One of the "unkind myths" about the CfE is that our members are moving to Rome "in their droves". I saw an article by a (non-Anglican) journalist about this, and I e-mailed her challenging this assertion. She could only reply that it was "hearsay". We do lose a few to Rome, but we also have people that move the other way. But elsewhere there seems to be a tendency to set up splinter churches. I learnt this when I joined a forum called Anglican Diaspora. I'd thought that this was about Anglican churches outside the CofE, eg in Australia, Canada, Nigeria, Wales, etc. But it turned out to be full of Anglican discontents. I didn't go down a treat. One guy "disliked my theology"? My theology? Ah, yes, it was because I approve of women priests. I suspect that why this "diaspora" hasn't happened in England (discounting the ill-starred "Ordinariate") is that the CofE is very broad church, from zealous evangelicals to pious Anglo-Catholics. If your local church is not to your liking, you can normally find another one not too far away. But as I imply, that does not seem to be the case elsewhere. There's The Traditional Anglican Communion and, I gather, the CEC (Anglo-Catholic). Is there a "Celtic Christian" church too? I'd be interested to learn more.
North America probably has the greatest number of Anglican factions anywhere in the world. There is no way that I will remember them all, but I can give you a sense of the "diaspora" situation here. A number of groups have split from The Episcopal Church over the years, and some of them have a presence in Canada as well. You have the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC), which traditionally emphasizes the Protestant side of Anglicanism. They left what is now called TEC in the 19th Century. Then there are the Continuing Anglicans, who left TEC around the time that women's ordination was introduced. More recently, there was a trend among Anglicans here who left during the Gene Robinsion situation to affiliate with Anglican Communion churches in other parts of the world. For example, there was the Anglican Mission in the Americas, which consisted of former Episcopalians (and maybe a few Canadian Anglicans?) who were now part of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. Several other countries had their own versions of this arrangement, and each had its own acronym. Most of them eventually became the Anglican Church in North America. ACNA seeks to be recognized as the official North American province of the Anglican Communion. And I'm sure that I have forgotten somebody or left somebody out. There are also a handful of Ordinariate churches here, along with Western Rite Orthodox churches. The tragedy of it all is this: as the "diaspora" increases, those of us who are still in TEC have fewer and fewer options. The Church of England does offer more options. When groups leave, it weakens us, because we lose their talents, insights, gifts, and fellowship. We also lose their faithfulness and their way of being Anglican. But they don't necessarily get stronger, and sometimes they continue the splitting process. The situation is complicated.
Many thanks. I think that the "CEC (Anglo-Catholic)" must be the "Christian Episcopal Church" which appears to have moved away because of women priests. I gather that there is also an Anglican Catholic Church in Australia.
In the situation of Canada, the break-away groups are so tiny. They may be more significant in the United States, but there are probably a somewhat sizeable but small parishes that are part of AMiA and the ACCC (Anglican Catholic Church of Canada). The thing is, Canadian parishes, even though under jurisdiction of the local diocese, are generally autonomous. They can thus choose whether to have female clergy or not, or give same-sex blessings or not. Some of these breakaway groups did join the Church of Rome eventually, and others stayed. Heck, even the whole Prayer Book mess is rather daft, because many Anglican parishes here offer a traditional BCP service early morning, before the main contemporary BAS service afterwards. I do find their separations rather distasteful, as these parishes were never forced to do things like change their liturgical services, or accept female clergy, or do same-sex blessings, but alas. So as long as they are happy, and they do no harm to others.
Yes, it does sound complicated. What interests me is whether these splinter churches consider themselves, or are considered to remain part of the Anglican Communion. I'm sure the situation varies and, of course, the Archbishop of Canterbury is primus inter pares, not a Pope. As far as I know there are two acid tests. One is the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral (which includes the Historic Episcopate), and the second is whether Canterbury/Lambeth decides, in its wisdom, who to invite to the Lambeth Conference. (I get the impression that the XXXIX Articles are considered rather archaic). The CofE has had its stresses and strains over the years, of course, back to the Oxford Movement in the nineteenth century and before that the reforms described by Trollope. In the 1950s some priests were defecting to Rome because of Anglican participation in the Church of South India. And of course we had the women priests and now the women bishops issue. And the gay one. There's a prosperous (evangelical) CofE church I know where the Vicar is anti-gay, anti-women priests and unfriendly to the RC Church. An increasingly isolated position, perhaps.
My understanding is that acceptance of the Quadrilateral is not a sign of membership of the Anglican Community. The two tests are (1) as you say, invitation by ++Cantuar to the Lambeth Conference and (2) membership of the Anglican Consultative Council. My belief is that these two tests show that the only Province of the Anglican Communion in the US is TEC.
Many thanks. I've now done my homework on the Anglican Consultative Council, and you're right. As far as the Quadrilateral is concerned, I take it that accepting it is not enough to get membership of the Anglican Communion, but I can't see how a church which did not accept it could be considered for membership.
Oh, yes I'm sure you are right that a church seeking membership would have to accept the Quadrilateral — but then no doubt many non-Anglicans would have no problem with it, either. Indeed in its first existence, as the Chicago Quadrilateral, it was intended to be a starting point for unity conversations with non-Anglican churches.
That should have read Anglican Communion, not Anglican Community, of course. Auto-correct strikes again. Membership of the Anglican Community might be quite another thing.
Thanks again. I thought of another point. Even if a splinter church is not part of the Anglican Communion, presumably if its clergy are validly ordained, ie via the Apostolic Succession, their orders are ipso facto regarded as valid, so inter-communion remains. I have a feeling that this applies to various non-Anglican churches, eg the Old Catholic Church and the Church of Sweden. It does not apply to the Methodists, but we do, of course, regard Roman Catholic orders as valid.
The Anglican Communion is a relatively new concept within Anglicanism, thus I can't see it being so binding as to exclude any otherwise anglican bodies from anglicanism proper.
Well, it's up to ++Justin Cantuar to decide who to invite to the Lambeth Conference, isn't it? I'm not sure who decides about membership of the Anglican Consultative Council. How would you define "Anglicanism proper"?
I've posted this link here before, Seagull, but I do so again because I think it speaks, at least as far as the Church of England is concerned, to the points you have raised: http://churchofengland.org/media/1389262/gs misc 1011 - acna.pdf