r/Anglicanism

I know clergy are required to pray the Daily Office and have been wondering if any choose to fulfil that obligation by having simple, routine, public services?

I ask this because I am a postulant who is rather bad at praying the Daily Office consistently unless I have a public obligation to remind me. I cantor for my parish’s sung compline twice a week and my parish has lay-led Evening Prayer on days with no Compline that I’ve been getting better at going to. There are no regular Morning Prayers and there’s only one noonday service a week.
I led daily noonday prayer during Lent at the Parish House and that went quite well.

I have a monastic streak and strong call to offer public worship as much as possible. When I’ve floated this idea to other clergy, the main roadblocks I’ve found are a lack of energy to conduct public worship on their part and a dismissiveness because the services wouldn’t be well attended.

I’m not proposing a solemn High Mass with full choir and orchestra, but rather unadorned services straight from the BCP on days when the clergy are “in the office”. It should also be noted that the church is opened daily by the Sexton so I’m leaving the chore of locking/unlocking out of this equation. Heck this doesn’t even need to be in a church but could be offered in a parish conference room if that worked better for people.

Are there clergy who have tried this or has anyone had experience with offering Daily Offices? I recognise it’s not always possible due to different circumstances, but would be curious to hear thoughts and stories!

As an Anglican, would it be fine to get an OSB as my main Bible? Not sure if it's fine to get since there's probably some explicitly Orthodox narration cause it's literally called the Orthodox Study Bible, and if so, is it ok to highlight it? And if not, what would be the best study Bible for a high church Anglican?

This is Paul talking about not associating with brothers or sisters who live immorally:

“But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy or an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler. Do not even eat with such a one.”
‭‭
I ask because I came across an ACNA church with an interesting stance on sexual ethics, and I’m trying to understand their view better.

They have a big page about how they hold to a traditional sexual ethic. It’s honestly pretty well written and you can tell they thought a lot about it.

However, they also say that people who disagree with them on this can still participate in the church, become members, and take communion.

BUT they very explicitly state that someone who disagrees on this CANNOT be leaders in the church.

On one hand, I really understand where they are coming from, and I think they are admirable for being very open about their position right on their website for everyone to see (since this is such a contentious issue). It’s well thought out and they offer a lot of resources to back their traditional ethics stance.

But on the other hand I don’t see how you reconcile their stance with 1 Corinthians 5:11.

Since I’m not an Anglican, I was wondering: is this approach consistent with how Anglicans typically understand membership and participation in the church more broadly? And if so, could someone help me understand how 1 Corinthians 5:11 is reconciled with this?

I’m not coming here to be combative. I’m genuinely trying to understand, because 1 Corinthians 5:11 does seem very strict. But also, most churches don’t go around with a magnifying glass confirming whether every brother or sister is sexually immoral, greedy, an idolator, etc…

I find it a little strange that despite the vast amount of debate between Catholics and Protestants on this question, and of course the similarly vast amount of debate between Anglicans leaning towards the former and the latter, there doesn't seem to be a lot of ink spilled about why the argument even matters. Certainly I can understand the Protestant view, as put forth by the Articles, that sacraments (or at least, "sacraments of the Gospel") must have some "visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." And I can also understand the Catholic view, with a more expansive rubric for determining what counts as an appointed sign. But why does any of this matter?

I don't want to get distracted by discussions about Penance and Unction, since two-sacramenters will often have very different takes on these compared to seven-sacramenters, but it seems to me that the distinction becomes a lot finer when we come to the remaining three. Regarding these, I think we can find no shortage of High Church writers who would regard themselves as being staunchly Protestant, and would staunchly insist that there are only two sacraments and that Confirmation, Matrimony, and Orders are merely "ordinances," but would also agree with Rome on pretty much all the important points about them. In fact they would arguably have an even higher view of Confirmation than Rome does, as they would insist it can only ever be performed by a bishop.

Hi all,

I can't explain it..... many years ago in the early 2010s... I used to go here occasionally and did Alpha there. Whilst I wasn't overly happy with some elements of it - the loud music from the band - it seemed reasonably ok.

Having been a few times since in the last couple of years, it just feels wrong. Something has changed since Nicky Gumbel left, and not for the better.

Something is irking me. Maybe it's the overtly super happy welcomings, I'm not your brother - don't call me that. I think it's something else.

I'm not super religious by any stretch, but the word that comes to my mind with them now is 'cultish'

Hello r/Anglicanism

Quick question for you all. When I'm reading the offices in the BCP (using the Common Prayer app), do I read the Minister's portion as well? I cant imagine me reading the absolution to myself would be equal than someone ordained doing so.

Any advice on solo BCP reading would be greatly appreciated also!

Thank you everyone, God bless you all.

Please feel free to delete if this isn’t allowed, but I thought some people here might be interested in this essay I wrote about my experience with the BCP, which this sub has helped me with a lot over the months of my ‘conversion’ to Anglicanism.

God bless!

I talked to some street preachers today and came with the argument that they're achieving the opposite of what they think and set out to do - turning more people away from Christ than toward him. They responded saying that the apostles would have preached this way and quoted Matthew 10:27 as justification for street preaching. They also said that my argument was concerned with the will of men rather than of God, as I seemed to care more about what members of the public made of street preachers rather than evangelising. They made quite the compelling argument, but I was curious to get the views of many here - and perhaps expanding on why not to, and other arguments of the sort. Many thanks and God bless ✝️.

Hi, I guess this is sort of a Celtic Christianity question. I know that’s a loaded term that can be interpreted in different ways. What I am thinking about is celebrations like this, the rekindling of fires, the dances and celebration, the flowers on the doorways, etc.

For those who don’t know, Beltane is a seasonal companion of Halloween, marking the traditional start of summer. It is celebrated by a number of pagan communities, but it is also a festival that has existed alongside Christianity in Ireland for over 1,500 years. I imagine many generations of priests would have participated in these celebrations, and perhaps added prayers or blessings. I feel like these kinds or practices can enrich our spiritual lives as Christians, with the recognition that these are ultimately ways of praising the trinitarian God, and the many gifts God has given us. What do you all think?

Hi everybody, I have just left my non-denominational church to attend a high church episcopal parish in my city. I honestly love it and it's far more beautiful than any church I've ever been in but I'm confused about the different Anglican groups. The particular parish I'm attending is a part of the Anglican worldwide communion under the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury. And as far as I can tell about her, I disagree with most of her stances which are quite progressive. But that progressiveness doesn't seem to have touched my parish. It's very traditional and conservative. There are no women priests nor do they marry same sex couples. So I'm just kinda confused. Does the authority in these episcopal churches just differ parish to parish? And what actual authority does the Archbishop actually have?

I'm a former Anglican (Catholic now). I have been having a discussion over on r/Catholicism about the Anglican Ordinariate and my experience of it as a former Anglican. Growing up, the Anglican parish I attended only ever used the Second Order from "A Prayer Book for Australia (1995)". As such, given that the ordinariate Mass is heavily based on the Book of Common Prayer (1662), I was saying that it felt very foreign to me and that I'd left feeling disappointed as I miss Anglican liturgy and had hoped I would go to the ordinariate and experience something that felt familiar but instead experienced something that in many ways felt more foreign than the standard Catholic Mass (Novus Ordo) (The feeling of greater similarity between the liturgy I experienced growing up and the Catholic Mass is obviously a result of the fact that the authors of prayer books like APBA drew inspiration from the then newly reformed Catholic Mass.

The Anglican parish I grew up attending (which used APBA) was fairly high Church. The vicar from that parish later moved to another parish which, from the videos I saw of their liturgies during Covid was even more Anglo-Catholic than my own. Yet, he continued using A Prayer Book for Australia. I also went to an extremely Anglo-Catholic parish for a while and, from memory that also used A Prayer Book for Australia for their main Sunday Mass and used the BCP (1662) for their early morning Low Mass. Prior to my conversion to Catholicism, I came to identify with Anglo-Catholicism. Yet, I don't think I remember ever encountering the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (once again, commenters on r/Catholicism who are familiar with Anglicanism in the US saw this as strange). There is one continuing Anglican Group (the Traditional Anglican Church Australia) which I believe does use the BCP (1662), but they only have like 700 members and 6 congregations (I'm not even sure if they're all still active).

Commenters said that this seems odd from a US perspective that all the High Church parishes I've attended use A Prayer Book for Australia instead of the 1662 BCP and so we are starting to suspect that it may simply be the case that the BCP (1662) is fair less commonly used in Australia (even by Anglo-Catholics) than it is elsewhere in the English speaking world. More broadly in my post I was questioning the value of the ordinariate if the BCP (1662) is so rarely used. Again, some users pushed back against the premise that its use is uncommon. If it is, in fact, less commonly used in Australia, then that would explain my experience of the ordinariate in light of my experience of Anglicanism and would go along way to properly contextualising my criticisms of the ordinariate.

Obviously due to the fact that most individuals on r/Catholicism have no experience with Anglicanism they can't help me answer this question. Additionally, due to how dramatically Anglican parishes within even the same diocese can vary, I'm not sure if my experience is typical or whether I was simply oblivious to a more widespread use of the BCP (1662). It's also obviously the case that the way Anglicanism is expressed varies dramatically across Australia with Sydney Anglicans, for example, being much more evangelical than other Australian Anglicans.

So, I was hoping that you guys could shed some light on how common it is for the 1662 Book of Common Prayer to be used in Australia, especially as opposed to how commonly it is used in other English speaking countries and chiefly the US.

Is there a site where I can find suggested hymns for feast days? Or, what would you all suggest for Ascension Sunday?

I’m a 19 year old guy and, finally, I’m being received fully into the Episcopal Church tomorrow! I love you all, and ask that you please pray for me and that this may be a step closer to God which leads me to greater love and service to the Lord! I also ask that you pray the same for all who are being confirmed, in my parish and elsewhere!

God bless you all!

I apologise if this question has perhaps been discussed to the point of nausea, but it's come up again with the Westminster Confession discussion a few days ago.

I think I'm probably "reformed". I am uncomfortable with Marian devotions, with veneration of icons and relics, and with the very idea of theophagy inherent in transubstantiation; and I'm generally accepting of the absence of public prayer for the dead, although it would bring comfort and a kind of closure for the living. And I completely reject (always have) the Bishop of Rome's arrogation of supreme authority. So I'm generally in tune with the spirit of the 16th century Reformation.

But is "reformed" necessarily Calvinist?

In faith I cannot accept (in the strongest possible terms!) any of the five TULIP points. It seems to me also that Calvinism has been on an ever-increasing arc of stridency since Calvin. I could be wrong, of course.

My basic question: the way the term is used, are all reformed Christians "Reformed" (as "Dutch", "Presbyterian", etc.)? Does the capitalisation matter? What do you rhink?

Edit: rephrased question in last paragraph.

Hello, I have a few questions about Anglicanism in general.

1. Regarding Article of Religion #25 (about the Sacraments) - besides what is already stated in the Article - what is the additional reasoning(s) behind why there are only 2 Sacraments (instead of 7)?

2. Do Anglicans go on “pilgrimage?” If I had to go on an international pilgrimage I always considered visiting some of the surviving “51 churches of London.” I really like St Mary Aldermary’s architecture and design.

3. I have the “Book of Common Prayer: Standard Edition” hardcover printed by Cambridge. My understanding is that this version is a “revised edition” of the 1662 edition. I also have the “enlarged edition” in French Morocco leather by Cambridge. I have noticed that the calendar of readings is different between these 2 editions? Which one is used?

Thank you.