell the king of England that he could not divorce his wife, why did the Pope stop Henry but not William?

Could it be that William was collaborating with the recently-schismatic Rome? If so, 1066 seems to be the right year to demarcate the change in Anglo-Saxon religion.

It didn’t, then investiture controversy was a really big deal and the papacy was absolutely against Kings appointing or deposing bishops.


The papacy actually demanded William the conquer’s successor to stop investing bishops which he agreed to (though he would still had influence in the decision making for who would be chosen)

In fact when the Pope tried to do the same thing in the Holy Roman Empire around the same time as all this was going on with the Normans, and it it Culminated in the Emperor Henry IV’s excommunication and his subsequent invasion of Rome which caused the Pope to be in exile until his son Henry V took power


But in short, no the Papacy did not just let him depose bishops for no reason and was certainly not collaborating with him to do it.

As I said, the Church of England was the in same mind in terms of faith with Rome, there was no divide in the religion of Rome and England at this point. It was thoroughly Latin. How then could you construe it as Orthodox rather than Catholic?

The Church of Rome has to deal with a lot at the time, and it would wrest control from secular powers with St. Gregory VII and Innocent III.

The fact that it took a French bastard to conquer England in the name of the Pope.

David Howarth, in his book 1066 The Year of the Conquest, explains:

Why would el papa need to conquer a country to convert it to Catholicism if it was already Catholic? Perhaps the old Church of England was Orthodox Christian before 1066.

He didn’t conquer England in the name of the Pope, he was supported by the Pope as the rightful king; of course, there were reasons for this, as Frank Barlow relates:

Is this what Howarth means when he refers to ‘errant church’? Stigand, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was excommunicated for holding two bishoprics (Canterbury and Winchester) at once, pluralism, in fact. Lanfranc used this to insist to Rome, and the Pope, the need for reform of the English Church, I believe. Stigand was indeed schismatic, though the affair was rather complicated, and was excommunicated by the Pope of Rome.

It is worthy of note, as Frank Barlow writes:

It wasn’t a conversion, they were of the same faith. It was over the ‘reformation of the English Church’, as Howarth would put it. And, as Frank Barlow presents it, it was indeed in a sorry state. It was a ‘casus belli’, so to speak, used by William to conquerer England.

There is no evidence that it was Orthodox. It would have not have condemned the Filioque (it did not in 1054), it beheld itself to the Pope of Rome, etc., etc.. It followed Rome and not the East in 1054, if we presume the schism to have started in 1054.

Attached: B2F3166C-7DE1-4997-A617-481D6F2D7E66.jpeg (349x331, 46.77K)

This thread has motivated me to submit a request for an article entitled: 'The Orthodoxy of the Anglo-Saxons: Conversion and loyalty in the pre-conquest English church,' which can hopefully help shed some light on the subject. I'm not familiar with the journal it's published from, but I'm not into Church scholarship as a whole and the editorial board seems to be jointly composed of Roman Catholics and Orthodox. Many of the Catholics are from Anglo dioceses as well.
I was hoping I could get immediate access but would anybody be interested in going over it with me in a couple of days? Should I make a thread for it if this one isn't around?

Attached: SaintPatrick-small__32474.1473872570.1280.1280.jpg (427x720, 143.56K)

I like this idea and I think another thread would be enlightening for us all.

Luckily, something is still true despite the orthodox claiming otherwise

Ayyo mayne dem anglos n sheeit dey was orthodox until dem mufuggen normans and sheet came and converted us all cuz they papists maybe naw wat Im sayen?
We wuz anglos mayne

Reevaluating and revising longstanding conceptions of pre-schism theological environments is an important topic now that Eastern Orthodoxy is stepping into the west. Even if the results are complete identical to some people's pre-existing narratives, it's an important process of rediscovering Orthodoxy's historical context and finding a place for it in modernity. If the results are not congruent to past conceptions, much could be disrupted or converged, which I understand might be upsetting for some.

Both sides of the schism have a vested interest in these questions, though, which will become ever more pertinent as we draw closer to 2025.

Not an argument. We will pray for you.

Attached: joseph.jpg (1199x1600, 369.75K)

Please do share!

Hello, my siblings in Christ. I present to you "The Orthodoxy of the Anglo-Saxons." There is actually a lot of speculation, I suppose sources are going to be rare for such a niche theological topic. I haven't had the time to fully comb the paper because of school but here is the complete article and some excerpts and observations I think are worth mentioning. My small list of quotes is not at all representative of the text and only a fool would cite greentext instead of reading the article themselves.

surprising in part because it comes from a council presided over by a Greek bishop


judging by the Derrynaflan paten (only mention at all of Celtic Rite)

gradually was changed to unleavened bread. The change was probably uneven in most places, though Alcuin of York was under the impression that unleavened bread was a universal custom

Greek Church, the Anglo-Saxons would have been more closely associated with the Latins than with the Greeks, and subject to the same prejudices that the Byzantines associated with the Latins as rustics.

refugees fled to Norway, Denmark, and France and only rarely to the East.

Constantinople, particularly in the Varangian guard, is well attested in near-contemporaneous accounts


among the bishops, but later chroniclers noted that after the Conquest, married clergy were forced to cease their ministry or live in perpetual continence

but with poor results; there were still complaints about married priests even until the end of the century. There were those who felt that it was impossible to completely eradicate clerical marriage in any case, with Herbert of Norwich directly stating that if he were to suspend all the married priests in his diocese he would have to close down
all his parishes


disdain for Anglo-Saxon saints, Susan Ridyard argues that just as often the Normans were ready to co-opt the very same saints and proceeded to fully document local patron saints’ lives precisely because they understood their utility in maintaining a functioning religious community

of course I messed up the quotes. I should also mention that the author, Jack Turner, actually specializes in Western Rite scholarship. His other papers might be of interest.

I'm a protestant who's looking into denominations. Basically all I've heard about Anglicanism is that the King of England wanted a divorce so he broke off from Catholicism but otherwise stayed the same. Is this correct, and how much of that has changed today?
Also, I hear the Episcopal Church mentioned alongside the Anglican sometimes. Are they related?
Also, If OP could elaborate on Western Rite and how it is related/differs from Eastern Orthodox that'd be appreciated.

That's just Henry VIII's initial motivation. Elizabeth and James I (of KJV fame) embraced Protestant a bit more fully.. but also pissed off Puritans because they ruled that the sacramental and pageantry aspects of Catholicism be kept (among a few other doctrinal things.. like revering saints). But by the 19th century, it was all over the place, spawning both the traditional and liberal thinkers.. then by the 20th, it was fully gay.

Episcopal is independent, but had it's starts as the colonial branch of Anglicanism (America, Africa, etc).

So neither Anglican or Episcopal are much like Catholicism any more, but are more like other protestant denominations?

Catholicism is creeping itself towards what Anglicanism/Episcopalians became too. So Catholicism isn't much like Catholicism all the time either. Especially on the higher/leadership levels. It's embracing much of the scholarship of the Left wing academic world, like mainline Protestants do.

Traditionalists here aren't like that, but from my understanding, that's why they're annoyed by Vatican II. It liberalized the church (and not in good ways).

So what are the conservative denominations? I know there's a North American Anglican Church that split off from the Episcopal Church (I think?) and there's something called GAFCON.

Orthodox for the most part (the problems are mostly individual), Traditional Catholics (I don't know why they're not Orthodox though), and I dare say.. some Evangelicals actually. Even if they have some tacky approaches, I think they've maintained a core bible-based approach to their faith. It's confusing though, and you have to discern between them and mainline Protestants. Sometimes they look the same at first.