I do believe that is a far better way to describe the Anglican Church. It is the Catholic Church and it is reformed.
No, we are perfectly entitled to remain within the Anglican Church and in our dioceses. Indeed, changing diocese is a ridiculous suggestion: saying we should completely uproot our lives and move which is likely to also mean moving jobs or changing employer and moving our children to different schools. Those of us who believe that the Church is wrong on this issue, who believe it has acted ultra vires and disobeyed Divine Law are free to remain the faithful Anglicans that we are. I know that supporters of women's ordination want us to disappear but it is not going to happen.
We are protesting the errors of the Roman Catholic Church; didn't you know that? Article 19 states in part: "As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome has erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith." Article 22 says: "The Roman [Catholic] doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saint, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God." Article 25 targets another RC error: "The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them." Article 28 opposes RC doctrine as well: "Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Scripture, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthrows the nature of a Sacrament, and has given occasion to many superstitions...The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped." The protestations of the Anglicans against the Romans is deeply embedded in our statement of beliefs. As the article in North American Anglican points out, "Asked if we Anglicans are Protestant or Catholic, some will say: “We are Catholic, but not Roman–we are not Protestants.” This is simplistic and historically erroneous, and any layperson with an interest in reading the history of Anglicanism would soon find very Catholic-sounding Churchmen of the 16th and 17th centuries (such as Bishops Cosin and Andrewes) embracing the term Protestant." This article also quotes William Van Mildert, Bishop of Durham from 1826-1836, as follows: “At the Reformation the Church of England became protestant in order to become more truly and perfectly Catholic.”
You seem to overlook that Bp. Cosin called the Anglican Church "Protestant" as well as "Reformed." Certainly, Botolph is correct in calling Anglicanism "Reformed Catholicism," but that does not make my statement (that we are protestant catholic Christians) incorrect. Would you be happier if I'd said, "protestant reformed catholic Christians"? I have no problem with that, other than 'it's a mouthful to say.'
Protestants are Western Rite Christians that reject Papal Supremacy. In that sense we are protesting Protestants are Western Christians that are separate from Rome. In that sense we are protesting papal supremacy/the doctrines that have followed from it. The Anglican Church is a protestant church by definition, so I guess there is no space for those not protesting. We would call those people either Roman Catholics or Orthodox Christians and it's not really possible to be that and Anglican at the same time. But if you don't like the connotations of the term you don't need to use it.
I think the point that I am making, and indeed I think it is the point that Matthew Parker was making, is that this diagram is QUITE WRONG when it comes to Anglicanism. So too is the diagram promoted by the Latin Patriarchy that Anglicanism begins in 597-600. We are an historic Church reaching right back to the earliest foundations of Chritianity in Europe. Anglicanism began as a Church independent of Rome and it was not until the Augustinian Mission that any attempt was made to subject us to Rome. The issues surrounding the the Acts of Separation from Rome 1537, 1558, did not represent an attempt to found a new church, but rather to restrict the Power of the Pope, which was exercised not simply in religious terms but also in terms of political and secular authority. There is much to suggest that the foundation of a number of other Churches in this period deliberately sought a separation on theological grounds. The Anglican position has certainly embraced with restraint a number of those concerns. The same could be said of the RCC when you see with Vatican II the return of the lingua franci to the liturgy and the restoration of the common cup, both of which were big issues in the 16th century. I don't have a problem with Protestant Churches, many of my friends are members of them, however I think we sell Anglicanism short when we simply fall in line with a title and a myth that we didn't exist before 1537/1588. Our History is much closer to 2000 years tahn it is to 500 years. I am not anti-Rome, and I am not anti-protestant, I am an Anglican, and in this great venerable and ancient tradition I walk the Christian Journey. Anglicanism has been influenced by, and also influenced the continental reformation, and we have been cited as having a significant impact on a number of the decisions which were part of Vatican II. We have learned much, we have contributed much and we have much to offer. We should long remember whose banners William carried into battle at Hastings.
I'm sorry but my post came across as aggressive, and I certainly don't want anyone to disappear. One of the things that I love most about the Anglican Communion is the freedom to disagree with each other. I think I was trying to say, in my very awkward and semi-hostile way, was that there are all points of view on this matter, and that's ok too. No one has to move dioceses - that was more along the lines of, there is plenty of variety in different dioceses. I stumbled across the perfect parish and perfect diocese for me. And I just hope that everyone else finds their perfect 'spiritual home' too (without having to move anywhere). I don't think the genie is going to be put back in the bottle on this particular issue, but there will probably always be differing viewpoints since that is what is so wonderful about being Anglican. Sorry for sounding hostile or aggressive.
I'm afraid it did rather. Oh, I am in complete agreement. As much as I don't like women's ordination I know that it isn't going away. I think what we need to do is to find a way to live together in the same church. Thank you. It takes a certain kind of person and courage to apologise. I really do appreciate this. From what you have already said about yourself I was rather surprised that you're being considered for ordination so soon after being received into the Angloican Church.
Once again, I have confused the issue. I have just been received into the Anglican church, that is true. And yes, I am 'being considered' for ordination, but not in the immediate future obviously. I am studying a theology post-graduate degree at the moment and it will be a couple of years before I am finished. I am also doing what is called 'The Bishop's Certificate' here as a sort of preparation. But I don't see ordination for awhile yet. I am also in the position of being able to become a non-stipendiary priest, so there will be no question of me running a parish one day and the church having to support me. These are all long term hopes and dreams of mine. And I am fortunate in that I have a supportive parish priest and bishop working with me. The thing I do know is that when we make plans, God laughs. But I am not as concerned with destination as I am with the journey, and I am really enjoying that. Thank you for accepting my apology. I have an abrupt style of writing sometimes, but I am not an aggressive person normally - just opinionated perhaps. The Internet is a wonderful place for miscommunication and misunderstandings, isn't it? Your statement about us finding a way to live together in the same church is the very reason I became an Anglican - respect for each other.
Indeed, that is one of the problems with the Internet. We see only the written word but we humans communicate, also, by many non-verbal signs. May I clarify your situation? I understand you feel a vocation to the priesthood. Would you say your Anglican church has accepted you have a vocation and one day you will study for holy orders? Alternatively, does it remain currently your hope but with no official acceptance from your church? I'm just seeking clarity on your situation. I pray you don't think I'm working up to making some judgement.
There is no way to "live together". Have you not seen the last 30 years of the Church of England? Do these three decades indicate a possibility of living together? We must consult the definition of insanity, doing the same thing again and again but expecting different results. What is the way forward? A contest of Christ with Belial. It's very simple. Not easy; but simple. The orthodox churches are growing. The heterodox churches are dying. Simple. Even now, there are new Anglican jurisdictions forming in England. In the next 30 years, while you will be conciliating with the enemy and trying to find common ground with those would see you disappear, the nameless orthodox troops and soldiers of Christ will be planting hundreds of churches, forming catechesis classes, administering the sacraments, and consecrating the new hierarchy in parallel with the captured hiearchy of the Church of England. Considering the demographics, the CofE might go out of existence in 30 years. And I don't put it beyond the realm of possibility that the orthodox camp, in those same 30 years, will consecrate the new Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Church of Christ will continue, as it has for the last 2000 years.
My bishop, the Primus of the Free Church of England, is under the impression that 10-40 years from now, general unity will be found between the various independent Anglican bodies in Great Britain. Currently we're horrendously fractious, and if we are to displace the apostates from their Sees, we need unity.
Yes, I feel a vocation to the priesthood. My parish priest has supported my conversion as well as my vocation, and helped me integrate into the parish community, who also support me and my hope. My bishop has invited me to do the Bishop's Certificate next year, along with my other theological studies with a view towards ordination eventually. His intention is that I take on some leadership role within the parish, while also continuing my vocational path. He has also said that considering my age and previous experiences and my education (I already have a Masters in Education and am doing theology at post-graduate level) and several other factors, as well as my intention to be placed in a non stipendiary (self-supporting) ministry, that the process should take less time than usual for me. So to answer your questions, yes there is support and acceptance, but as for 'official' - I am not sure what you mean by that word. One of the things out of my control was that our diocese has not had a vocations director for a couple of years (since the start of the pandemic). The Bishop and I have had conversations about my vocation, but he has not had the time to take over that role as well so there have been no paths to start the process. The Bishop did tell me at my reception though that a new vocations director will be starting in the new year. So let's hope that Omicron doesn't lead to more lock-downs and other restrictions again, and I can actually meet up with the new director! No one in our diocese has been able to complete an application or join a 'come and see' group for discernment or start formal training due to our strict lock down rules. We are no longer in lock down, so hopefully in the new year, things will start to move forward again - officially and I can be on the road to being ordained a deacon, and then after that a priest. God willing. Although I do believe I have a vocation, I also accept that my life has never really gone according to 'my plans', so now I just make the plans but don't stress about the outcomes. I do my best, and leave the rest ... so to speak, in God's hands. I am aware that you, along with so many others, believe that female ordination is wrong, and have what you all consider quite solid theological arguments to support your views. I don't happen to agree, but I respect everyone's right to their own opinion. Fortunately for me, the Bishop of my diocese supports female ordination and even ordained my current parish priest, a female.
It does sound to me like you're going to achieve your goal and be ordained. I read/feel nothing negative from what you say you're hearing. You are quite right that I don't believe women should be ordained. That isn't because I'm mysoginistic in any way. I believe its God's divine will. Therefore, any argument would have to be taken up with Him. Whilst I don't agree with women being ordained I would hold nothing against you. Indeed, I shall pray that God may lead you in whatever direction He sees is best for you. I'm certain you would aceept that. God bless!
Yes, I do support the hope that God will lead me in whatever direction he see is best for me. And if ordination is that path, then I guess I don't have to worry about any argument with Him.