Anglican service and Roman Catholic mass?

[GKC]

A number of things can be meant by it. What is never meant by it is a distinct denomination or ecclesiastical body. It is a wing of the Anglican tradition which emphasizes the more Catholic elements of Anglicanism. It’s a somewhat broader and vaguer term than “Anglo-Catholic,” though it’s often used to mean much the same thing. “High Church” usually means an emphasis on traditional liturgy, a high valuation of the sacraments, a strong view of the authority of the Church and of the priestly office, etc. I would define an Anglo-Catholic more precisely, as an Anglican who accepts without reservation the authority of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the tradition of the first-millennium Church in general, and accepts only those portions of the Reformation as can be reconciled with that tradition. (Generally a true Anglo-Catholic will also treat the medieval Western councils with considerable respect, and will pay a certain deference even to the utterances of the post-Reformation “Roman Catholic” Church.) One may have a taste for “high church” liturgy and even doctrine without being willing to go quite so far.

I am very close to Anglo-Catholicism, but not quite there. I would say that I generally follow the Seven Councils and the first-millennium Church, but I wouldn’t embrace them without hesitation. I remain Anglican largely because I think the Reformation did have some value. I hope that the Reformation can be interpreted in the light of the “undivided Church,” but I think its critiques need to be listened to very carefully rather than simply rejected where they differ from what Catholics and Orthodox have in common (which is another way of defining Anglo-Catholicism). At the end of the day if you force me to choose between the Reformation and the first-millennium Church, I’ll choose the latter. But I’d rather put the two into dialog and see what new insights might emerge. And Anglicanism is a place where that dialog can happen.

Edwin

I’m still a Continuing Anglican. And of the Anglo-Catholic persuasion. Contarini is cstill orrect.

Usually, I make a little more of a distinction between the High Church Anglican and an Anglo-Catholic (though nothing here is incorrect), linking “High” Church to the Ritualist movement and Anglo-Catholic to the earlier Oxford movement. But it is merely for some historical perspective, High Church looking more to liturgical matters and Anglo-Catholic to doctrinal. It’s a fine point, though.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Contarini]

Interesting. So Episcapalian can be Anglo-Catholic high Church? Is there different factions within Anglicanism or are they all united to the Anglican Church?

“Episcopalian” is the name historically taken by Anglicans in Scotland and America, because they didn’t want to be seen as “English” (Anglican is just Latin for English, originally, which is how we Anglicans can claim to go back to the sixth century, since we are simply the historic English Church currently in a state of separation from the Roman See–at least that’s what many of us would argue). It isn’t a “different church.” It’s become complicated in recent years since there are conservatives in America who have separated from the Episcopal Church but still consider themselves Anglican. (GKC belongs to such a church.) Hence many people have started using “Anglican” to mean “conservative, traditional” as opposed to the “liberal” Episcopalians. But that’s a very recent and peculiarly American usage.

There have always been different factions in every church existing on the face of the earth. However, because of our history as a state church trying to include as many of the people of England as possible (and persecute viciously anyone who wouldn’t be included, whether Catholics or radical Protestants), Anglicanism is particularly “rich” in factions. I believe (GKC might disagree) that the Anglo-Catholic movement of the 19th century contributed to this greatly. Anglo-Catholics defied the authority of bishops who tried to forbid them from doing “Catholic” things (like hearing confessions, or using candles and Eucharistic vestments, etc.). And they interpreted the traditional Anglican formularies in some rather creative ways. This enabled liberals to do the same thing. It eroded any sense (never very strong compared to Lutheranism or Calvinism or Catholicism) that there was a single body of doctrine and an authority capable of enforcing adherence to it. Anglicanism became even more a collection of very different expressions of Christianity, each of which (and here, I think, is the real problem) acted as if it was “real” Anglicanism. So you have people who sincerely think that Anglicans in general adhere to the 39 Articles and identify with the Reformed tradition. You have people who sincerely think that Anglicanism as a whole is Catholic and not really Protestant, and adheres to the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the consensus of the undivided Church. And you have people who sincerely think that Anglicanism is primarily characterized by a method of tolerance and rationality and avoidance of dogmatism. When crises erupt, these different groups become aware of each other and start wailing about the dreadful traitors who are attacking true historic Anglicanism and trying to replace it with “Roman Catholicism” or “fundamentalism” or “liberal apostasy.”

This was true of me to some extent. I thought I was fairly well aware of the diversity within Anglicanism. But the church where I was confirmed was quite Anglo-Catholic, and while I new that all Anglicans were not like this I did not realize how rare my church was. Nor did I realize that there were people who seriously thought that the national-church ecclesiology of the 16th century is a good thing. But not only do they exist, they take it for granted that this simply is historic Anglicanism (unfortunately, on this point they are right!) and they are shocked that some of us (including the Archbishop of Canterbury) hold to a more Catholic ecclesiology (while others don’t really care about visible unity at all and are fairly happy to jump ship and become Baptists or whatever).

Edwin

 

[Mickey]

“Episcopalian” is the name historically taken by Anglicans in Scotland and America, because they didn’t want to be seen as “English” (Anglican is just Latin for English, originally, which is how we Anglicans can claim to go back to the sixth century, since we are simply the historic English Church currently in a state of separation from the Roman See–at least that’s what many of us would argue). It isn’t a “different church.” It’s become complicated in recent years since there are conservatives in America who have separated from the Episcopal Church but still consider themselves Anglican. (GKC belongs to such a church.) Hence many people have started using “Anglican” to mean “conservative, traditional” as opposed to the “liberal” Episcopalians. But that’s a very recent and peculiarly American usage.

There have always been different factions in every church existing on the face of the earth. However, because of our history as a state church trying to include as many of the people of England as possible (and persecute viciously anyone who wouldn’t be included, whether Catholics or radical Protestants), Anglicanism is particularly “rich” in factions. I believe (GKC might disagree) that the Anglo-Catholic movement of the 19th century contributed to this greatly. Anglo-Catholics defied the authority of bishops who tried to forbid them from doing “Catholic” things (like hearing confessions, or using candles and Eucharistic vestments, etc.). And they interpreted the traditional Anglican formularies in some rather creative ways. This enabled liberals to do the same thing. It eroded any sense (never very strong compared to Lutheranism or Calvinism or Catholicism) that there was a single body of doctrine and an authority capable of enforcing adherence to it. Anglicanism became even more a collection of very different expressions of Christianity, each of which (and here, I think, is the real problem) acted as if it was “real” Anglicanism. So you have people who sincerely think that Anglicans in general adhere to the 39 Articles and identify with the Reformed tradition. You have people who sincerely think that Anglicanism as a whole is Catholic and not really Protestant, and adheres to the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the consensus of the undivided Church. And you have people who sincerely think that Anglicanism is primarily characterized by a method of tolerance and rationality and avoidance of dogmatism. When crises erupt, these different groups become aware of each other and start wailing about the dreadful traitors who are attacking true historic Anglicanism and trying to replace it with “Roman Catholicism” or “fundamentalism” or “liberal apostasy.”

This was true of me to some extent. I thought I was fairly well aware of the diversity within Anglicanism. But the church where I was confirmed was quite Anglo-Catholic, and while I new that all Anglicans were not like this I did not realize how rare my church was. Nor did I realize that there were people who seriously thought that the national-church ecclesiology of the 16th century is a good thing. But not only do they exist, they take it for granted that this simply is historic Anglicanism (unfortunately, on this point they are right!) and they are shocked that some of us (including the Archbishop of Canterbury) hold to a more Catholic ecclesiology (while others don’t really care about visible unity at all and are fairly happy to jump ship and become Baptists or whatever).

Thank you for the brief history lesson, Edwin.
It is quite interesting and in some ways disturbing. I have also met Anglicans who seem to be more in line with Holy Orthodoxy than anything else–so in a sense–Anglicanism covers the whole spectrum!

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I find it very odd that you think you know what Anglicans say better than we do. I assure you that we do say those words–and I for one believe them!

Because it is not by our will that the historic Catholic Church was divided into East and West, and further divided at the Reformation. We would enter into full communion with either Rome or the East at any time if you would accept us as we are. The problem is not that we do not believe in the one Church. The problem is that we do not recognize either Rome or the East as having the full authority to speak for the one Church.

Edwin

Don’t you find it odd that neither Apostolic communion will “accept you just the way you are”? You make it sound as if you were cut off frmo the Catholic Church when it’s the other way around. And it WAS by your communion’s will that the catholic churches were split at the Reformation. Playing the vicitm game…

 

[Mickey]

You make it sound as if you were cut off frmo the Catholic Church when it’s the other way around.

Why is it that I so often hear that the high Anglican Liturgy is more beautiful and more “Catholic” than the Novus Ordo Roman Catholic Mass?

 

[Contarini]

Thank you for the brief history lesson, Edwin.
It is quite interesting and in some ways disturbing. I have also met Anglicans who seem to be more in line with Holy Orthodoxy than anything else–so in a sense–Anglicanism covers the whole spectrum!

It’s quite common and normal for Anglo-Catholics to make this claim. Essentially Anglo-Catholics believe in the things held in common by Catholics and Orthodox. That makes them pretty much identical to the Orthodox (since most of the differences between Catholics and Orthodox are things Catholics do or believe but the Orthodox deny). They do use the Filioque, which the Orthodox reject, and there are a number of non-dogmatic points where Anglicans are typically Western. For some Anglo-Catholics, these are quite important. For others, they aren’t. I myself would never be a hardline Anglo-Catholic, because if I came to accept the basic premises of Anglo-Catholicism (the authority of the first millennium and the invalidity of the second-millennium papal claims) I’d become Orthodox.

Edwin

 

[Mickey]

I myself would never be a hardline Anglo-Catholic, because if I came to accept the basic premises of Anglo-Catholicism (the authority of the first millennium and the invalidity of the second-millennium papal claims) I’d become Orthodox.

Hooray!

 

[Contarini]

Don’t you find it odd that neither Apostolic communion will “accept you just the way you are”? You make it sound as if you were cut off frmo the Catholic Church when it’s the other way around. And it WAS by your communion’s will that the catholic churches were split at the Reformation. Playing the vicitm game…

I don’t mean to do this. My point is that Anglicans have never claimed officially that Rome is heretical (though such an opinion was almost universal among late-sixteenth-century Anglicans) and in that sense have never broken communion with Rome. We simply rejected Rome’s authority. If you chose to accept us into full communion we would gladly accept (as opposed to, say, the Missouri Synod Lutherans, who would demand that you abandon your “errors” first). I am not claiming that you are doing us some wrong in not accepting us “as we are.” I’m simply trying to explain how Anglicans can say that they believe in the unity of the Church. We don’t claim (as traditional Presbyterians or Lutherans would claim) that this unity excludes Rome. So all the arguments about how we derive from you are moot. We aren’t disputing that. Hooker maintained precisely this point against the Puritans.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

“I believe (GKC might disagree) that the Anglo-Catholic movement of the 19th century contributed to this greatly. Anglo-Catholics defied the authority of bishops who tried to forbid them from doing “Catholic” things (like hearing confessions, or using candles and Eucharistic vestments, etc.). And they interpreted the traditional Anglican formularies in some rather creative ways.”

I agree with Contarini.

GKC

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I don’t mean to do this. My point is that Anglicans have never claimed officially that Rome is heretical (though such an opinion was almost universal among late-sixteenth-century Anglicans) and in that sense have never broken communion with Rome. We simply rejected Rome’s authority. If you chose to accept us into full communion we would gladly accept (as opposed to, say, the Missouri Synod Lutherans, who would demand that you abandon your “errors” first). I am not claiming that you are doing us some wrong in not accepting us “as we are.” I’m simply trying to explain how Anglicans can say that they believe in the unity of the Church. We don’t claim (as traditional Presbyterians or Lutherans would claim) that this unity excludes Rome. So all the arguments about how we derive from you are moot. We aren’t disputing that. Hooker maintained precisely this point against the Puritans.

Edwin

I’m sure all most Anglicans would have to do to become members of the Catholic Church is a profession of faith. We don’t discount you as Christians, but we do not call you Catholic Christians or accept the validity of your Orders or Sacraments. Not all of your churches even believe in all of the 7 Sacraments…

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

In one sense, England is kinda full of episcopalians, since technically, it refers to a type of ecclesiastical polity; the church is overseen by bishops (episcopi). In that sense, both the CoE and the RCC are “episcopal”.

But in a more specific sense, a few parts of the Anglican Communion (those Anglican jurisdictions that are in communion with Canterbury, and that grew out of the CoE) use the word “Episcopal” in their name. The Episcopal Church, USA, for example. Or the Scottish Episcopal Church. Most official Anglican (those in communion with Canterbury) Churches will have "Anglican " in their names, but a few use Episcopal.

GKC

To distinguish themselves from the British Empire. I find this kind of sad when you have a communion of so-called apostolic churches which have to change the name of their church so as to not reflect the locality of their mother church. This is an emulation of the Orthodox church with their national churches and what not… all it does is create political divisions within Christianity.

Our church’s organizational structure is similar, but we do not have ‘national’ churches, but synods or conferences. The USCCB is the ‘church of America’, or Synod of Bishops for the USA. Each diocese and archdiocese is a separate legal entity and controls its own internal affairs and answers to Rome only in the matter of faith and morals. I’m not sure why the Anglicans couldn’t accept this same structure within the worldwide Catholic Communion.

 

[simonz]

I’d like to mention that the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) is seeking full Communion with Rome. Although, we’re a small group, this would be a landmark event if successful.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Anglican_Communion

 

[LDNCatholic]

I’d like to mention that the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) is seeking full Communion with Rome. Although, we’re a small group, this would be a landmark event if successful.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Anglican_Communion

Indeed it would, tell me are you seeking union in the Western Rite or as a separate rite/sui juris church such as the Eastern Rites or the Greek Catholics?

 

[GKC]

Indeed it would, tell me are you seeking union in the Western Rite or as a separate rite/sui juris church such as the Eastern Rites or the Greek Catholics?

I’m not a member of the TAC, I’m another variety of Continuing Anglican, but I understand it to be as a *sui juris *church.

OTOH, I’m dubious about the viability of the whole proposition.

GKC

 

[GKC]

To distinguish themselves from the British Empire. I find this kind of sad when you have a communion of so-called apostolic churches which have to change the name of their church so as to not reflect the locality of their mother church. This is an emulation of the Orthodox church with their national churches and what not… all it does is create political divisions within Christianity.

Our church’s organizational structure is similar, but we do not have ‘national’ churches, but synods or conferences. The USCCB is the ‘church of America’, or Synod of Bishops for the USA. Each diocese and archdiocese is a separate legal entity and controls its own internal affairs and answers to Rome only in the matter of faith and morals. I’m not sure why the Anglicans couldn’t accept this same structure within the worldwide Catholic Communion.

True, in essence, but it seems a minor point. Only those few of the clan who actually had a political gripe with the home offfice anted a distinctive name, primarily us and the Scots… By far the majority (like 35 or so of the 38 self-governing jurisdictions in the Communion) call themselves “Anglican”.

The Anglican Communion was an outgrowth, originally, of the British Empire; the jurisdictions being colonial sees, under the Bishop of London, until the local colony achieved a level of political independence, when it took the “Anglican Church of …” name, (usually).

GKC

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Actually all of these boil down to the same thing–your Church’s belief that we have lost apostolic succession. You cannot of course expect us to agree!

No I wouldnt expect you to agree with me, but history holds the facts of the seperation from Royaty and the Vicar of Jesus Christ. Why is it then that Anglican are not in full communion with Rome when at one time they were one. Thus seperation from church and state. It is Jesus Christ who is head of his church. Not a worldy king. This has been the case since Jesus instituted his church upon Peter.

Then answer my point about the meaning of the word “leitourgia.” Historically this is how the word “service” came to be used to mean “liturgy”–because it’s the English translation. I agree that most Protestants think of the two as different. But since the words originally meant the same thing, it seems unreasonable to say “the Mass is not a service” rather than “you have lost the original sense of what your ancestors meant when they said ‘service.’”

Let’s speak plainly without linguistic herdles, Liturgy = public worship. I dont know of what school of thought you get liturgy to mean service without jumping through linguistic hoops.To apply service to define the Mass, especially with the variety of translations and meanings to the word service, tends to water down the true presence of the Mass. For one, the original poster indicated a live band and among other things to apply these as to mean the same as a Mass. When the poster applied the word service, this implied a protestant glorified bible study, not a liturgy of the word or the liturgy of the Eucharist, which is in no way a service as described by the original poster. My ancestors spoke many different languages that applied to the Liturgy of Worship and the True presence not service. Again jumping through linguistic loops from translations of the word service to mean Mass, and what the successors of the apostles meant in their writings almost always described the secret or the true presence not a service.

I take your point that a sacramental liturgy involves more than a simple service of worship (such as the Liturgy of the Hours, or Benediction). But it remains a service among other things. The Mass is seen in Catholic theology, is it not, as the most perfect form of Christian prayer? Isn’t it seen as an offering to God? That is exactly what the word “service” originally meant when used of worship. Indeed, the Orthodox refer to a priest “serving the Liturgy.”

Specifically, the services I was referring to was furnerals, healing services, the anointing of the sick, communion service when a priest is not available etc. Liturgy of the Hours is the prayer of the Church, The Mass from antiquity has many titles to it, The Lords supper, the breaking of bread, the wedding feast of the lamb, the secret, etc. My limited sources have never reffered to the Mass as a service. In Peters Church of Jesus Christ we call the priest our “Celebrant”, we are splitting hairs here. To celebrate has different connotations than serviing or service. Our priest during the solemnity of the Liturgy (public worship) of the Word (Gospel), and the Liturgy of the Eucharist is sacramentally in persona Christi. It is here that he serves at the Lords table, for he comes to serve not to be served. So to imply that we are serving God in the Mass contradicts the Gospel teachings of Jesus and his fulfillment of the old sacrificial covenant. It is Jesus who gives us the bread of life and the true blood to drink, not to service him. This service ideology takes from who we are in Jesus Christ as being one in the father.There is much to digress here, so I will submit this comment to you with much respect.

Peace be with you

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I’m not a member of the TAC, I’m another variety of Continuing Anglican, but I understand it to be as a *sui juris *church.

OTOH, I’m dubious about the viability of the whole proposition.

GKC

Ditto. All it would seem to accomplish is make a home for disenchanted Anglicans who would either end up Roman Catholic or continuing Anglican anyway. I’m not a ‘fan’ of the continuing Anglican movement, i think you guys should all come home by a simple profession of faith.

 

[THutch04]

I used to study in an all girls Anglican school and during service we always sang fun, happy worship songs to which we clapped, danced, jumped along to, with electric guitars and drums as accompaniment. I’ve found the way of worship identical to that of some adult/youth protestant services. For example, the Methodists. Although, I studied in an Anglican school, I went to a Methodist church on Sundays and the youth/adult services were very lively with the electric guitars, drums and all. The youth especially in the Methodist church love to jump up and down as they sing praise to God during the energetic, rock songs. A common sight seen during Youth Service in some protestant churches. These bring me to my question. I read that Anglicanism came from Roman Catholicism and that the services are similar to mass. I think the word that describes it is liturgical. So, I was wondering if that is how the Anglicans worship, why was my Anglican school’s form of worship the total opposite? Also, do Anglicans believe in intercession of Mary and the saints?

I don’t know what Anglicanism is like in other countries, but in my experience it’s liturgy is generally not like that. At the last service I sang at in an Episcopal church a few weeks ago, we sang traditional hymns and chorales. Nothing like that would even be considered in the churches I’ve attended. However, even with the (rather poor) choices in music, the structure of it (in other words, the liturgy) should be the same.

 

[GKC]

Ditto. All it would seem to accomplish is make a home for disenchanted Anglicans who would either end up Roman Catholic or continuing Anglican anyway. I’m not a ‘fan’ of the continuing Anglican movement, i think you guys should all come home by a simple profession of faith.

Few of us are fans of the Continuum, either. Just stuck with it.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[sharon_rose]

In the Presbyterian church that I’ve been to, we say the Apostle’s Creed. It says we believe in the communion of saints. I’m wondering then why don’t they practice intercession like the Roman Catholics? Could someone shed some light on this? Thanks!!