Dear all,
Sorry if this isn’t the right place in the forum to post this - not quite sure how it works. I’d just like the oppurtunity to ask a question about Sydney Anglicans in general after I met one a while ago and was confused by the discussion we had - he was Calvinist, adherent to sola scriptura and very anti-Catholic - just wondering whether this is (unlike that of the Anglican community I am familiar with in Melbourne) particularly the stance of the Sydney Anglican diocese, or whether it was just him? Thanks if you can help me out -
Peace, Seth

Hi Seth

Welcome to the SydAng forums, and yes, you’ve come to the right place!  Like any large diocese, Sydney is quite diverse—more so than many would think, in fact.  But it would be a fair assessment that the ‘majority position’ theologically speaking in this diocese is Calvinist.  Having said that I would be quick to distinguish it from hyper-Calvinism—the oft-caricatured person who is only interested in the elect, and pretty much writes off everyone else, etc. 

As to being anti-Catholic, that needs to be unpacked a bit, I think.  Many of our churches have significant numbers of Catholics and former Catholics.  It would be true to say, on the other hand, that much of the teaching in our churches would reject some of the official tenets of Roman Catholicism. 

That’s a brief answer to your inquiry.  I don’t imagine it will be too long before you get more!
Regards,
Bob

Hi Seth,

Your comments re the Sydney Anglican you met:

he was Calvinist, adherent to sola scriptura and very anti-Catholic

are fairly representative of the beliefs of the majority of Sydney Anglicans. Why we differ from the Anglicans you may have encountered in Melbourne has to do with history and theology. Basically, after the Anglican church broke away from the Roman Catholics, three main factions emerged - those who wanted to make the Anglican church Protestant in character, those who wanted to make it more like the Roman Catholic church, and those who wanted it to be somewhere in the middle between the other two.

Sydney is dominated by Evangelicals - i.e. those who see Anglicanism as essentially Protestant in character. We base this on Archbishop Cramner, the 39 Articles, and the 1662 Prayer Book. At the time Sydney was settled, the Evangelical party in the Church of England was influential, and, via the efforts of notable British evangelicals like William Wilberforce & John Newton, evangelical clergy were appointed. They encouraged other evangelicals to follow, and Sydney has stayed true to its “Reformed” (i.e. Calvanist) evangelical roots ever since.

By the time Melbourne was settled, what’s known as the Oxford or Anglo-Catholic Movement was all the rage. They believed that the Anglican church was essentially Catholic in belief, and so introduced (or re-introduced, depending on who you talk to) practices and beliefs to make the Anglican church more like their idea of what the Catholic church should be like. These changes proved enormously influential, and eventually spread through the “middle” Anglicans, but were bitterly resisted by evangelical Anglicans, and so never became commonplace in Sydney.

The first Archbishop of Melbourne was a Reformed Evangelical, but later Archbishops were “moderates”, and so Melbourne became a mixture of Evangelical, Moderate and Anglo-Catholic.

Hard on the heels of Anglo-Catholicism came Liberalism - basically, an attempt to re-invent Christianity in light of the critical scholarship that was attacking traditional teachings about the Bible and Christian doctrine. Over time, most “moderate’ Anglicans became Liberal in doctrine. Often, the Liberal clergy kept the Anglo-Catholic style of worship and clerical garb, and so they’re often called “Liberal-Catholics”. Today they’re the largest grouping within the Anglican Church in Australia, and make up about half of all Melbourne Anglicans, with the other half being evangelical. Liberal clergy in Melbourne tend to train at Trinity, whilst Melbourne Evangelicals train at Ridley.

Much of the modern differences between the Sydney Diocese and much of the rest of the Australian Anglican Church come from the different ways Evangelicals and Liberal-Catholics have tried to respond to the changes in post-war society. Liberal-Catholics have tended to keep up the formality of their church services, whilst changing the underlying theology. Archbishop Peter Carnley from Perth is a classic example. He was pro the ordination of women and practicing gays as priests as well as being pro-ecumenical, and insisted that his clergy wore full Anglo-Catholic clerical garb whilst celebrating the Lord’s Supper.

The evangelical response was the opposite to that of the Liberal Catholics - tone down the formality of their church services, whilst trying to stay true to Cramner’s theology. Phillip Jensen, Dean of St Andrew’s Cathedral in Sydney, is a classic example. He never wears even the classical evangelical Anglican clergy garb, is anti the ordination of women and practicing homosexuals as priests, and tries to convert everyone who isn’t a practising reformed evanglical.

I’m aware that despite being long-winded (a failure of mine), this is full of generalisations and errors that others will justifiably point out. Nonetheless, I hope it gives you some background.

Makes my effort look quite meagre really!
Bob

When Elizabeth I re-established the Church of England in 1559, authentic Catholics could have no part of this this Church.  The true Church , although persecuted never disapperared from England and Wales. A High Church tendency did develop but it was fundamentally Protestant Even Archbishop laud of the seventeeth century was Protestant rejecting both the Mass, prayers for the dead etc. the non Jirores when they attempted union with the Orthodox could not accept icons, intercession of the saints and transubstantiation.

In the nineteenth century a group emerged who attempted to re-ntroduce Catholic ritual and doctrine. They were called the ritulaits.,but this developed into Anglo-Catholicism. They were equally out of step wiith the old High Church men.

Sydney Anglicanism was really establshed by Bishop Barker..and English evangelical and firm Protestant. In the 1930s the anti-Catholic miiissionary TC Hammond, an Irishman saved the Diocese from adopting liberal evangelicalism.

Sydney is not normative Anglican Evangelicalism and is tn the forefront of advocating lay presidency.On moral issues, Sydney accepted divorce and re-marriage much earlier than the Church of England.

he was Calvinist, adherent to sola scriptura and very anti-Catholic

Calvinism and sola-scriptura-ism certainly are marks of Sydney Anglicanism. What do you mean by “anti-Catholic” though? We are a protestant church that rejects the authority of the Pope, and upholds that justification is by grace alone through faith alone and not by our works. This puts at loggerheads with Catholic doctrine.

G’day Seth,

Whilst I won’t add anything to what the other commentators above have said, I would just like to point out that Robert ian Williams is not a member of the Sydney Anglican community, whereas the other three people who have responded (four if you incude me) are active members of the Sydney Anglican community. Robert ian Williams is a Roman Catholic believer living in the United Kingdom, so his perception of the Sydney Anglican community is not exactly up close and personal, shall we say.

Cheers,

Timbo

Seth.... its not what Tim tells you, its what he doesn’t… I am a convert from Evangelical Anglicanism to the Catholic Church and I am thoroghly familiar with all the history and all the nuances of Evangelical Anglicanism, including the variety that has and is developing in Sydney.

Did you know that Sydney Anglicanism helped nurture a church in South Africa which is not part of the Anglican Communion.

A Church which has taken the word Catholic out of the creed.

Uses unfermented grape juice at Communion

Taken out the prayer thanking God for the regeneration of the child in baptism.

Allows lay presidency and has a very liberal policy as regards divorce and re-marriage..

Now that is the vision of a BIblical Church that some in Sydney are working for.

Robert ian Williams - 17 October 2008 10:18 AM

Seth.... its not what Tim tells you, its what he doesn’t… I am a convert from Evangelical Anglicanism to the Catholic Church and I am thoroghly familiar with all the history and all the nuances of Evangelical Anglicanism, including the variety that has and is developing in Sydney.

Robert, in fairness to Seth I think at the very least it would have been appropriate to acknowledge that you’ve never been in a Sydney Anglican church, so he’d understand that you’re information is at best second hand.

Did you know that Sydney Anglicanism helped nurture a church in South Africa which is not part of the Anglican Communion.

Yes, Sydney Anglican churches have been involved in church plants outside the diocese (including I believe in SA), though I’m not sure whether these were sanctioned by the archbishop or Standing Committee or the Synod.

A Church which has taken the word Catholic out of the creed.

Which is common sense since language evolves and ‘catholic’ has lost its meaning as ‘universal’ and has now come to be understood as synonymous with the Roman Catholic Church.

Uses unfermented grape juice at Communion

Yes, both wine and grape juice are offered at communion since some, for health reasons, are not able to drink wine.

Allows lay presidency

No, they are looking at ways to have lay presidency accepted by the Anglican Communion.

Hi Seth
I am a cradle Catholic and have been contributing to these forums as a result of an article I read by the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney regarding the Catholic Church.  His article annoyed me a little, because it did not reflect true Catholicism.  During my time on these forums, I was surprised, as you are, that many (not all) are very anti-Catholic.  I always thought it was the fundamentalists who were the most vocal.  However, in fairness to those who are, it is due to a misrepresentation by some parties and to a lack of willingness (by some) to hold on to fanciful tales they may hear or have read about the history of Catholicism and the teachings it holds to.

I assume you are Catholic and I suggest that you equip yourself with as much information you can about the Catholic Church so that you know it’s teachings and how scripture supports them.  There are many helpful resources I could suggest.  A very informative website is www.catholic.com (thank you Robert for referring me to this).  It is run essentially by ex-protestant pastors who have come into the Catholic faith. 

If only some anti-Catholics could do what you have done, i.e., ask what someone believes and not take second-hand information and assume it to be true.

Regards
Donna

Seth, if you are in Sydney and you wish to attend an Anglican service that resembles what you are probably used to, there are a number of broad, high and liberal evangelical parishes in Sydney. I used to attend Hunter’s Hill, which had a pretty typical broad church approach. For high church / Anglo Catholic there is the famous Christ Church St Lawrence in George Street near Central Station and St James, near the NSW Parliament building. Having met a previous priest (now bishop), I believe Redfern was a more Melbourne-ish liberal evangelical parish. I’m sure there are more, that other folks on this list could mention.

I visited Sydney last weekend- the harbour, the beaches, the energy. I sure do miss her!

Eric.

At the risk of repeating myself, and with particular reference to Donna’s post, the description of many here as “anti-Catholic” is only accurate if it is understood as “opposed to Roman Catholic teaching”.  I accept your point Donna that we should ask a person what they believe and not accept second-hand information.  But the so-called anti-Catholicism that is being referred to here is not about individual, personal beliefs—yours, Robert I W’s, Joshua’s, etc.—but about the official teaching of the Roman Catholic church.  That is not a matter of “second-hand information” but well-documented, publicly available information.  It is only at this level that many Sydney Anglicans would accept the description “anti-Catholic”, although we would also point out that there is much we have in common: the teaching of the historic creeds for starters.
Bob

Bob
The anti-Catholicism I refer to is that which seeks to deliberately misrepresent Catholicism.  I have mentioned before in other threads my issue is with those who profess to know so much about the CC and its history, who clearly do not and refuse to be sincere with their approach towards it. 

It is clear, however, that even when a doctrine is clearly defined here on the forums (by Catholic contributors), for example the doctrine of salvation according to CC teaching, some will still continue to behave as if the doctrine is what they first believed.  Its a case of guilty even when proven innocent.

Hope that clears up my position a little better
Regards
Donna

Bob, I think the distinction you make is very important. Nevertheless, when I was an Anglican in Sydney, I received the impression that Catholics were not truly Christian and probably not saved, so that when I started mingling with those who took their faith seriously, I was very surprised by the depth of their discipleship to Christ to the extent that I felt ashamed of my own.
I think people in positions of pastoral leadership, because of collegial contacts across churches and denominations, might tend to hold more generous opinions of people in other Christian groups than do many of those in the pews, perhaps?
Eric.

Could you quote what people have actually said, rather than just make the accusation in the abstract? Thanks Donna.

Craig
I gave an example of the doctrine of salvation.  I really do not want to highlight a particular person/s’ comments.  They are there to read.

I think my point is valid and one I have experienced on this forum and in my own personal experience.  To give an example, a friend is a protestant and we decided to have a ‘formal’ sharing of our beliefs.  Whenever I presented the biblical basis for Catholicism, she refused to read any of my notes (even though I obliged her with her documentation), and became quite defensive.  She later confessed to me that her aim was to convert me and that frustration got the better of her.  I have struck this on a number of occasions.  I even was invited to a persons home who had anti-Catholic paraphernalia decorating his walls!  His bible was heavily highlighted with proof texts to what he thought proved Catholicism wrong and he told me that if I left his home without denouncing Catholicism I would go to hell!  So whatever I have experienced on these forums is nothing quite like that.

In light of the fact that I have experienced much anti-Catholicism directed at me personally over a number of years, I do not have an anti-protestantism axe to grind.  I actually have more protestant friends than Catholic.  I love the Catholic faith which gives me much joy and peace, and only wish to share that with others.

Regards
Donna