Anglicans who are Higher than Catholics?

[DL82]

A rare but not unknown phenomenon, I wanted to know if there were any on this board, and if so what their motivations are…

Let me explain…

There are some very High Church Anglicans who see themselves as a kind of late-medieval SSPX, moving away from the Catholic Church because of the ‘invention’ of Papal primacy at the Council of Trent. They tend to favour the Sarum Rite of the Latin Mass, and be closer to Orthodox than to Catholic in their understanding of theology and the role of Tradition. This seems to be the kind of theology in Catherine Pickstock and other members of the ‘radical orthodoxy’ movement.

To me, this seems like an artificial reading of history, anyone with any familiarity with the Westminster Confession, or the work of Thomas Cranmer, Cardinal Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell in asserting the King’s primacy over the Church of England will see that this kind of appeal to Tradition was flimsy at best, and the influence of protestant thought on the early Anglican movement was quite clear.

Just looking for any opinions either way on this tendency within Anglicanism.

 

[RNRobert]

I always wondered why certain Anglicans refer to themselves as Anglo-Catholic. I could see it if there was an Anglican Rite in the Catholic Church (like for example we have the Greek Rite, and Byzantine Rite, etc.), but this is not the case. If these Anglicans esteem the name Catholic, why do they not become Catholic in actuality?
James Cardinal Gibbons comments on this in his book The faith of Our Fathers (italics in the quote are the author’s):

So great is the charm attached to the name of Catholic that a portion of the Episcopal body sometimes usurps the title of Catholic, although in their official books they are named Protestant Episcopalians. If they think they have any just claim to the name of Catholic, why not come out openly and write it on the title-pages of their Bibles and Prayer-Books? Afraid of going so far, they gratify their vanity by privately calling themselves Catholic. But the delusion is so transparent that the attempt must provoke a smile even among themselves.
Should a stranger ask to direct him to the Catholic Church they would instinctively point out to him the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[GKC]

I always wondered why certain Anglicans refer to themselves as Anglo-Catholic. I could see it if there was an Anglican Rite in the Catholic Church (like for example we have the Greek Rite, and Byzantine Rite, etc.), but this is not the case. If these Anglicans esteem the name Catholic, why do they not become Catholic in actuality?
James Cardinal Gibbons comments on this in his book The faith of Our Fathers (italics in the quote are the author’s):

Anglo-Catholics refer to themselves as that because they consider themselves as Catholic, in the Anglican tradition. They do not expect RCs to agree with them, nor do they mind overly much when they don’t. Generally speaking.

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus *

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I read an article in Anglican Digest recently that was very honest (written by a high-church Anglican priest) about the fact that the early days of the Church of England under Henry were very Catholic, after Henry died the COE became extremely Calvinistic in almost every sense, and remained so until the Oxford Movement in the 1800’s.

When I used to be an Anglican, I felt very confused, having been a convert from Catholicism at that time, whether I was a Calvinist protestant or high-church more catholic? When I looked into the early days of the COE and saw the “black rubrics” and the low view of the Eucharist as a pneumatic presence, Cranmer’s calvinist view that the Eucharist was a spiritual presence only, how priests were referred more to as ministers, sacrifice was absolutely NOT part of the worship, saintly devotion was banned, vestments were banned, etc. then I wondered why, all of a sudden, three hundred years later, the Catholic nature budded out like a flower and, out of nowhere priests wanted Rome to validate their orders and incense returned, Transubstantiation popped up again, confession became cool again, etc. etc. That is why Pope Leo XIII invalidated Anglican orders. The history is sketchy and confusing. As an Anglican I doubted if I was in a Catholic body or in a calvinist one that looked Catholic. It’s tough.

I do know that it has been the “high” church Anglicans that have staved off the onslaught of female “priests” from totally dominating the Anglican Communion. The “low” church Anglicans are pretty open to women clergy but the “high” group looks through the lens of catholic eyes with regard to priestly orders and tradition.

When people ask, “why don’t these high church Anglicans just become Roman?” I guess I’d reply that they don’t want a pope. I’d also say that they look at Catholicism like the Orthodox do, conciliar, not papal. They admire and love many roman trappings and worship, they love liturgy and the fathers, they just look to their own catholicism as that which existed in the early first 500 years or so, papal-free conciliar catholicism. That’s my best answer. Plus, they love the Book of Common Prayer liturgy which is VASTLY superior to the Roman liturgy in English, which is, IMO many ways a travesty!

 

[GKC]

I read an article in Anglican Digest recently that was very honest (written by a high-church Anglican priest) about the fact that the early days of the Church of England under Henry were very Catholic, after Henry died the COE became extremely Calvinistic in almost every sense, and remained so until the Oxford Movement in the 1800’s.

When I used to be an Anglican, I felt very confused, having been a convert from Catholicism at that time, whether I was a Calvinist protestant or high-church more catholic? When I looked into the early days of the COE and saw the “black rubrics” and the low view of the Eucharist as a pneumatic presence, Cranmer’s calvinist view that the Eucharist was a spiritual presence only, how priests were referred more to as ministers, sacrifice was absolutely NOT part of the worship, saintly devotion was banned, vestments were banned, etc. then I wondered why, all of a sudden, three hundred years later, the Catholic nature budded out like a flower and, out of nowhere priests wanted Rome to validate their orders and incense returned, Transubstantiation popped up again, confession became cool again, etc. etc. That is why Pope Leo XIII invalidated Anglican orders. The history is sketchy and confusing. As an Anglican I doubted if I was in a Catholic body or in a calvinist one that looked Catholic. It’s tough.

I do know that it has been the “high” church Anglicans that have staved off the onslaught of female “priests” from totally dominating the Anglican Communion. The “low” church Anglicans are pretty open to women clergy but the “high” group looks through the lens of catholic eyes with regard to priestly orders and tradition.

When people ask, “why don’t these high church Anglicans just become Roman?” I guess I’d reply that they don’t want a pope. I’d also say that they look at Catholicism like the Orthodox do, conciliar, not papal. They admire and love many roman trappings and worship, they love liturgy and the fathers, they just look to their own catholicism as that which existed in the early first 500 years or so, papal-free conciliar catholicism. That’s my best answer. Plus, they love the Book of Common Prayer liturgy which is VASTLY superior to the Roman liturgy in English, which is, IMO many ways a travesty!

No one wanted Rome to validate orders. That was not what lead to Apostolicae Curae. It was the acitivities of Lord Halifax, and the Abbe Portal, which led to Cardinal Vaughan’s arranging for Leo to appoint the commission that resulted in Apostolicae Curae.

It is a long and complicated story, and I highly recommend Fr. John J. Hughes ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID, for the best acount of the historical side of it.

And do not be too sanguine about the high (more properly the Anglo-Catholics, high relating more to churchmanship than doctrine) side of official Anglicanism as a bulwark against females in sacerdotal garments. There are plenty that accept the same (though many who do not, to be sure).

I agree with parts of what you say.

GKC

 

[anon52328184]

I always wondered why certain Anglicans refer to themselves as Anglo-Catholic. I could see it if there was an Anglican Rite in the Catholic Church (like for example we have the Greek Rite, and Byzantine Rite, etc.), but this is not the case. If these Anglicans esteem the name Catholic, why do they not become Catholic in actuality?
James Cardinal Gibbons comments on this in his book The faith of Our Fathers (italics in the quote are the author’s):

actually, there is an anglican use rite in the catholic church. at this time i don’t think it is very wide. they use the book of divine worship. i suspect you might begin to see more of them.

i am not sure what they call themselves though. i believe they have to be confirmed in the catholic church, but many who want this rite are coming from the anglican communion or episcopal church.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No one wanted Rome to validate orders. That was not what lead to Apostolicae Curae. It was the acitivities of Lord Halifax, and the Abbe Portal, which led to Cardinal Vaughan’s arranging for Leo to appoint the commission that resulted in Apostolicae Curae.

It is a long and complicated story, and I highly recommend Fr. John J. Hughes ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID, for the best acount of the historical side of it.

And do not be too sanguine about the high (more properly the Anglo-Catholics, high relating more to churchmanship than doctrine) side of official Anglicanism as a bulwark against females in sacerdotal garments. There are plenty that accept the same (though many who do not, to be sure).

I agree with parts of what you say.

GKC

I’ll have to check out the book; it sounds great! You’re right about the Anglo-Catholics not being 100% against women’s ordination. You’re absolutely correct. I’m just saying that in MANY cases it is the Anglo-Catholics who keep more to tradition and TEND to not like female ordination while the lower church, more evangelical groups TEND to be less concerned with the gender of clergy as they don’t usually focus on the ‘sacrifice’ of the liturgy but more on the evangelical good news side of things. As a result, evangelicals usually don’t care what sex the preacher is. But I have seen plenty of high-church Anglo-Catholics, like you said, who, for reasons unknown to me (!!) are ok with female ‘priestesses’ officiating at their ‘mass.’ Weird stuff! And looking at Syndey Australia, that diocese has pretty much discarded the Book of Common Prayer and is having LAY-LITURGY where lay people ‘consecrate’ the Eucharist??? Geez…

 

[Steadfast]

Pretty sure most really high church Anglicans regard Cranmer etc. as unfortunate interludes and see themselves as a continuation of the pre-reformation English church with the addition that they tend to agree with Henry and the Bishops that a break with Rome was (unfortunately) necessary.

Appeals to what they consider a really regrettable era in actual Anglican history will not much impact them since they see themselves as a correction.

 

[GKC]

Pretty sure most really high church Anglicans regard Cranmer etc. as unfortunate interludes and see themselves as a continuation of the pre-reformation English church with the addition that they tend to agree with Henry and the Bishops that a break with Rome was (unfortunately) necessary.

Appeals to what they consider a really regrettable era in actual Anglican history will not much impact them since they see themselves as a correction.

We tend to think of Cranmer as the silver-tongued schismatic.

Yep, it’s about as you say.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[GKC]

actually, there is an anglican use rite in the catholic church. at this time i don’t think it is very wide. they use the book of divine worship. i suspect you might begin to see more of them.

i am not sure what they call themselves though. i believe they have to be confirmed in the catholic church, but many who want this rite are coming from the anglican communion or episcopal church.

There are around 5-6 Anglican use (not rite) parishes in the RCC, mainly centered in Texas. One was in my home town for several years; originating in the same split from the Episcopal Church that formed my own Continuing Anglican parish, so we were sort of half sisters churches.

The Anglican Use is a sort of stepping stone for former Anglicans who want to convert, is not very popular with the RC hiearchy, and is only available in this country. The intent is that such a church be transitional, and eventually, except for a couple of the trophy parishes in Texas, all such parishes eventually transition to the Roman Rite. This is what happened to the Anglcain USe parish locally. Unless things change, there will never be a lot if these aprishes. IIRC the total formed is around 15-20, and as I said, 6 or so are currently active.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I’ll have to check out the book; it sounds great! You’re right about the Anglo-Catholics not being 100% against women’s ordination. You’re absolutely correct. I’m just saying that in MANY cases it is the Anglo-Catholics who keep more to tradition and TEND to not like female ordination while the lower church, more evangelical groups TEND to be less concerned with the gender of clergy as they don’t usually focus on the ‘sacrifice’ of the liturgy but more on the evangelical good news side of things. As a result, evangelicals usually don’t care what sex the preacher is. But I have seen plenty of high-church Anglo-Catholics, like you said, who, for reasons unknown to me (!!) are ok with female ‘priestesses’ officiating at their ‘mass.’ Weird stuff! And looking at Syndey Australia, that diocese has pretty much discarded the Book of Common Prayer and is having LAY-LITURGY where lay people ‘consecrate’ the Eucharist??? Geez…

Hughes also wrote another book, which is an excellent defense of the Anglican position (and keep in mind that Hughes is a RC priest, a former Anglican priest, and the first person known to be ordained as such sub conditione, not absolutely, when he converted). This book is STEWARDS OF THE LORD, and it is much harder to find than the other title.

To be balanced, let me recommend the best book I know of justifying Apostolicae Curae, by (then Jesuit) Francis Clark, ANGLlCAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. Hughes directly engages Clark, and, IMO, wins. But Clark is not as good on the history of the whole affair.

It’s a long, sad story.

GKC

 

[nsper7]

As one who is Anglo-Catholic, I was once told by a Roman Catholic Priest that I was more understanding of the importance of the Sacraments and being in a state of grace when receiving said Sacraments than many Roman Catholics.

For me, as my signature should show, I am an Anglo-Catholic who is getting dangerously close to becoming Roman Catholic. The main reason has to deal with my desire for Holy Orders.

As one who holds strong Anglo-Catholic and conservative views, I will probably not be accepted by the Episcopal Church for Holy Orders. Roman Catholicism would accept me (after I go through the process of becoming Roman Catholic).

As a layman in the Episcopal Church, I can believe that the Pope is the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, that transubstantiation (or the Eastern Orthodox version) is correct, etc. and have no problems. If I try to get ordained with those views, I will be shown the door. If I become Roman Catholic…well, I will simply be holding Roman Catholic views.

 

[GKC]

As one who is Anglo-Catholic, I was once told by a Roman Catholic Priest that I was more understanding of the importance of the Sacraments and being in a state of grace when receiving said Sacraments than many Roman Catholics.

For me, as my signature should show, I am an Anglo-Catholic who is getting dangerously close to becoming Roman Catholic. The main reason has to deal with my desire for Holy Orders.

As one who holds strong Anglo-Catholic and conservative views, I will probably not be accepted by the Episcopal Church for Holy Orders. Roman Catholicism would accept me (after I go through the process of becoming Roman Catholic).

As a layman in the Episcopal Church, I can believe that the Pope is the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, that transubstantiation (or the Eastern Orthodox version) is correct, etc. and have no problems. If I try to get ordained with those views, I will be shown the door. If I become Roman Catholic…well, I will simply be holding Roman Catholic views.

Or, you could become a Continuing Anglican. But RCC is fine, too.

GKC

 

[chris_molter]

Unfortunately for us Latin Riters, the uber-High Church Anglicans generally ARE “Higher”, liturgically speaking, than most Catholic parishes.

One of the reasons I’m hoping for a continual influx of Anglo-Catholics into the Church is that they’ll keep helping us rediscover our beautiful shared liturgical heritage.

Brompton Oratory anyone?

 

[nsper7]

Or, you could become a Continuing Anglican. But RCC is fine, too.

GKC

I’ve considered that, but it seems like a lot of the Continuing Anglican groups do not need Priests (after all, it seems it is usually disenchanted Episcopal Priests who initiated schisms) nor do they have the resources to support more Priests.

Also, these schismatic Anglican groups, since they are out of communion with +Cantuar and the Anglican Communion, just seem kind of odd in my mind and lack that history and connection. At least as a Roman Catholic, I will have Il Papa.

 

[chris_molter]

I’ve considered that, but it seems like a lot of the Continuing Anglican groups do not need Priests (after all, it seems it is usually disenchanted Episcopal Priests who initiated schisms) nor do they have the resources to support more Priests.

Also, these schismatic Anglican groups, since they are out of communion with +Cantuar and the Anglican Communion, just seem kind of odd in my mind and lack that history and connection. At least as a Roman Catholic, I will have Il Papa.

To somewhat oversimplify (and GKC will pounce on me if I’m way off base here, I’m sure), the (theological) justification (no pun intended) that the Continuing Anglicans used to separate themselves from Canterbury is the same that Canterbury used to separate herself from Rome.

It’s the whole “The Church left ME, I didn’t leave the Church!” line. Personally I think if you can’t accept the Contiuum using it, you’ll have a harder time justifying Canterbury using it, too.

 

[GKC]

Unfortunately for us Latin Riters, the uber-High Church Anglicans generally ARE “Higher”, liturgically speaking, than most Catholic parishes.

One of the reasons I’m hoping for a continual influx of Anglo-Catholics into the Church is that they’ll keep helping us rediscover our beautiful shared liturgical heritage.

Brompton Oratory anyone?

And you’ve put your finger on on one reason why the Anglican Use is not very popular in the hierarchy. Who needs all those motivated, traditionalist former Anglicans, now RCs, messing up the diocese.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I’ve considered that, but it seems like a lot of the Continuing Anglican groups do not need Priests (after all, it seems it is usually disenchanted Episcopal Priests who initiated schisms) nor do they have the resources to support more Priests.

Also, these schismatic Anglican groups, since they are out of communion with +Cantuar and the Anglican Communion, just seem kind of odd in my mind and lack that history and connection. At least as a Roman Catholic, I will have Il Papa.

You are likely correct, as to the ability of most jurisdictions to provide a full living.

You and +Cantaur. I’ll never understand your love affair.

GKC

 

[GKC]

To somewhat oversimplify (and GKC will pounce on me if I’m way off base here, I’m sure), the (theological) justification (no pun intended) that the Continuing Anglicans used to separate themselves from Canterbury is the same that Canterbury used to separate herself from Rome.

It’s the whole “The Church left ME, I didn’t leave the Church!” line. Personally I think if you can’t accept the Contiuum using it, you’ll have a harder time justifying Canterbury using it, too.

As a simplification, that’s fine by me. Of course, I have no problem with the Continuum (while lamenting the necessity of it).

GKC

 

[chris_molter]

And you’ve put your finger on on one reason why the Anglican Use is not very popular in the hierarchy. Who needs all those motivated, traditionalist former Anglicans, now RCs, messing up the diocese.

GKC

We definitely have a problem in the UK with the somewhat liberal hierarchy, although the buzz is that Papa Ben is working his magic there, slowly but surely.

I think there’s another point of resistance from the more hardcore Trads who are untrusting of converts, generally, and Anglicans in particular.

Add to that the fact that many in the Clergy have little or no idea (or misinformation) about Anglicanism or Anglicans and we wind up with a perfect storm of difficulties.