I was baptised when I was 2 months old and confirmed when I was 12, and as far as I know any time after birth an infant can be baptised in the Anglican Church of Australia.
Yes, Anglicans baptize babies. For children, confirmation is separated from baptism until the child is old enough to responsibly answer for themselves. An older child or adult may be baptized and confirmed within the same service. Church of England FAQ on Baptism/Confirmation: http://www.churchofengland.org/wedd...firmation/frequently-asked-questions.aspx#age
Yes we baptise babies! I was baptised at the age of two weeks. Yes Confirmation is seperate and usually afterthe person has been prepared through education .
This sounds strange to me. Marriage in Church, I think, has sense only if couples are Christians. Why should be Church married atheists, Muslims...?
I agree with you in fact! The law of the land states that marriage in The C.of E. Church should be open at the request of most if not all. This is because the C.of E., are the established Church in England! Mind you I can't for the life in me, see why anyone should want to marry in church if the couple aren't Christian! I imagine that it is tradition and that's changing in modern times.
How many dioceses there are in England? Is there some standard how many approximately people should be in one diocese?
Serbian brother, there are 44 dioceses in the Church of England. These are placed into two Provinces: Canterbury & York. The Province of Canterbury consists of 30 dioceses, and is overseen by the Metropolitan (in Orthodox language) who is the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Province of York consists of 14 dioceses, and is overseen by the Metropolitan who is the Archbishop of York. Each diocese is ruled by a bishop, but councils, synods, and meetings of all the bishops are presided over by the Metropolitan. The dioceses are mostly ordered according to old borders drawn up many centuries ago. Ely was founded as a diocese around A.D. 1108, for example. Population was probably a factor back then, but I myself do not know how it has evolved since.
Does that mean that there are 2 synods? One gathered under one archbishop, another under second archbishop?
No; York has its own local councils, and Canterbury has its own local councils. They both use these small synods to resolve minor or local issues, like Carthage under Cyprian in the 3rd century, or other local councils in the old days. York always consults with Canterbury, of course. In the General Synod of the Church of England, both Provinces meet together to decide policy for the entire National Church. General Synod is under the Archbishop of Canterbury's jurisdiction, as primate of England and primus inter pares of the Anglican Communion.
There are at least two meetings of the General Synod every year, often three. The General Synod consists of three houses: the 44 bishops of England, more than 200 clergy, and more than 200 laity. All three houses must give a majority-vote for any legislation to pass. These Three Houses gather to meet in the University of York once, and at Church House in London once (or twice, if there are thre meetings of the Synod that year).
[quote="Servos, post: 8962, member: 1164"]I know that High Church is conservative and Low Church is liberal. How did this movements in Anglicans get their name? What is connection between "high" and "conservatism"? I presume some historical. When did this movements begin? Is it possible that one High Church congregation get Low Church priest? [/quote] I cannot speak authoritatively for the C of E or other Anglican communions, but in the ECUSA there is great liberty in liturgical practice, which in my opinion is a blessing. Practices range from huge Gothic Cathedrals in large cities to small cabins on an Indian Reservation with 5 people huddled around a wood stove on a cold winter Sunday. The '79 BCP gives latitude in the tone of the service with Rite 1 using KJV language throughout, and somewhat lengthy additions such as the Decalogue. Rite 2 is shorter with contemporary language, but both liturgies allow additions and subtractions within it's parameters for the Priest. A "high church" in our tradition would use a Rite 1 service with incense and chanted prayers, but a "high church" person tends to bow, genuflect, and cross themselves. Low church obviously would be the polar opposite of these folks and practices, yet loved and welcomed by each. Jeff+
As to the origins of "High" and "Low" churches, The High Church, from about 1600-1850, referred to those who believed that the Church as an institution, hierarchy, and authority has the right to certain privileges in the country. High churchmen of that era believed in the rights of the Crown, the Monarch as Governor of the Church, and refused to use any Liturgy other than that contained in the Book of Common Prayer. They were for the continued establishment of the state church as the state religion. They generally kept old crosses and some statues/images. They kept the cruciform & basilica churches, with the Altar or Holy Table as the center of attention. The Low Church, from about 1600-1850, referred to those who were often dissenters from the use of the Prayer Book, the 39 Articles, and Established Church theology. They included Calvinists, Baptists, Congregationalists, and later Methodists. They were opposed to the retaining of any statues, crosses, or candles. They built their churches in a round or square style, with the Pulpit being the center of all attention. They were utterly upposed to the Monarch being the Head or Governor of the Church, and wanted disestablishment of churches from the State and Crown. These are the original versions. One had a "high" or "low" doctrine of the Church depending on his ecclesiology. Our terms have changed since 1850, because of the controversy about rituals and ceremonies. Church authority has disappeared somewhat as a problem, and it's more up to how you worship God. So, High Church from 1850-2013 refers to the style using candles, incense, Latin, choral communion, chants, genuflection, much bowing, processions, and as many ceremonies as possible. It has nothing to do with church authority, but how one worships God. There is some variation between the High Church congregations. Low Church from 1850-2013 has come to refer to Anglicans who have taken on a style like the Baptists or Methodists of older days, preferring a Table to an Altar, and a business suit to liturgical vestments. They never use candles, nor incense, nor chants, but prefer hymns of the people, and modern lighting. There is much variation between the Low Church congregations.
How are these clergy and lay people elected to be the part of General Synod? How long is mandate of clergy and lay people in General Synod? Where the women bishop question got stuck last time? I presume it passed the House of bishops.
Each of the two houses below Bishops have their own set members who are always on General Synod, but they are very few, and the vast majority are elected by the clergy (for the House of Clergy) and the laity (for the House of Laity) to serve in their respective houses. As Wikipedia says, for the House of Clergy: 128 elected from the Province of Canterbury, 54 elected from the Province of York, For the House of Laity: up to 170 members elected by the laity of the Province of Canterbury up to 80 members elected by the laity of the Province of York Laity get in for a 5-year term. It is beautiful to have non-bishops voting and contributing, as Athanasius did at Nicaea when he was a mere Deacon. The Houses of Bishops and Clergy passed the motion, but the Laity struck it down by about six votes. As with most times in history, the Laity fights for what is traditional and "conservative".
I have a question that perhaps someone could answer. I assumed that Anglo-Catholics identified with the Catholic Church as it existed either before the schism between east and west in 1054, or with the Church as it existed in England prior to the break with Rome. I was looking at the calendar link on the ACC (Anglican Catholic Church) website-which is based on the Anglican Breviary, and they listed Bernadette and her vision at Lourdes: http://www.anglicancatholic.org/liturgicalcalendars/87 Is this normal for Anglo-Catholics-to celebrate saints canonized,and events that occurred in the Roman Catholic Church centuries after the split with Rome? It came as a big surprise to me. Do Anglo-Catholics accept Lourdes, Fatima, the Immaculate Conception,etc?
There is great variation amongst the Anglo-Catholics. Some use an entire Latin liturgy, with the entire Roman Canon lifted from out of the Mass of Pius V. Some use the 1962 Missal of the FSSPX & FSSP traditionalists. Some use the Sarum Missal in English or in Latin, from the 15th century. Some just use the Book of Common Prayer, albeit with many ritual and ornamental additions. Anglo-Catholics, historically, have tended to follow and sympathise with Marian developments in Rome. They're a diverse bunch, as was the early Church I suppose. One thing we can certainly say about their approach to the Immaculate Conception is this: if an individual A.-C. believes it, he will not force others to accept his conscience in the matter.
Thank you Consular. I have always sympathized with the Anglo-Catholics, but it would appear some are almost entirely Roman except for acknowledging the Pope's authority. Since I posted, I researched a bit on the Anglican Breviary. Apparently it is based on the pre-Vatican II breviary, but the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, as well as the Dogma of Papal infallibility, both occurred before Vatican II. Very confusing.