Anglican/Catholic

[velvetsky]

Hi There, I was just wondering what differences there are between the Anglicans and Catholics. I was once told Anglicans are Catholics? Is that right? Many thanks x

 

[velvetsky]

Its ok, I’ve just googled it. There doesn’t appear to be much difference from what I’ve just read.

 

[LDNCatholic]

No, Anglicans are not Catholic.

You’re in the UK, so your experience of Anglicans (if any) would be the Church of England.

Many CoE churches describe themselves as ‘‘Reformed Catholic’’, basically Catholic in style, but Protestant in theology.

There are a number of Anglicans from the ‘‘high church’’ that are coming into communion with Rome. These people are Catholic, but will retain the Anglican style of Mass. There are not many of them yet.

 

[Skeptic92]

Hi There, I was just wondering what differences there are between the Anglicans and Catholics. I was once told Anglicans are Catholics? Is that right? Many thanks x

No Anglicans are not Catholics (although the high Church is not far off in Theology), heres some differences

the ‘Leader’ (first among equals) of the Anglican Communion is the Archbishop of Canterbury (the encumbent of the seat of St Benedict of Canterbury) the Very Reverend Dr Rowan Williams, the Leader of the Catholic Church is his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, encumbent of the seat of St Peter.

The Low Church of the Anglican Communion is very distinctly Protestant, more towards baptists then any Catholic Church.

The “leader” of the CoE is HRH Queen Elizabeth II

The Holy Orders of the Anglican Church (for the majority of the time, there may actually be a few validly ordained priests and bishops in the Anglican Communion) are invalid, therefore there is no Apostolic Succession, or the Eucharist is invalid, which the Orthodox & the Catholic Church do have.

However Theologically, their is only few differences nowadays, set aside women priests (and maybe soon to be bishops), and the acceptance of Same Sex couples (which is not a common opinion throughout the Church, it is divided upon this issue), and our Theology is very similar.

Some reforms need to be made within the Anglican Communion before they can truly come completely into Communion with the Catholic Church, however the differences are not as great as some people believe, if you go into a CoE Liturgy, especially in the High Church, you could quite easily mistake it for a Catholic Mass.

 

[FrDavid96]

Hi There, I was just wondering what differences there are between the Anglicans and Catholics. I was once told Anglicans are Catholics? Is that right? Many thanks x

No. They Anglicans are very much not Catholics. Catholic is an “all or nothing” reality. Anglicanism rejects certain essential beliefs (dogmas) of the faith handed down to us from Christ. Anglicanism is a rejection of the Church itself, because it is a belief that if a group of people don’t like the faith, they can simply form their own community and believe whatever pleases them. This is the very foundation of Anglicanism (see the history of Henry VIII, the founder of Anglicanism).
There are many, many differences between Anglicanism and Catholicism, and Anglicans are not at all Catholic.

Having said that, though, there are some Catholics who use a modified version of the Anglican prayer books. No doubt, you’ve read about (or maybe even experienced) this. There are right now, about 9 Catholic parishes in the US who have special permission from the Holy See to do this. Their priests have been validly ordained by Catholic bishops, and they are 100% Catholic. There’s no adequate vocabulary yet to describe this: “Catholics of the Anglican usage” is one way. It is expected that sometime soon, Rome will establish an ordinariate (similar to a diocese) here in the US to accommodate this legitimate usage.

 

[JRKH]

The core issues are:
The Anglican Church rejects Papal Authority, even though it may agree with much of the teaching of the Magisterium. Instead, as pointed out above, they substitute the King/Queen as the head of the Church which is then governed through the Archbishop of Canterbury.

As a result of this rejection of and seperation from Rome, the Anglican Bishops were stripped of their faculties and were/are unable to licitly ordain priests. In short, Anglican Priests are not priests at all and therefore not able to change the bread and wine into the body and blood…All other differences pale in comparison to this one.

Let us pray that these differences will soon disappear and the Catholic and Anglican will be one church once again.

Peace
James

 

[FrDavid96]

The core issues are:
The Anglican Church rejects Papal Authority, even though it may agree with much of the teaching of the Magisterium. Instead, as pointed out above, they substitute the King/Queen as the head of the Church which is then governed through the Archbishop of Canterbury.

As a result of this rejection of and seperation from Rome, the Anglican Bishops were stripped of their faculties and were/are unable to licitly ordain priests. In short, Anglican Priests are not priests at all and therefore not able to change the bread and wine into the body and blood…All other differences pale in comparison to this one.

Let us pray that these differences will soon disappear and the Catholic and Anglican will be one church once again.

Peace
James

James,
It’s a little different than that. It wasn’t a “loss of faculties” that makes Anglican orders invalid–true, they did lose their faculties, but that doesn’t affect validity. What makes Anglican orders invalid is that under Henry VIII’s son Edward and daughter Elizabeth, Anglicanism rejected any beliefs in the priesthood itself, and they outwardly “ordained” their ministers to be “not-priests but only preachers” (I’m summarizing here quite a bit). That was when they lost Apostolic Succession. Pope Leo XIII explained all this at length in Apostolicae Curae. Here’s a link papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

 

[JRKH]

James,
It’s a little different than that. It wasn’t a “loss of faculties” that makes Anglican orders invalid–true, they did lose their faculties, but that doesn’t affect validity. What makes Anglican orders invalid is that under Henry VIII’s son Edward and daughter Elizabeth, Anglicanism rejected any beliefs in the priesthood itself, and they outwardly “ordained” their ministers to be “not-priests but only preachers” (I’m summarizing here quite a bit). That was when they lost Apostolic Succession. Pope Leo XIII explained all this at length in Apostolicae Curae. Here’s a link papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

FrDavid,
Thanks for the correction/clarification.

Peace
James

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Anglicans are considered to be a part of the universal “catholic” church but it’s not the same as Roman catholic. They do have apostolic succession, although some RC’s may disagree. The church service styles are very similar but the dogma is very different. Anglicans believe in the communion of saints but it’s almost one-way. They pray for the dead but generally don’t ask saints to pray for them. No purgatory. And of course there are the different stances on moral/social issues. After studying the dogmas and the bible, in my opinion it seems the RC church is more on target, especially with purgatory and the like. It seems like when the church separated they just did away with everything that wasn’t people-pleasing. Maybe they had to do that to entice people to leave the RC church.

 

[GKC]

Anglicans are considered to be a part of the universal “catholic” church but it’s not the same as Roman catholic. They do have apostolic succession, although some RC’s may disagree. The church service styles are very similar but the dogma is very different. Anglicans believe in the communion of saints but it’s almost one-way. They pray for the dead but generally don’t ask saints to pray for them. No purgatory. And of course there are the different stances on moral/social issues. After studying the dogmas and the bible, in my opinion it seems the RC church is more on target, especially with purgatory and the like. It seems like when the church separated they just did away with everything that wasn’t people-pleasing. Maybe they had to do that to entice people to leave the RC church.

The points in Apostolicae Curae certainly represent the RCC position on the validity of Anglican orders and should be affirmed by any RC. Anglicans do not have that requirement and disagree.

If you wanted to examine the issue, the best exposition of the RCC side can be found in Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. For the opposing views (assuming anyone wanted to read them) try Hughes’ two books ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD.

On a more general point, it is almost impossible to generalize about Anglicans, generally. Not all are in communion with Rome, not all think one can ordain women, and so forth. They are, as I always say, a motley crew.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[FrDavid96]

The points in Apostolicae Curae certainly represent the RCC position on the validity of Anglican orders and should be affirmed by any RC. Anglicans do not have that requirement and disagree.
…

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

And that’s exactly why Anglicans are not catholic–because they “pick and choose” what they want to believe. Catholicism doesn’t mean “believe whatever you want, and reject whatever you don’t like” It means the whole faith, kath-holos; all of it.

 

[GKC]

No Anglicans are not Catholics (although the high Church is not far off in Theology), heres some differences

the ‘Leader’ (first among equals) of the Anglican Communion is the Archbishop of Canterbury (the encumbent of the seat of St Benedict of Canterbury) the Very Reverend Dr Rowan Williams, the Leader of the Catholic Church is his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, encumbent of the seat of St Peter.

The Low Church of the Anglican Communion is very distinctly Protestant, more towards baptists then any Catholic Church.

The “leader” of the CoE is HRH Queen Elizabeth II

The Holy Orders of the Anglican Church (for the majority of the time, there may actually be a few validly ordained priests and bishops in the Anglican Communion) are invalid, therefore there is no Apostolic Succession, or the Eucharist is invalid, which the Orthodox & the Catholic Church do have.

However Theologically, their is only few differences nowadays, set aside women priests (and maybe soon to be bishops), and the acceptance of Same Sex couples (which is not a common opinion throughout the Church, it is divided upon this issue), and our Theology is very similar.

Some reforms need to be made within the Anglican Communion before they can truly come completely into Communion with the Catholic Church, however the differences are not as great as some people believe, if you go into a CoE Liturgy, especially in the High Church, you could quite easily mistake it for a Catholic Mass.

One point only. If the Dutch Touch/Polish Pat has made any Anglicans possess valid orders (and the point has not been commented on, officially, by the RCC), then much more than a few Anglicans possess valid, but illicit orders. From the Agreement of Bonn, beginning in 1932 (and beginning in 1946, with the PNCC), Anglicans and OC/PNCC bishops have regularly participated in joint consecrations. Assuming (logically) that the OC/PNCC participation infuses valid/illicit episcopal lines (and I’m cognizant of the intent and form issues), these are then perpetuated as the Anglican bishops consecrate/ordain, in turn. It’s hard to find an Anglican with absolutely no contact with the OC/PNCC lines. My own late rector was ordained by an Anglican bishop whose consecrator had PNCC lines, directly.

GKC

 

[Gingersnaps4]

The points in Apostolicae Curae certainly represent the RCC position on the validity of Anglican orders and should be affirmed by any RC. Anglicans do not have that requirement and disagree.

If you wanted to examine the issue, the best exposition of the RCC side can be found in Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. For the opposing views (assuming anyone wanted to read them) try Hughes’ two books ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD.

On a more general point, it is almost impossible to generalize about Anglicans, generally. Not all are in communion with Rome, not all think one can ordain women, and so forth. They are, as I always say, a motley crew.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

Yes you are right, I shouldn’t generalize. My perspective is from that of TEC. But even within TEC there are views ranging from orthodox to liberal.

 

[GKC]

And that’s exactly why Anglicans are not catholic–because they “pick and choose” what they want to believe. Catholicism doesn’t mean “believe whatever you want, and reject whatever you don’t like” It means the whole faith, kath-holos; all of it.

True enough, from your perspective. But that doesn’t address the validity of their orders, save in the eyes of the RCC. It is an arguable point, as can be seen in the books I mentioned.

Certainly, I don’t suggest you do anything but affirm it, as then Cardinal Ratzinger mentioned, in passing, in 1998.

GKC

 

[FrDavid96]

True enough, from your perspective. But that doesn’t address the validity of their orders, save in the eyes of the RCC. It is an arguable point, as can be seen in the books I mentioned.

Certainly, I don’t suggest you do anything but affirm it, as then Cardinal Ratzinger mentioned, in passing, in 1998.

GKC

Valid ordination isn’t a matter of perspective. It’s an objective reality–it either is there or is not there. That’s yet another difference between Anglicanism and catholicism; Anglicans believe that truth is a matter of perspective.

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger didn’t just mention it in passing. He mentioned it as an infallible teaching of the catholic faith, belonging to a certain category of infallible teachings, but not among those declared as such by an “infallible pronouncement” as Vatican I defined them.

Since it is an essential teaching of the catholic faith that Anglican attempts at orders are absolutely null and utterly void, no one can claim to be a catholic and still reject the fact that Anglican attempts at ordination are anything other than absolutely null and utterly void–not knowingly at least.

And actually, it does go directly to validity of orders because what the Anglican community rejected was the very belief in the priesthood itself. They decided to “pick and choose” what they believe about the Sacraments and when that came to ordination they choose to accept that a priest is a minister of the Word, but utterly reject that a priest offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (with everything else that involves); thus making their attempts at ordination from-then-on absolutely null and utterly void.

 

[GKC]

Valid ordination isn’t a matter of perspective. It’s an objective reality–it either is there or is not there. That’s yet another difference between Anglicanism and catholicism; Anglicans believe that truth is a matter of perspective.

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger didn’t just mention it in passing. He mentioned it as an infallible teaching of the catholic faith, belonging to a certain category of infallible teachings, but not among those declared as such by an “infallible pronouncement” as Vatican I defined them.

Since it is an essential teaching of the catholic faith that Anglican attempts at orders are absolutely null and utterly void, no one can claim to be a catholic and still reject the fact that Anglican attempts at ordination are anything other than absolutely null and utterly void–not knowingly at least.

And actually, it does go directly to validity of orders because what the Anglican community rejected was the very belief in the priesthood itself. They decided to “pick and choose” what they believe about the Sacraments and when that came to ordination they choose to accept that a priest is a minister of the Word, but utterly reject that a priest offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (with everything else that involves); thus making their attempts at ordination from-then-on absolutely null and utterly void.

Again, it is not easy to generalize about Anglicans. Accurately. What I was saying is that what the RCC asserts, absolutely, about Anglican orders is not what an Anglican need accept. That it is absolutely true that the RCC teaches the Anglican orders to be null and void, there is no doubt.

By mentioning it in passing, I meant that the subject was not the primary point in his Doctrinal Commentary on *Ad Tuendam Fidem *

As to Apostolicae Curae, it is a complicated issue, involving history, theology, politics and personalities, from the time Halifax and Portal first met in 1890, to the Malines Conversations in 1928; a hobby of mine for 10 years or so. I do recommend the books I mentioned, for detail of what an Anglican might think of these things, as well,with Clark, an excellent exposition of the RC reasoning. Fr. Hughes, incidentally, was the first Anglican priest to be ordained a RC priest, sub conditione, after 1896.

As a RC, I certainly urge you to affirm Apostolicae Curae. As an Anglo-Catholic (yes, I know) I need not do so.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Contarini]

Hi There, I was just wondering what differences there are between the Anglicans and Catholics. I was once told Anglicans are Catholics? Is that right? Many thanks x

It depends on your definition of “Catholic.”

There are Anglicans (the “Anglo-Catholics”) who claim that Anglicans are Catholic by the historic definition used before the Reformation. I do not find this argument persuasive. For us to claim to be Catholic, we have to use the word “Catholic” in a somewhat broader sense than it was traditionally used.

However, it seems to me that there’s a trend in all the apostolic churches (by that I mean churches that have undisputed apostolic succession: the Roman Communion and the three separated Eastern Communions) toward a broader definition of Catholicity. This is most clearly seen in the Roman Communion with the teachings of Vatican II. Fr. Stanley Jaki pointed out that this trend goes back all the way to Augustine’s (and earlier Rome’s) insistence against Cyprian that the baptism of heretics was valid.

Thus, I don’t think that our broader definition of Catholicity is automatically wrong. At the same time, I think we need to be much humbler about our claims to Catholicity than we generally are.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

No, Anglicans are not Catholic.

You’re in the UK, so your experience of Anglicans (if any) would be the Church of England.

Many CoE churches describe themselves as ‘‘Reformed Catholic’’, basically Catholic in style, but Protestant in theology.

Actually the “Reformed Catholic” label is at least as common on this side of the pond. And it’s used more broadly than just among the Anglo-Catholics–many of whom don’t particularly like the label “Reformed” in any sense!

Hardline Anglo-Catholicism is perhaps more common in England than in the U.S. But the C of E has a much broader spectrum than the Episcopal Church. The average C of E parish these days seems to be shockingly “low” by American standards, and the growing evangelical wing of Anglicanism wouldn’t be recognizably Anglican by our standards–they are essentially non-liturgical and can hardly be distinguished from Baptists, by what I’ve heard.

(Note: when I speak of the evangelical wing as growing, I’m referring to fairly recent trends that seem to constitute yet another of several evangelical surges in the C of E–there seems to be an undulating pattern of growth and decline in Anglican evangelicalism. If historic trends hold good, eventually many evangelicals will move toward the center–indeed that’s already happening–and the evangelical growth will slow for a time. The same thing is true in the U.S., but it happens outside Anglicanism for the most part.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Its ok, I’ve just googled it. There doesn’t appear to be much difference from what I’ve just read.

Depends on which Anglicans. The basic difference is that our theological spectrum is much broader. There are Anglicans whose theology is practically indistinguishable from Catholicism–there are many others of whom this is emphatically not true. What can be said about Anglicans as a whole (ruling out those who are clearly liberal dissenters–we have them just as the RCC does, though what they are dissenting from is much broader and more basic, and they find it easier to reach high ecclesiastical positions owing to our lax discipline) does not clearly differ from RC teaching except in its breadth and looseness, because it is essentially Nicene orthodoxy broadly defined.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Depends on which Anglicans. The basic difference is that our theological spectrum is much broader. There are Anglicans whose theology is practically indistinguishable from Catholicism–there are many others of whom this is emphatically not true. What can be said about Anglicans as a whole (ruling out those who are clearly liberal dissenters–we have them just as the RCC does, though what they are dissenting from is much broader and more basic, and they find it easier to reach high ecclesiastical positions owing to our lax discipline) does not clearly differ from RC teaching except in its breadth and looseness, because it is essentially Nicene orthodoxy broadly defined.

Edwin

A motley crew.

(Where is gurney, when you need him?)

GKC