Dear CutlerB,
Cordial greetings and avery good day.
As former member of the Anglican communion, dear friend, I subcribed, as did many other High-Church people, to the so called ‘branch theory’ of the Church. This theory, popularised by Blessed John Henry Newman in his Anglican days, holds that the original Catholic Church is now divided into three branches, namely the Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox and the Church of England, the church to which I was affilliated to. Anglo-Catholics/High-Church claim that all three traditions are equally Catholic, that is to say that they claim that the Anglican communion (like the Roman and Orthodox Churches) has retained apostolic succession, and therefore that their clergy are empowered to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and administer the other Catholic sacraments.
Notwithstanding that the Catholic Church had declared Anglican orders null and void in 1894, as a High-Churchman I considered myself a part of the Catholic Church and not a Protestant. The Evangelical Reformed party within Anglicanism I looked upon as an alien growth emerging out the revivals of Wesley and Whitfield back in the 18th. century. In spite of their claim to be authentically Anglican, their doctrine was incomplete and they subscribed to an essentially Calvinistic creed that was more akin to Presbyterianism and Puritanism.
Prior to converting to Catholicism and entering Holy Mother Church, I came to realize, bless God, that Anglicanism (even the High-Church variety) was essentially and inescapably Protestant. Its appeal to the Faith of the original ‘Catholic’ Church, like its appeal to the Tradition of the early centuries, is fundamentally flawed. Moreover, there is no individual within the Anglican set up to say authoritatively what the Faith is, or what the Tradition is and what Tradition states regarding Sacred Scripture. As you know, dear friend, each Anglican decides for himself what ‘tradition’ comes closest to the Faith, be it High-Church, Evangelical or liberal and joins a parish that adheres to that tradition. Anglicanism is hopelessly divided and the Archbishop of Canterbury does not have a role analgous to that of the Magisterium and expends a great deal of energy trying to maintain unity amongs the dispirate groups. That was not the sort of church that our Lord intended and lacks the mark of unity.
At one time, dear friend, I thought that I had found historical continuity in the Anglican communion and even thought that of all the communions upon earth it approximated most closely to the faith of Jesus Christ. However, there was no historical continuity and Anglicanism had emerged on the ecclesiastical scene at the time of the Reformation. Continuity and Tradition go hand in hand and Sacred Scripture has to be interpreted always in the light of Tradition. Unfortunately, there was no structure or an office to fulfill the interpretive function and hence no where to hear the authoritative word of God. Only the Roman Catholic Church could ever satisfy these requirements, which is why, among other reasons, I crossed the Tiber to Rome in December 2009, along with my dear wife.
God bless and I pray that you will, dear friend, have a happy conversion to the one true Church of Christ and find rest for your soul.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
Articles 28 & 29 from the 39 articles on the Eucharist makes your point clear about Anglicans being Protestant
XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.
XXIX. Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper.
The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.
They speak of the body and blood of Our Lord, but it’s not the body and blood of Our Lord, it’s merely a simbol. Therefore, no one, either good or bad receives the body and blood of Our Lord in those Anglican communions.
And as we know, there are many Anglicans who have come home to the Catholic Church, even entire parishes, and obviously by coming home, are no longer Protestant, and are fully Catholic now, in union with the pope.
