Anglicans...Will they ever...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lumen_Gentium
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lumen_Gentium

Guest
…come back to Rome? Will they ever submit themselves back under the Holy Father’s authority? In another thread, I read that the Anglicans are very much the same like the Catholics. Historically, we all know that king Henry was responsible for the Anglican Church and why he disobeyed the church. Do Anglicans ever realize that they Henry was wrong from the very beginning and that their church should go back to Rome? What’s the status quo between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church?
 
Actually, it was Elizabeth I, but never mind. The popular thought is that it was her Dad who founded the CofE, and the important thing of course is that it was he who broke from communion with Rome.

Anglicans are very divers in their churchmanship. Although generally categorised as a Protestant church, many Anglicans dispute this vehemently and classify themsleves as a reformed catholic church. Within the Church of England, two (informal and loosely applied) ‘styles’ of churchmanship (excuse the sexist language, it’s not mine) are “Anglo-Catholic” and “Liberal Catholic”.

Many other Anglicans of course consider themselves to be absolutely as Protestant as you like - these are often referred to as the “low Church” or Evangelical" wing. These would of course never consider returning to communion with Rome. The others might, but many have a problem with Papal authority.

Some low church Anglicans disagree with it, but the official Anglican view of the Eucharistic elements (once consecrated ) is Consubtantiation, as opposed to our Transubstantiation. In my view this should not present an obstacle to unity, because (a) you never could get a cigarette paper between ethe two, they were so close and (b) what difference there was only means anything if you take an Aristotelean approach to physics. Isaac Newton, as weel as the whole of the twentieth century revision of physics, have been and gone since the two positions were formulated and declared to be at odds.

cheers
 
The Anglicans will come back to the catholic church, one at a time.
I am one who did. There were a lot of reasons, but one is pertinent to this thread, and illustrates the difference in understanding of eucharist: while helping out in the sacristy after communion, I was told to return the leftover consecrated hosts to the box with unconsecrated hosts, and to pour the leftover consecrated wine back into the wine jug.
 
<<while helping out in the sacristy after communion, I was told to return the leftover consecrated hosts to the box with unconsecrated hosts, and to pour the leftover consecrated wine back into the wine jug.>>

this illustrates the diversity of views within Anglicanism - when I was an Anglican altar-boy, everyone at my church would have been as horrified at this as Catholics are!
 
40.png
urquhart:
while helping out in the sacristy after communion, I was told to return the leftover consecrated hosts to the box with unconsecrated hosts, and to pour the leftover consecrated wine back into the wine jug.
Click to expand...
That’s what is wrong with the Anglican church…it has been “up to” the priest and whoever to determine the right or wrong way to do things…in my church…the consecrated host is treated as the body and blood and with the upmost respect…
 
40.png
cyberman:
Some low church Anglicans disagree with it, but the official Anglican view of the Eucharistic elements (once consecrated ) is Consubtantiation, as opposed to our Transubstantiation. In my view this should not present an obstacle to unity, because (a) you never could get a cigarette paper between ethe two, they were so close and (b) what difference there was only means anything if you take an Aristotelean approach to physics. Isaac Newton, as weel as the whole of the twentieth century revision of physics, have been and gone since the two positions were formulated and declared to be at odds.

cheers
Click to expand...
As an ex episcopalian it is difficult to get an official view. If you take the 39 articles they believe in eating in a ‘heavenly and spiritual mannner’. Yo can get everything from an Anglo Catholic believing in Transubstantiation through to Broad Church saying consubstantiation (which is really a Lutheran term) or some sort of real prescence but not body and blood through to total denial of any sort of real prescence from the evangelical wing.

In terms of returning to Catholicism, individuals have been doing this since the reformation, generally individually, most famously perhaps John Henry Newman, and indeed as whole parishes on occasion leading to the Anglican rite.

Recently, two catalysts have been the ordination of women by the C of E which lead to a significant number of Anglican priests and laity leaving. More recently the consecration of an openly practising homosexual to the Anglican episcopate has led to open warfare in the Anglican communion.
 
40.png
JGC:
Yo can get everything from an Anglo Catholic believing in Transubstantiation through to Broad Church saying consubstantiation (which is really a Lutheran term) or some sort of real prescence but not body and blood through to total denial of any sort of real prescence from the evangelical wing.

Recently, two catalysts have been the ordination of women by the C of E which lead to a significant number of Anglican priests and laity leaving. More recently the consecration of an openly practising homosexual to the Anglican episcopate has led to open warfare in the Anglican communion.
Click to expand...
In response to your first paragraph, Do you see the Anglician being one who simple believes…“Believe what you want as long as we all worship the same?” That’s they way that I am understanding.

Second paragraph, our church lost alot of people after the “gay bishop” deal. I personally am dealing with that still and especially since he spoke out as being Pro-Choice (guest speaker at PP)…that really hurt my heart…and I have yet to hear anyone in “authority” speak out against him on this…(If anyone has any information here, Please post). So, I am “at odds” with my church. I’m finding it very hard. I guess that’s why I am on this forum, trying to learn more and read more and make some decisions.
 
40.png
DJgang:
In response to your first paragraph, Do you see the Anglician being one who simple believes…“Believe what you want as long as we all worship the same?” That’s they way that I am understanding.

Second paragraph, our church lost alot of people after the “gay bishop” deal. I personally am dealing with that still and especially since he spoke out as being Pro-Choice (guest speaker at PP)…that really hurt my heart…and I have yet to hear anyone in “authority” speak out against him on this…(If anyone has any information here, Please post). So, I am “at odds” with my church. I’m finding it very hard. I guess that’s why I am on this forum, trying to learn more and read more and make some decisions.
Click to expand...
I’m sure most Anglican’s believe what they were taught, in which ever wing of the Church they were catechised in. However in my experience quite a few Anglican’s then pick and choose on certain issues which results in millions of different beliefs!

As you are probably aware, the Anglican’s with the most ‘orthodox’ belief’s now tend to be in Africa, with some provinces threatening to break communion with ECUSA.

The beginning of the end for me was, as an Anglo Catholic, realising that there is very little common faith between Anglican’s.

In respect of Anglican’s ‘speaking out’ about these issues, see here
The decision by the 74th General Convention of the Episcopal Church (USA) to give consent to the election of bishop Gene Robinson to the Diocese of New Hampshire, the authorising by a diocese of the Anglican Church of Canada of a public Rite of Blessing for same sex unions and the involvement in other provinces by bishops without the consent or approval of the incumbent bishop to perform episcopal functions have uncovered major divisions throughout the Anglican Communion. There has been talk of crisis, schism and realignment. Voices and declarations have portrayed a Communion in crisis… contd
anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/index.cfm

I wish you well in your reflections.
 
40.png
cyberman:
Some low church Anglicans disagree with it, but the official Anglican view of the Eucharistic elements (once consecrated ) is Consubtantiation, as opposed to our Transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
Transubstantiation is something that Anglicans cannot believe in. They can believe in the Physical presence, but they cannot believe in Transubstantiation. Consubstantiation is what more Anglicans believe in, although they deny the termanoloy.
 
Psalm45:9:
Transubstantiation is something that Anglicans cannot believe in. They can believe in the Physical presence, but they cannot believe in Transubstantiation. Consubstantiation is what more Anglicans believe in, although they deny the termanoloy.
Click to expand...
Yes they can, and as an ex Anglo Catholic I should know.
Whether or not it happens in front of them depends on if the priest has valid, though illicit, orders.

Another position that is held by some would be akin to the Orthodox, that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, but the manner of how this change is accomplished has not been revealed.
 
I have to chuckle it seems a lot of people here have about the same level of knowledge of Anglicans as protestants have of Catholics.

I want to make a side note tho:

Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation does it make a difference HOW it happens??? Can’t we be satisfied and in awe that is does happen, and leave the how a mystery? Has catholicism come so mundane, that there needs to be so much concentration in explaining every little thing?

You want to bring back some of the reverence and awe that used to be found in church? Think back to Christmas, wasn’t Christmas a lot more fun and magical when you believed in Santa Claus? Once you found out HOW those presents got under the tree Christmas was never the same.

It should be the same thing for Mass.

Oh and as far as HOW it happens, it’s not a matter of salvation. Why it happens is.
 
Psalm45:9:
Transubstantiation is something that Anglicans cannot believe in. They can believe in the Physical presence, but they cannot believe in Transubstantiation. Consubstantiation is what more Anglicans believe in, although they deny the termanoloy.
Click to expand...
Wanna bet? I can find you Anglicans who follow Trent, Session XIII, right through all 11 Canons.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
Once again I have to burst some bubbles on this discussion on Anglicanism. I AM an Anglican, I belong to the Reformed Episcopal Church which holds to the “old paths” of historical Anglicanism. GKC keeps insisting that “true Anglicanism” is essentially “Catholicism without the Pope”. The type of Anglicanism GKC espouses IS NOT Anglicanism, I am sorry to say this but anyone who claims to BE Anglican and believes what GKC says is, sad to say, not Anglican. I don’t mean to insult anyone. An Anglican, in the real meaning of what that is holds unflinchingly to the 39 Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church. Anglo-Catholicism which GKC advocates is not Anglicanism in any way, it is an aberration and rejection of Anglicanism. Anglicanism rejects both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation. The historic and classical Anglican view on the “Real Presence” is closer to the Reformed/Calvinist view. It is a Spiritual or “virtual” Presence. As Hooker, the best systemiser of Anglican thought said “the Real Presence of Christ is to be found in the one receiving and not the elements”. IE if one receives the Eucharist with trusting Faith then one receives Christ in the Eucharist, if someone receives who has no faith or trust in Christ then all they receive is bread and wine, nothing more, but in so doing they insult Christ by receiving without faith. Anglicans also reject “romish doctrines” like praying to Saints, Purgatory, Masses for the dead, relics, rosaries, the doctrine of “merit” and other such teachings. The reason the Reformed Episcopal Church separated from the Episcopal Church in the 1870’s was because they saw the Anglo-Catholics gaining control in the ECUSA and that the ECUSA was moving away from the “old paths” of historical and authentic Anglicanism. Personally as I read and study more I am coming to the point where I see the Catholic Church as being the authentic and real Church that Christ established and I can no longer be an Anglican of any type. In Christ, jurist12
 
Greetings, jurist12,

Some Anglicans do as you say. Others do as I say. AngIicanism is like that. It always has been; a range of doctrine under a basic Creedal unity. The Articles, as you know, are binding only on those who accept them, and on those who are bound by the Erastian nature of the CoE.

BTW, your last statement is fascinating. Good luck on your journey.

GKC
40.png
jurist12:
Once again I have to burst some bubbles on this discussion on Anglicanism. I AM an Anglican, I belong to the Reformed Episcopal Church which holds to the “old paths” of historical Anglicanism. GKC keeps insisting that “true Anglicanism” is essentially “Catholicism without the Pope”. The type of Anglicanism GKC espouses IS NOT Anglicanism, I am sorry to say this but anyone who claims to BE Anglican and believes what GKC says is, sad to say, not Anglican. I don’t mean to insult anyone. An Anglican, in the real meaning of what that is holds unflinchingly to the 39 Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church. Anglo-Catholicism which GKC advocates is not Anglicanism in any way, it is an aberration and rejection of Anglicanism. Anglicanism rejects both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation. The historic and classical Anglican view on the “Real Presence” is closer to the Reformed/Calvinist view. It is a Spiritual or “virtual” Presence. As Hooker, the best systemiser of Anglican thought said “the Real Presence of Christ is to be found in the one receiving and not the elements”. IE if one receives the Eucharist with trusting Faith then one receives Christ in the Eucharist, if someone receives who has no faith or trust in Christ then all they receive is bread and wine, nothing more, but in so doing they insult Christ by receiving without faith. Anglicans also reject “romish doctrines” like praying to Saints, Purgatory, Masses for the dead, relics, rosaries, the doctrine of “merit” and other such teachings. The reason the Reformed Episcopal Church separated from the Episcopal Church in the 1870’s was because they saw the Anglo-Catholics gaining control in the ECUSA and that the ECUSA was moving away from the “old paths” of historical and authentic Anglicanism. Personally as I read and study more I am coming to the point where I see the Catholic Church as being the authentic and real Church that Christ established and I can no longer be an Anglican of any type. In Christ, jurist12
Click to expand...
 
40.png
DJgang:
In response to your first paragraph, Do you see the Anglician being one who simple believes…“Believe what you want as long as we all worship the same?” That’s they way that I am understanding.

Second paragraph, our church lost alot of people after the “gay bishop” deal. I personally am dealing with that still and especially since he spoke out as being Pro-Choice (guest speaker at PP)…that really hurt my heart…and I have yet to hear anyone in “authority” speak out against him on this…(If anyone has any information here, Please post). So, I am “at odds” with my church. I’m finding it very hard. I guess that’s why I am on this forum, trying to learn more and read more and make some decisions.
Click to expand...

Given that Anglican theology of the episcopate tends to regard authority as diffused rather than as precisely collegial, you may wait long for another bishop to criticise him.​

IMO, this is partly the fault of St. Cyprian of Carthage 🙂 ##
 
40.png
GKC:
Wanna bet? I can find you Anglicans who follow Trent, Session XIII, right through all 11 Canons.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
Click to expand...

The author of the first book on the BVM I ever read also wrote a book on the Mass. The book on the BVM was so completely Roman in theology that it is very hard to tell he was not “a Roman priest” - as M.R. James would say.​

Some Anglicans are “Popish” in all respects except for having the Pope. I think I prefer Genevan-minded Anglicans - at least they are unmistakeably Protestant 🙂 ##
 
I’m not sure. The 10 Episcopals (as they are called in the US) who have left that church and whom I know have basically embraced Orthodody. 8 to the Orthodox Church and only 2 to the Catholic Church. It seems the larger majority of Anglicans/Episcopal who leave their denomination in the US go to Orthodoxy.
 
The Anglican Church has basically 3 “wings”
  1. The Anglo-Catholics - most likely to want to get back in Communion with Rome. Many are annoyed by women priests and openly gay clergy. However they do not have the numbers to carry the whole Church back into unity. Some might come across as a block.
  2. The Evangelical wing - tend to be very Protestant and on no account would rejoin the Catholic Church. many would like to unite with methodists and prebyterians to strengthen the Protestant aspect of the Church.
  3. The “country” wing - probably the biggest yet least active group. Have no strong doctrinal views, and could be coaxed into a reunion that didn’t change their ways too much. However some anti-catholic prejudice remains. Evangelicals are trying to woo this group, but many do not like their stridency.
 
40.png
JGC:
The beginning of the end for me was, as an Anglo Catholic, realising that there is very little common faith between Anglican’s.
Click to expand...
To try and define “Anglicanism” in terms of the doctrines that a faithful Anglican must confess seems to be an exercise in utter futility, since Anglicans seem to tolerate any belief imaginable.

Which leads one to ask, what really is an “Anglican”? How does one define Anglicanism, if not by what Anglicans believe? Is Bishop Spong an Anglican? If so, why? Is it possible to be an apostate and still be an Anglican in good standing? If so, why can’t every person on earth claim to be an Anglican?
 
Gottle of Geer said:
## The author of the first book on the BVM I ever read also wrote a book on the Mass. The book on the BVM was so completely Roman in theology that it is very hard to tell he was not “a Roman priest” - as M.R. James would say.

Some Anglicans are “Popish” in all respects except for having the Pope. I think I prefer Genevan-minded Anglicans - at least they are unmistakeably Protestant 🙂 ##
Click to expand...

Sorry to disappoint you. I’m not even argueably Protestant. Can I still hang around?

And do you like M. R. James’ secular writings?

Added: Oops. Forgot. Who wrote the books in question?

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top