I've been reading John Wesley's own thoughts on the Church of England and what strikes you was how Anglican he was, even going so far as advising Methodist leaders not to attend dissenting meetings In another letter he advises that when Methodists go to the parish church and the minister preaches on predestination, or the perseverance of the saints then hey should silently leave the church but to return next week. Here's a link to his 12 point why Methodists should remain in the Anglican church: http://anglicanhistory.org/wesley/reasons1760.html and here you can find his thoughts on the obedience due to "heathenish priests and mitred infidels" http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...athenish priests and mitred infidels"&f=false Immediately following the letter on this link you'll find a second letter on the issue of separation from the Anglican church
The above correspondence is most interesting and surprising! Yet, it remains that to be an Anglican one has to believe in the revelation of Christ once revealed to the saints! As have Anglicans and neo anglicans. It is Revelation , not after thought, that decides ones belief. Wrong belief, or even misunderstood belief remains heresy and false teaching! Revelation, scripture and seven ecumenical councils remain the basis of our beliefs not the thoughts of individuals, no matter how holy or well considered!
The question of Women Priests would appear to have hung over the Church for some two thousand years, in that time it has been men only, for whatever reason! Today things have changed and we are called to change tack on the question? To me it is divisive and is a means of splitting the Church, I feel that the three Communions that can lay claim to catholicity should study the question and possibly others, through means of the Conciliar system and come to some agreement! For myself we should agree to accept the results of the Council and those who for whatever cannot accept the results should be prepared to leave!
There is always the founder and the movement. Calvin was different from Calvinism though the seeds of it came from his teachings. Just so Wesley tried to keep his people within the Church while he was alive, but he created such a disdain for it that they schismed when he died. Then they also started schisming from each other, which illustrated that Methodism wasn't held together by a principle or truth, but just by the force of his charismatic personality.
Surprising ? Why? I was familiar with these writings of John Wesley which is why I have written about him as I have; I knew the facts. And regardless of anyone's opinion, he remained a faithful Anglican all his life.
How charitable of you. As a note, the ancient Celtic Church had a different view of women in the church than did the Romanists. BTW, I suppose you would exclude the Old Catholics from those having "catholicity".
The Methodists were given no other choice than to separate from the CoE, given the intransigence of the CoE bishops. That is fact. Or would you expect that they should have gone without the sacraments? Maybe you think an Anglican priest or bishop would have taken the sacraments to the far reaches of the isolated rural communities where many Methodist resided. Hah! I can just see that! And I notice that people on here keep talking from their high-horse about "schism" and condemning what they define as such. Maybe they should look around at the situation today within Anglicanism and count all the many Anglican bodies that are proliferating. Do you condemn that? If so, who is the true schismatic? Maybe you think everyone should have stayed in the corrupt and apostate Anglican body which they came out of -- as the Bible exhorts the faithful to do. Sometimes the greater wrong lies at the door of those who refuse to separate -- from apostasy.
Of course I don't judge anyone for staying in TEC, as Jeff is doing. He feels God has called him to stay, so he should be faithful to that. I had to take another path. I would not call the Methodist situation a schism; rather, it was a forced departure.
1. As a note, the ancient Celtic Church had a different view of women in the church than did the Romanists. I wasn't there then, but neither have I heard of this , till then I'm again it! 2. As a note, the ancient Celtic Church had a different view of women in the church than did the Romanists. 3. You must really get down to reading the gems I send in. Being a catholic is a matter of Baptism and belief, it has nothing to do with my own personal like or dislikes though heaven knows there's plenty about!
As one who keeps' talking from their high-horse about "schism" and condemning what they define as such." According to some folk, it is simply a matter of accepting the latest theory, it might well be so, but not if you want to be a n Anglican Catholic. To belong you have to believe, if that is wrong , then I shall live with it, but what kind of a Communion would we be if everyone was his own Pope? REVELATION, SCRIPTURE AND COUNCILS. Anglicanism!, don't hold to them? Then you'r outside!
As has been said before, methodists accept Revelation, Scripture, and at least the first four councils. If you think that all 7 councils are necessary for one to truly be A part of the church then you exclude many Anglicans, including several on this forum.
As we have seen on this very forum, everyone claims to hold to these, but look at the variance of beliefs here, and all the different "parties" in the Anglican Communion. Some see that as problematic; I do not, as long as orthodoxy is adhered to. Calvinism, Arminianism, Low Church, High Church, Broad Church, Evangelical, Anglo-Catholic, etc., are secondary matters.
As for the first four councils? All mainstream , or mainline ,"Christian Churches,' accept the first four. So far so good, These are the Christian Sects.. Only the catholics go further and accept the Full Seven, (Actually henry VIII, according to some historians accepted eight, as do some orthodox!) I thought I'd made it clear on these Boards and I stand by it, Anglicanism is orthodoxy as far as I am concerned. From the earliest days and through the Reformation! Up until now! The use of the term Anglican by people who do not believe in the canon of faith, is dishonest, in my opinion!