« 'Whiners' | Main | To be Conservative and Anglican »

July 11, 2008

Comments

Senescent

Yes, Anglicanism means Canterbury and whatnot. Meant. But if the Africans, in the name of Anglicanism, do something else loudly and charismatically enough to capture people's mindshare, then that will be Anglicanism. They don't need "the right". What would "the right" do for them, anyway?

William Burns

What the Africans do outside the authority of "Canterbury" would no more be Anglicanism than what Anglicans do outside the structure of "Rome" is Catholicism. That being said, fundamentalism with nice robes and liturgy could be very attractive to a lot of people, in and out of the global south.

Mark

So what role do the 39 Articles play?

anglican

i have to say i disagree strongly with he point despite this being a blog i want. I thik the colonial point was silly and after all who cares? I think it was just designed to point out to the liberals they're a bunch of dead or dying whites in a way not really germane to the argument at least from a conservative point of view.

However I really don't see how the Archbishop of Canterbury point holds. Firstly there is a logical point if say a nuclear attack wiped the island of Britian clean of human life but didn't affect the rest of the world-is the argument seriously the Anglican Communion would no longer exist?

The Archbishop of Canterbury has never been a minny pope. Indeed for a large part of the Church of England's history he lacked any substantial power in York-his the most senior prelate his no more the head or defining feature of the Church of England or the Anglican Communion that the Duke of Norfolk is the British Aristocracy both would survive with the (tragic) loss of their most senior member. historically the crown had a lot more author8ty but the Colseno affair showed one could be Anglican without being under the Crown (and really American independence before that)

Moreover this doesn’t seem to make sense from the point of history. There was an Archbishop of Canterbury under Mary Tudor does that mean he was "anglican" no! he sent people to their deaths for affirming the beliefs of the church of England!

This is an attempt to define Anglicanism in terms of confessions. Anglican institutions are those which affirm the confessions of the Church of England- the 39 articles as Mark says but also the ordinal and book of common prayer (the original two). This seems a reasonable definition-it's how most religious institutions define themselves after all. Just as with any other denomination save the RC's one bishop does not define the whole denomination¬!

That is not to say the bishop is not part of it-as indeed there is no suggestion in the GAFCON comments they believe or want to get rid of the Archbishop. Merely he doesn't define the whole denomination!

anglican

i have to say i disagree strongly with he point despite this being a blog i want. I thik the colonial point was silly and after all who cares? I think it was just designed to point out to the liberals they're a bunch of dead or dying whites in a way not really germane to the argument at least from a conservative point of view.

However I really don't see how the Archbishop of Canterbury point holds. Firstly there is a logical point if say a nuclear attack wiped the island of Britian clean of human life but didn't affect the rest of the world-is the argument seriously the Anglican Communion would no longer exist?

The Archbishop of Canterbury has never been a minny pope. Indeed for a large part of the Church of England's history he lacked any substantial power in York-his the most senior prelate his no more the head or defining feature of the Church of England or the Anglican Communion that the Duke of Norfolk is the British Aristocracy both would survive with the (tragic) loss of their most senior member. historically the crown had a lot more author8ty but the Colseno affair showed one could be Anglican without being under the Crown (and really American independence before that)

Moreover this doesn’t seem to make sense from the point of history. There was an Archbishop of Canterbury under Mary Tudor does that mean he was "anglican" no! he sent people to their deaths for affirming the beliefs of the church of England!

This is an attempt to define Anglicanism in terms of confessions. Anglican institutions are those which affirm the confessions of the Church of England- the 39 articles as Mark says but also the ordinal and book of common prayer (the original two). This seems a reasonable definition-it's how most religious institutions define themselves after all. Just as with any other denomination save the RC's one bishop does not define the whole denomination¬!

That is not to say the bishop is not part of it-as indeed there is no suggestion in the GAFCON comments they believe or want to get rid of the Archbishop. Merely he doesn't define the whole denomination!

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Masthead

  • Moral philosophy, political commentary, and elevated snark from a licensed technician. Further Details »

Miscellanies

  • Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More
    Google
    Web PoMoCo
    Listed on BlogShares Technorati blog directory