Sydney Anglican Customs

135

Comments

  • Pomona wrote: »
    Yes, that's a fair comment. I wonder if there is almost a Counter Oxford Movement in Anglicanism - not necessarily a recent thing, but certainly a counter-movement of ahem, stridently heterosexual masculinity seems to have taken place in some evangelical quarters within Anglicanism.

    Oh yes, it's called "muscular Christianity". Very popular in public schools a century or so ago. Very much tied to Empire.
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    Gordon Cheng of notorious ship days always defined DioSydney in terms of Armenianism. As an Anglican who was trained in an Australian college that saw the Reformation as a temporary aberration in church history I am insufficiently aware of the differences between Beza and Zwingli, though I have heard of them, vaguely.

    Actually I think I was only vaguely aware of Luther or Calvin, too. One wielded a hammer and one wore a cap, I think. Erasmus, on the other hand was a heretic I could hug.

    (Except I don't do hugs).
  • Zappa wrote: »
    One wielded a hammer

    You're not thinking of Thor there? Easy to get these Germanic types confused...
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    Ah. St Thor. Silly me. 🙄
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Zappa, you wrote earlier that the Territory diocese is going in the Sydney direction. Alas, there is a real risk that Bathurst may also follow. I'm not sure how up-to-date you are on Bathurst's financial woes, but they are extreme. To help out, the previous bishop went to a part-time basis, and took on the position of Rector of Dubbo also on a part-time basis*. He's now retired and of course the search is underway. The diocese asked Sydney of financial help, to be met by a conditional offer - the condition being that Abp Glenn gets to approve the candidates for election. Very sad. Scots College Bathurst/Lithgow which stayed Presbyterian) has bought All Saints.

    *He and his wife walked from Bathurst to Dubbo as a public pilgrimage. It got quite a lot of publicity in the area.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    Calvin himself believed in the Real Presence!
    That depends entirely on what you mean. He did not believe that Christ was actually present in the elements the way a Roman Catholic or even a Lutheran would articulate it. He emphasised the sursum corda (''lift up your hearts") and maintained that we were brought to Christ in heaven, not the other way around (in a spiritual manner), by the Spirit who "unites things separated by space" (Institutes, book 4, chapter 17, paragraph 10, p.563). He goes on to reference 1. Cor. 10:16, noting that there "is no ground to object that the expression is figurative, and gives the sign the name of the thing signified. I admit, indeed, that the breaking of bread is a symbol, not the reality. But this being admitted, we duly infer from the exhibition of the symbol that the thing itself is exhibited" (Institutes, book 4, chapter 17, paragraph 10, pp.563-564, emphasis added). So no, he did not believe in the real presence if you mean by that what a Roman Catholic or a Lutheran would.

    I recommend reading Simon Oliver's article "The Eucharist before Nature and Culture" (Modern Theology 15:3, 1999, pp.331-353, esp. pp.342-347). I quoted a relevant, though lengthy, part of this in another discussion.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Nowhere did I suggest that I thought that Calvin believed in the Real Presence in the same way as a Roman Catholic (!) or a Lutheran. There was no need to infer that that's what I meant when it was fairly obvious that I was pointing out the differences between classical Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism. Suggesting that I may have thought that Jean Calvin believed in transubstantiation is extremely silly.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    kmann wrote: »
    Pomona wrote: »
    Calvin himself believed in the Real Presence!
    That depends entirely on what you mean. He did not believe that Christ was actually present in the elements the way a Roman Catholic or even a Lutheran would articulate it.
    Well, that’s pretty much stating the obvious. But if one is going to get into explaining Calvin’s Eucharistic theology, it helps to also explore what Calvin meant by “sign” and “symbol” (as was pointed out to you in the thread to which you linked), as well as his understanding of the implications of the Ascension and the “fully human” nature of Christ, all of which come into play. And I would also suggest that if the Institutes are to be quoted on this particular subject, this bit probably shouldn’t be left out:
    Now, should any one ask me as to the mode, I will not be ashamed to confess that it is too high a mystery either for my mind to comprehend or my words to express; and to speak more plainly, I rather feel than understand it. The truth of God, therefore, in which I can safely rest, I here embrace without controversy. He declares that his flesh is the meat, his blood the drink, of my soul; I give my soul to him to be fed with such food. In his sacred Supper he bids me take, eat, and drink his body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine. I have no doubt that he will truly give and I receive.
    (Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 17, paragraph 32.)
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    Nowhere did I suggest that I thought that Calvin believed in the Real Presence in the same way as a Roman Catholic (!) or a Lutheran. There was no need to infer that that's what I meant when it was fairly obvious that I was pointing out the differences between classical Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism. Suggesting that I may have thought that Jean Calvin believed in transubstantiation is extremely silly.
    Most Lutherans do not believe in transubstantiation either. If by 'real presence' you mean that Calvin believed that Jesus is really present in heaven, then he of course he believed in real presence. But that is not generally what we mean when we say 'the real presence.'

    If, however, you mean that he believed Christ is present in the Eucharist, you are mistaken. He rejected that directly. Christ was not present but we are transported away to heaven by the Spirit.

    So again, it depends on what you mean by the real presence. If you employed a different definition of real presence, what was the point of pointing out that Calvin believed in it?
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    And I would also suggest that if the Institutes are to be quoted on this particular subject, this bit probably shouldn’t be left out …
    Yes, I do not deny that. But he articulates this not as a presence of Christ in the elements but as us being taken to heaven by the Spirit.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited June 2019
    kmann wrote: »
    Most Lutherans do not believe in transubstantiation either. If by 'real presence' you mean that Calvin believed that Jesus is really present in heaven, then he of course he believed in real presence. But that is not generally what we mean when we say 'the real presence.'
    Who is this “we” on whose behalf you speak?
    If, however, you mean that he believed Christ is present in the Eucharist, you are mistaken. He rejected that directly. Christ was not present but we are transported away to heaven by the Spirit.
    No, you are mistaken. He rejected that Christ is physically present in the elements of bread and wine. He affirmed pretty emphatically that the body and blood of Christ are truly present and received in the Eucharist.
    So again, it depends on what you mean by the real presence.
    Nope. For the point being made, exactly how the Real Presence was understood by Calvin, and how that understanding differed from the Roman Catholic understanding and the Lutheran understanding of the Real Presence, was pretty much irrelevant.
    If you employed a different definition of real presence, what was the point of pointing out that Calvin believed in it?
    As Pomona said, the point was to assert that, unlike the Neo-Calvinists and Neo-Calvinism, Calvin himself was a not a memorialist, nor is classical Calvinism memorialist.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    He affirmed pretty emphatically that the body and blood of Christ are truly present and received in the Eucharist.
    Yes, he did believe that we receive Christ in the Eucharist but not because Christ is present there in his body but because we are transported to heaven by the Spirit who "truly unites things separated by space" (Institutes, book 4, chapter 17, paragraph 10, p.563). So no, he did not believe that Christ was truly present in the Eucharist. This is also why he, because he did not believe that Christ was present in the Eucharist, maintained that we cannot adore Christ in the elements, and that this is idolatry:
    Scripture itself, also, besides carefully narrating the ascension of Christ, by which he withdrew his bodily presence from our eye and company, that it might make us abandon all carnal thoughts of him, whenever it makes mention of him, enjoins us to raise our minds upwards and seek him in heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father (Col. iii. 2). According to this rule, we should rather have adored him spiritually in the heavenly glory, than devised that perilous species of adoration replete with gross and carnal ideas of God. Those, therefore, who devised the adoration of the sacrament, not only dreamed it of themselves, without any authority from Scripture, where no mention of it can be shown (it would not have been omitted, had it been agreeable to God); but, disregarding Scripture, forsook the living God and fabricated a god for themselves, after the lust of their own hearts. For what is idolatry if it is not to worship the gifts instead of the giver?

    Source: Calvin, Institutes, book 4, chapter 17, paragraph 36, p594
    This is not controversial. This is what he believed. So he held that we receive Christ but not because he 'descends' into the Eucharistic elements but because we, through these elements, and in the Spirit, are 'lifted up' and transported to Christ in heaven and receive a spiritual union with him. Simon Oliver's article lays this out. So no, he did not affirm that the body and blood of Christ are truly present in the Eucharist, though he did believe that they are received through it, on the promise of God and through the Spirit. So yes, he was no memorialist but he also rejected the real presence (which was coined by Lutheran theologians).
  • kmann, I think there is confusion in the phrase “present in the Eucharist”—a phrase Calvin wouldn’t have used, though many contemporary Reformed theologians would. If by “present in the Eucharist” one means “present in the Eucharistic elements,” then no, Calvin did certainly not assert that. If, on the other hand, by “present in the Eucharist” one means “present in the Supper” or “present in the breaking of bread” (phrases Calvin would have been much more likely to use), or “present to the communicant,” then he certainly did assert that, and that is classical Calvinism. That he understood how that real presence happens differently from Catholics and Lutherans—including his understanding of the worshipper being taken into heaven rather than Christ “descending” to the worshipper—does not change that he believed that it happens.




  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    He never used the term 'real presence.' To use it to describe his doctrine is utterly anachronistic.
  • Not utterly anachronistic, though granted that some Reformed theologians have said that Calvin’s view is better described as “true presence” than “real presence.”

    But whatever. By all means, let’s quibble about whether the term “real presence” has been used in an acceptable and exact manner rather than focus on the point Pomona was actually making as it relates to the topic of this thread.
  • Zappa wrote: »
    Gordon Cheng of notorious ship days always defined DioSydney in terms of Armenianism.

    Armenianism (the theory of being from Armenia) or Arminianism (the theology of Arminius)?
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    Gee D wrote: »
    Zappa, you wrote earlier that the Territory diocese is going in the Sydney direction. Alas, there is a real risk that Bathurst may also follow. I'm not sure how up-to-date you are on Bathurst's financial woes, but they are extreme. To help out, the previous bishop went to a part-time basis, and took on the position of Rector of Dubbo also on a part-time basis*. He's now retired and of course the search is underway. The diocese asked Sydney of financial help, to be met by a conditional offer - the condition being that Abp Glenn gets to approve the candidates for election. Very sad. Scots College Bathurst/Lithgow which stayed Presbyterian) has bought All Saints.

    *He and his wife walked from Bathurst to Dubbo as a public pilgrimage. It got quite a lot of publicity in the area.

    Oh my goodness :cry: ... though it was always on the cards, even when I was there in the, er, a long time ago. It is all so sad.
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    mousethief wrote: »
    Zappa wrote: »
    Gordon Cheng of notorious ship days always defined DioSydney in terms of Armenianism.

    Armenianism (the theory of being from Armenia) or Arminianism (the theology of Arminius)?

    My bad. Coffee deficit. Though I rather think the former could be more acceptable.
  • Far more acceptable than Calvinism.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Far more acceptable than Calvinism.
    Sigh.

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    Sorry for the brief comment as I was travelling - there are notable liberal movements within Presbyterianism, which I think can fairly be called a Calvinist denomination even if not all members would identify as such. I am not a Calvinist myself, but there is so clearly a huge difference between say the theology of the current PC(USA) (one of the largest Christian denominations to permit same-sex marriage) and the theology of Moore College and stricter Calvinists. I find that distinguishing between Calvinists and neo-Calvinists (who should rightly be called neo-Zwinglians) is helpful. Calvin himself believed in the Real Presence! In many ways neo-Calvinists and what one might call classical Calvinists are very different.

    I do find that Calvinism outside its natural habitat (eg in Anglican churches) tends to be neo-Calvinist in nature.
    @Pomona that's not what I'd mean by Neo-Calvinism when I use the term. I don't really see a specific position about the Eucharist as central to it. To me, a Neo-Calvinist is a person who has erected the intellectual tradition that follows from Calvin through the Synod of Dort and various Reformed theologians between Calvin and then and since into a complete and all encompassing system that replaces actual faith and will answer every theological and moral question that might arise in life's difficult journey. Classic, to me, examples are John Piper, particularly in the province of moral theology, Wayne Grudem and those that advocate TULIP.

    Neo-Thomists have done the same thing with Aquinas for Catholic theology and ethics.

    There are Neo-Calvinists in the CofE but most of the people you'd describe as 'neo-Zwinglians' I suspect haven't thought through their theology that thoroughly and are driven more on these issues by what they disapprove of rather than what they actually understand and have consciously committed themselves to.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    ...what your father experienced was not mainstream Calvinism. As in any tradition of any size, the Reformed tradition/Calvinism has its fringes and subgroups that get fixated on certain ideas and distort the theological framework as a whole. I know people like those your father grew up among are out there; I don’t deny that all. ... I’m sure you’d take issue, and rightly so, if someone defined and judged Anglicanism only on the basis of Sydney Anglicanism. Please do not define and judge all of us based on the people your father encountered. ...
    Thank you, Nick. My father's experiences occurred a long time ago, obviously (although I have met Presbyterians like that, and recently, too). I'll try not to make blanket statements about other denominations again.


  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    ...what your father experienced was not mainstream Calvinism. As in any tradition of any size, the Reformed tradition/Calvinism has its fringes and subgroups that get fixated on certain ideas and distort the theological framework as a whole. I know people like those your father grew up among are out there; I don’t deny that all. ... I’m sure you’d take issue, and rightly so, if someone defined and judged Anglicanism only on the basis of Sydney Anglicanism. Please do not define and judge all of us based on the people your father encountered. ...
    Thank you, Nick. My father's experiences occurred a long time ago, obviously (although I have met Presbyterians like that, and recently, too). I'll try not to make blanket statements about other denominations again.
    Thanks, Ross. It’s all good.

    Well, except for the part about you encountering Presbyterians like that, and recently. That is not good at all, and I am sorry. I guess we all have our nut-jobs, who we would like to think are just tucked away in corners somewhere. (And unlike Anglicans—until recently, at least—we’ve had a proclivity for splitting and splintering. That often means our fringe elements, the very conservative ones at least, are in smaller break-away groups. But what the rest of the world sees is just “Presbyterian.” :disappointed: )

  • Around here they splintered off to watching youtube videos of hate preachers because the minister wasn't bigoted enough for them and the wee frees weren't available. Then the baptist minister invited one of them to speak at a Good Friday service and we were treated to a rant about people who'd had their chance to be saved in the Hebridean Revival (c1950) and weren't going to get another chance and were definitely going to hell. I suppose I should be glad he didn't name names.
  • anoesisanoesis Shipmate
    Zappa wrote: »
    [snip]The "low church" form of librul, in various shades of social action but un-flamboyant, un-sacramental liturgy, a strong unfluence in little old NZ next door [snip]
    "unfluence" - good one - I see what you did there, and I like it. But you do realise the rest of the world isn't going to get it, right?
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    anoesis wrote: »
    Zappa wrote: »
    [snip]The "low church" form of librul, in various shades of social action but un-flamboyant, un-sacramental liturgy, a strong unfluence in little old NZ next door [snip]
    "unfluence" - good one - I see what you did there, and I like it. But you do realise the rest of the world isn't going to get it, right?

    Sad but true!
  • PeterYPeterY Shipmate Posts: 2
    I have come a bit late to this - and probably everyone has packed up and gone home!

    Anyway, I am a priest in the Diocese of Sydney, very much in the catholic tradition, and I have found nothing but welcome in the few years I have been here. Yes, I don't go with a lot of the prevailing theology of the Diocese; but I don't have to. It's not forced. There is the, what I would consider a little odd, rule about chasubles, but I can live with that. To me, if one wanted to pick one vestment that is 'priestly' it would be too stole. Apart from the chasuble I can wear what I want. We are able to worship as we want - incense, candles, whatever. I can use any manual actions I wish; I can genuflect till the cows come home. When the bishop visits, he does the things that he does in his way - but makes no criticism about what else is done. He tends to ignore the Reserved Sacrament.

    I have felt nothing along the lines of "they want to get rid of us". In fact, there seems to be, in recent years, quite an effort to fill vacant parishes with priests from the tradition of the parish.

    I am also a student of Moore College. One of the condones of my acceptance was to do a couple of units of the Masters in Greek, to see that my Greek was up to the standard expected of the Diocese for ALL its clergy. I thoroughly enjoyed those - the standard of biblical scholarship is very high. In fact, I am still continuing the course. But again, I have had no negative reaction to my beliefs or my theology - as long as I am willing and able to argue a portion. In fact, many of the younger students show very pleasant curiosity about my tradition.

    Things are different in Sydney, but I have yet to see the negative side. I would say that the major feeling is that we are left to do our own thing, although the Diocese is always willing to offer help if needed. Yes, it is conservative; yes, it has its own obsessions. But then so do many on the more catholic wing...
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    That's our observation.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Thank you for sharing your experiences. Would that A-Cs in evangelical dioceses in England have such a positive experience!
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    Thanks, PeterY ... probably a reasonably up to date perspective, unlike mine. I find DioSydney's behaviour irritating beyond words - their penchant for effectively "buying" the theology and praxis of other dioceses (currently Bathurst, recently NT) - but to hear of their affirmation of your ministry and theology is tonic to the soul.

    Give the love of the Ship to Fr Gordo when you bump into him :wink:
  • Good morning, Peter Y. Welcome. I think most of those actually in Sydneyhave said similar to you on this thread. Others from elsewhere spoke about AC adherents being forced out. There is much I don’t like but i ignore as much of that as possible.
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    edited June 2019
    Oi, Lothlo - that means you're ignoring me :wink:

    Though actually I was never forced out, I'm just not allowed in. The one time I was in a conversation about a Sydney position, Goodhew informed the ministry unity I would not be given a licence.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    And even less chance now. At least Goodhew would have said it in a kindly manner. He was and remains popular across the diocese. He also supported the ordination of women, was an evangelical of the old school, almost welcoming differing strands of Anglicanism.
  • Weren't there difficulties at St Alban's in Epping, which was one of the AC Sydney churches, when Bishop Nicholson took over?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    From what I hear, there have been 2 strands of difficulty. The first is that Bp Nicholson is out of temper with the theology and style of the parish. In addition, his style of preaching is very different to that of his predecessors. Some parishioners, including my informants, left because of this. The second involved the choir director; he wanted in effect to become music director and thus have the direction of the organist. Under the diocesan Parish Administration Ordinance, such appointments are made by the rector. Bp Nicholson was not prepared to make the change and the choir director along with quite a few choristors left. Or so I am told.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    I find the whole Sydney thing an interesting, but their commitment to a sort of anti-sacramentalist Calvinism that would have made Calvin blanche, combined with a minimalist approach to liturgy makes an ex-Anglo-Catholic like me nervous, especially as it seems to be increasingly held up as the way for Low Church folks to go. At least the Low Church Calvinism gives one a little more to wrap one's brain around than the usual Evanjellyfish theology.

    The chasuble ban was not unique, by the way, they were verboten in the Church of Ireland from 1877 until very recent years when someone somewhere decided that the Canon on vestments was a minimum, not prescriptive. That said, a few churches used to sneak them in, such as St John's, Sandymount, and St Bartholomew, Clyde Street. Various Chaplains at St John's got familiar with the procedures of the Diocesan courts as a result of trying to sneak them in too early!

    Cheers,
    PDR
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I think Moore College owes much more to Zwingli than to Calvin - a purely memorialist Eucharist being the starting point of difference. There has been precious little to wrap your brain around in any sermon we've heard from any of the clergy, pure happy-clappy or prosperity gospel.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    That is surprising to me, conservative evangelicalism is not to my taste but there is usually a high level of Biblical scholarship and a big focus on preaching skills.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    The academic standards at Moore College are very high - as indeed are most Anglican theological colleges here. The emphasis is on the sermon but the content is very poor.
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    Gee D wrote: »
    The academic standards at Moore College are very high - as indeed are most Anglican theological colleges here. The emphasis is on the sermon but the content is very poor.

    My PhD supervisor used to be asked to examine their thesises. Is that the plural? Theses? Ah, yes. In the end he refused, having failed a few. Having read some (not as an examiner) I can see why. In academic discourse it is not appropriate to say things like "then God told Moses" or "after Peter healed x-thousand" ... a narrative distance in which God, Peter et cetera are effectively characters must be maintained. Worse when it gets to the first twelve chapters of Genesis!

    So if that is their way in academic discourse I can only suppose that is true of their sermons, and that would give me the screaming irrits (or worse). I don't want to disparage God and her mates, but perhaps it would be appropriate not to assume the letter of the text is absolute.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited June 2019
    The same sort of academic standards as lt Abp Ussher to date the creation (or Creation) to 23 September 4004 BC, with preliminary steps being taken from 3 pm the day before. Very rigid and detailed textual examination involved in that.

    I was thinking more along the lines of the studies in Ancient Greek at Moore but did include other theological schools.
  • Calvin would be anti-prosperity gospel. He would hate anything that suggested that you might worship God for any other reason than he was God. It would simply be seen as idolatry. Even though I maintain the five points are not a good summary of Calvinism1 you will not find any grounds for the Prosperity Gospel in them

    1 Five points refer to a specific formulation of Calvinism within debate Dutch Church in the Seventeenth Century where being Dutch was defined as being Calvinist. The overlay of nationalism onto theology inevitably skewed the formulation. Calvinism is a much broader and deeper stream. Its a bit like defining Anglican theology by the 39 Articles. Ironically I am being typical Reformed in doing this and refusing clear unadulterated allegiance to a formulation from another time and place.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Most definitely not. But there are more differences from Calvin than that.
  • angloidangloid Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    Thank you for sharing your experiences. Would that A-Cs in evangelical dioceses in England have such a positive experience!
    Do tell! I have been a priest for over 50 years, most of them in one of the few English dioceses to be perceived as 'evangelical'. Admittedly the evangelicalism is not at all of the Sydney sort, but it is the prevalent flavour and the default style. Anglo-catholic parishes are in the minority, but they represent all types from Forward-in-Faith Roman Rite to liberal-experimental-liturgy; most are LGBT+ friendly and pro- women clergy. I don't know of any clergy or parishes that feel sidelined because of their theological or liturgical tradition.

    Other dioceses may well differ, but the idea of certain dioceses having a particular churchpersonship seems strange to me. Different traditions are obviously more prevalent in some regions than others, and some dioceses have had a long history of appointing their bishops from one particular tradition. We now have a majority of ordinands, and probably bishops, defining as 'evangelical', but crusading partisanship has never been true of any diocese at least since the end of the 19th century.
  • I know of a couple of places where there has been crusading partisanship - in Southwell a few years back the most AC church in Nottingham, St John the Baptist, Beeston, had a crusading evangelical curate and preachers wished on it for a while, which meant they lost a number of parishioners either to St Barnabas, the RC cathedral, or had them avoid certain weeks. Certain preachers arriving, wished on them by the diocese, decimated the congregation in the weeks following. The ordinariate did well in Southwell.

    The other place was Barking Area Diocese in Chelmsford while David Hawkins was the Bishop of Barking. He pushed an evangelical agenda by appointing evangelical ministers to churches with a different ecclesiology with often interesting consequences. Some of those stories made the national press and discussions on the Ship. For a while Chelmsford had a group of priests who would not attend the Chrism mass with Bishop John Gladwin, one of the patrons of Changing Attitudes, as he was seen as too soft on the gay priests in the diocese (the Vicar of Ugley was part of this number). When Bishop Stephen Cottrell was ordained, Bishop Hawkins originally arranged the deanery meet and greet in the church of one of that cadre.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    I live in Winchester, and the city itself has a single Anglo-Catholic church (Forward In Faith and under alternative episcopal oversight) - the diocese as a whole has a few more liberal Anglo-Catholic churches but it's a very evangelical and very conservative diocese. I haven't been in East Sussex since Benn was +Lewes, but Chichester certainly was an extremely partisan diocese then, and distinctly split between Anglo-Catholic West Sussex and evangelical East Sussex, with Brighton as a sort of breakwater where the two met (also where all the gay clergy sought sanctuary). I understand that things have improved since, but certainly being a woman priest was very unpleasant there.

    Liverpool and Coventry are evangelical dioceses but much more liberal, Blackburn and Leeds not so much. I'm not sure I would say that 'few' English dioceses are perceived as evangelical anymore. I find that Anglo-Catholic areas tend to be towns rather than dioceses (Northampton for example).
  • angloidangloid Shipmate
    I suppose it depends on how much particular bishops impose their own theology and style on their dioceses. Yes, some of these examples seem scary. But I think it's overreacting to see any 'evangelical takeover' of dioceses (as opposed to individual parishes) – not that you Pomona have suggested that. There are more and more evangelical clergy and many fewer anglo-catholic ones, so there are bound to be instances of parishes 'slipping down the candle'. Since the ordination of women many traditionalist parishes seem to have lost heart, especially if their priests have joined the ordinariate. But for most of us that is just not an issue. I was pleased to see a church noticeboard recently (in the diocese of Southwark) which advertised Solemn Mass, daily mass and described itself as 'anglo-catholic, welcoming the priestly ministry of women and men.'
  • angloidangloid Shipmate
    PS Pomona: when you say 'Blackburn and Leeds not so much' do you mean not so much evangelical, or liberal, or what? Blackburn has a large number of catholic parishes, but fairly traditional bishops. Leeds - the amalgamation of three smaller dioceses - is about as varied as one can get, from a-c to evo and all permutations of liberal/conservative.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Sorry, not so liberal is what I meant! I know clergy at an Anglo-Catholic church in Blackburn diocese and was under the impression that it's uncommon due to it being a traditionally Roman Catholic area, and Anglicans being more low church in response. But they are in the part that borders Liverpool diocese so maybe that's why.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    I have formed the impression that under the last two bishops, many of the town parishes in my home diocese (Lincoln) seem to have gone one of two ways. The ones that used to be 'sunny side of Central' if they are big enough have tended to veer toward AffCath. Others have gone to a sort of shapeless Evangelicalism, with the vast majority remaining somewhere in the middle and tolerating the whims of the clergy - which is probably what they have been doing for the last 200 years - but making sure they don't get away with too much. There are still a few conservative Catholic places, but they seem to be places that are a bit out of the way where a FiF priest has taken the incumbency, and the locals are prepared to go along with the regime.
Sign In or Register to comment.