Anglicans who are Higher than Catholics?

[anon52328184]

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

i agree, they are definitely motivated. the hierarchy is probably concerned that it could become a communion within a communion, if that makes sense. my friend who is trying to get support for an anglican use rite in their church
definitely gives me the impression of wanting to retain an anglo-catholic identity. they have their own book of worship. and i have not heard that this is temporary or a stepping stone to becoming fully roman catholic.
i think a lot will depend on how many episcopalians or anglicans decide to join the catholic church in the first place and the availability of the anglican use rite.

 

[anon52328184]

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.

well, i can only say that i was part of the episcopal church for 54 years - not always active though. after a brief stint in an anglican church, i decided that i needed to become roman catholic and i went through the process this summer. it was a little bumpy at first, but i feel i have transitioned pretty well
and i love being roman catholic and feel that my faith has become much deeper in many respects. once you make the decision and learn more about roman catholicism, i don’t think you will look back.

 

[GKC]

i agree, they are definitely motivated. the hierarchy is probably concerned that it could become a communion within a communion, if that makes sense. my friend who is trying to get support for an anglican use rite in their church
definitely gives me the impression of wanting to retain an anglo-catholic identity. they have their own book of worship. and i have not heard that this is temporary or a stepping stone to becoming fully roman catholic.
i think a lot will depend on how many episcopalians or anglicans decide to join the catholic church in the first place and the availability of the anglican use rite.

Trust me, the Anglican Use is, in general, a temporary expedient, to assist converting Anglcain,s in this country. There is no provision for providing a replacement priest, who has to be a convert Anglican, once the original convert priest retires or dies, though certainly a few parishes have managed to have a series of priests, and probably will do so.

Most such parishes (outside of Texas) operate on thin ice, for the period they do exist.

GKC

 

[anon52328184]

i don’t know GKC. i wouldn’t underestimate a group of motivated anglicans!

LOL

you definitely cannot become roman catholic and expect to remain anglican, but in a way, they are wanting to retain as much of being anglican as they can i feel and still remain under the graces of the Pope.

 

[GKC]

i don’t know GKC. i wouldn’t underestimate a group of motivated anglicans!

LOL

you definitely cannot become roman catholic and expect to remain anglican, but in a way, they are wanting to retain as much of being anglican as they can i feel and still remain under the graces of the Pope.

Their ultimate goal would be to become Rite, and thus, a *sui juris *Church.

Nothing out of the ordinary about that.

GKC

 

[chris_molter]

Their ultimate goal would be to become Rite, and thus, a *sui juris *Church.

Nothing out of the ordinary about that.

The problem being that the Church in England was always under Latin Rite Bishops and the English were never their own “Rite” the way the Syro-Malabar, Melkites, or Byzantines were. Having a distinct liturgical tradition isn’t sufficient cause to create a splinter Rite separate from the Latin. After all, we have two primary forms of the Mass and some other ‘rites’ (Ambrosian) under the umbrella of the Latin Rite.

Whatever accommodation is made for Anglicans, I don’t think a sui juris is in the cards.

 

[GKC]

The problem being that the Church in England was always under Latin Rite Bishops and the English were never their own “Rite” the way the Syro-Malabar, Melkites, or Byzantines were. Having a distinct liturgical tradition isn’t sufficient cause to create a splinter Rite separate from the Latin. After all, we have two primary forms of the Mass and some other ‘rites’ (Ambrosian) under the umbrella of the Latin Rite.

Whatever accommodation is made for Anglicans, I don’t think a sui juris is in the cards.

I have no opinion on it. But that is likely what the Anglican Use folk would prefer. And I know it raises its head in all the gossip about the Traditional Anglican Communion. Which is yet another reason I find that whole subject a little iffy

But I agree that it is unlikely to occur, since the whole idea of the (reluctantly offered) Anglicai Use was to ease the transition of large groups of Anglicans who come in as a group, not keep them happy and cozy forever.

GKC

 

[RNRobert]

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is a “continuing Anglican?”

 

[GKC]

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is a “continuing Anglican?”

A Continuing Anglican (collectively referred to as the Continuum) is a traditional and orthodox minded, usually Anglo-Catholic inclined Anglican who is not in communion with Canterbury, and is not a part of the offical Anglican Communion. With a couple of technical exceptions, the concept traces back to a meeting in St. Louis in 1978, of traditionally-oriented, orthodox Anglicans, to chart a course following the early and ever-increasings oddities appearing in the Episcopal Church, most noticeably, at that point, in the liturgy. In the next year, 4 bishops were consecrated and the original Continuing Anglican jurisdiction, the Anglican Church in North America (had some Canadian bits and pieces) was formed. This rapidly split up into a distressing number of independent jurisdictions, all of whom are collectively referred to as Continuing Anglican, from the langauge in the St. Louis Statement, which was issued just prior to the founding of the first such Church.

The term is googleable. Or one may google Anglican Church in America, Anglican Catholic Church, or Anglican Province of Christ the King (as examples). The movement is global; the Traditional Anglican Communion which is rumored to be engaged in discussions with Rome, is a Continuing Anglican jjurisdiction.

GKC

*posterus traditus Anglicanus *

 

[DL82]

I hate to say this, but one of the key factors in my decision to convert to the Catholic Church was that, at the time, I was hoping to move to the United States to marry my fiancee, who was a liberal Catholic.

I was a fairly traditional Anglican (not High Anglican, though I had thought about joining the Anglican Franciscans at one point, I also had a strong evangelical streak in me), and when I looked at the liberalism of the Catholic parish where my fiancee went to church, and the ultra-extreme-loony-liberalism of some parts of the Episcopal Church in America, I thought the Catholic Church would be more like what I was used to.

Only problem was, once I started to actually see what the Catholic Church teaches, and once I began to realise that this really was the truth, preserved in the one Church that Jesus founded, all that changed. I wasn’t looking for more of the same anymore, I was looking for the perfection of Christ.

That can be a bit of a problem when your fiancee doesn’t see it the same way, especially when you’re both pretty stubborn and uncompromising. That’s why I’m still in Britain

 

[SIA]

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!

Transubstantiation is not a belief in the Anglican Communion.

 

[GKC]

Transubstantiation is not a belief in the Anglican Communion.

Depends on whom you ask. Remember, almost all generalizations about Anglicans are wrong. Generally speaking.

GKC

Angilcanus Catholicus

 

[7_Sorrows]

it is confusing to me because there are so many different ways to be anglican.

they are a happy lot though and enjoy the food and fellowship after the service and are very motivated and seem very self confident in being able to worship how they choose rather than to be told what to believe like with the Pope and magesterium.

 

[chris_molter]

they are a happy lot though and enjoy the food and fellowship after the service and are very motivated and seem very self confident in being able to worship how they choose rather than to be told what to believe like with the Pope and magesterium.

and that’s working out well. Just ask Bob Duncan. Nope, no magisterium here.

 

[7_Sorrows]

and that’s working out well. Just ask Bob Duncan. Nope, no magisterium here.

you are right about that. i forgot about poor bob duncan. i read a little of his plight on another website.

the episcopal magesterium. LOL only it is not funny.

 

[chris_molter]

and sadly, Bob Duncan isn’t the first and won’t be the last.

 

[wisdomseeker]

lately i have been hearing the name roman catholic church a lot.
something i never heard before. to me this is an attempt to put the CC in some kind of denominational religion category.

i see more protestants trying to claim to be Catholics but not roman Catholics. this undermines the True Church.

why is this happening? i would say is one more attempt to discredit the CC is the True Church.

correct if i am wrong. but i believe this has to stop before people begin to loose the sense of who is the CC.

Bless be God forever. Bless His Holy Church.

 

[chris_molter]

lately i have been hearing the name roman catholic church a lot.
something i never heard before. to me this is an attempt to put the CC in some kind of denominational religion category.

i see more protestants trying to claim to be Catholics but not roman Catholics. this undermines the True Church.

why is this happening? i would say is one more attempt to discredit the CC is the True Church.

correct if i am wrong. but i believe this has to stop before people begin to loose the sense of who is the CC.

Bless be God forever. Bless His Holy Church.

Well, there are a lot of threads about “Roman Catholic Church” versus “Catholic Church” on here. I’ve seen Catholic parishes who actually use the “Roman Catholic” signage and others who just use “Catholic Church”. Whatever the origin or polemical use of the term, I think we Latin Riters have pretty much said “ok, fine, we’re Catholics in the Latin/Roman Rite, so we’ll use it as we please”.

We run into all kinds of terminological problems though, when certain parties outside of the Roman communion attempt to lay claim to the title of “Catholic”. Although, in the long run, it’s only a good thing if Protestants start really delving into their Catholic roots.