G
GKCT
Guest
Can someone expain Anglo-Catholic and personal ordinariate? Is an Anglo-Catholic under the Church of England or a “true” Catholic?
- Status
K
kaid100
Guest
My understanding is that an Anglo-Catholic is a Church of England member who follows rites and beliefs similar to those of the Roman Catholic church, although would not normally be baptised into the Catholic Church. An Anglican Rite Catholic is someone who was formerly Anglo-Catholic, and has now joined the Catholic Church and is permitted to use some Anglican rituals, similar to the ability of Eastern Rite Catholics to use some Orthodox rituals. Anglican Rite Catholics are quite new, in the past ex-Anglicans would become mainstream Roman Catholics if they decided to “go to Rome”. Women Bishops seems to be the reason for some Anglicans going to Rome recently.
G
GKC
Guest
Clarification: An Anglo-Catholic is any Anglican (Church of England, Episcopalian, within the Anglican Communion or not), who follows beliefs, rituals, doctrine, etc, similar in many respects to the RCC. Anglo-Catholics can be distinguished from other, more reformed Anglicans. As a self-conscious movement within Anglicanism, they can trace back to the Tractarians and the follow-on Ritualist movement.
There is no Anglican Rite in the RCC, though there has been an Anglican Use for around 30 years. The new proposed Ordinariates are something else.
GKC
Anglicanus-Catholicus
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Anglo-Catholics, or as they are sometimes called in the Church of England (I have no experience/knowledge of other Anglican churches) ‘High Church’ are Anglicans who consider themselves to be Catholics. They usually call the Eucharist the Mass rather than Holy Communion or the Lord’s Supper. They have liturgical services and devotions not often associated with the Anglican Communion, e.g. Benediction, Rosary, Angelus. They wear the same Mass vestments as Latin Catholics. They use ceremonial/rituals often not found in other parts of the Anglican Communion, e.g incense, holy water. I have been to an Anglo-Catholic Mass a few times and their worship is very catholic and beautiful; we could learn a thing or two from them. Anglo-Catholics go to confession - allowed in the Anglican Communion, or at least the Church of England, (this surprises many people but it’s in the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer) - most other types of Anglicans probably don’t go to confession. They disagree with the ordination of women as priests and bishops but some accept the ordination of women as deacons. Some agree with allowing homosexual men to be ordained, others don’t. The vast majority who want to leave and join the new ordinariates being set up is because of their objection to the ordination of women. It’s not the only reason but it has been the catalyst.
G
GKC
Guest
Pretty accurate assessment. Anglo-Catholics are probably the most likely to use auricular confession, but it’s not limited to them, as noted.
GKC
Anglicanus-Catholicus
A
AngloCatholic1
Guest
Yes GKCT, I also concur with this description. As my handle suggests, I was once one such creature. I was a member of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada, which is a member of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC). The TAC has been trying to form a union with the Roman Catholic Church for many years now. In fact, I have a photograph of the Bishop who confirmed us into this church shaking hands with Pope Benedict XVI. However, the wheels of God’s justice turn VERY SLOWLY, and my wife and I grew tired of WAITING for talks with the Holy See to conclude a full corporate union with the Roman Catholic Church…so we eventually just decided to enter RCIA and become Roman Catholics! Swam the Tiber as it were. It was an easy, short swim!
Z
Zabulon
Guest
Ive attended two masses in this Anglo-Catholic church :
saintandrewsstamford.org/sunday-weekday-service-schedu/
from the inside the service is quite similar from the Roman Catholic Church , im not very fond in the knowledge of rituals but the priest celebrates the mass facing the altar like in the old times , the passage of Mathew Lord, I am not worthy to receive you under my roof, but only say the word and my servant shall be healed…is repeated three times which of course i consider in respect of the Holy Trinity …they have holy water and also an image of the Virgin Mary in an altar , check the pictures in the web …i was also offered the eucarist by the priest and ive accepted it …at first time i didnt want to do it BUT i was offered he came to me I couldnt refuse it was a question of manners …i commented that to a priest in my catholic church and he said i shouldnt have done …because they dont believe in Transubstantiation…but ive read a little bit about the issue and they do …please tell me what you think
Thank you
B
BernadetteM
Guest
Anglo Catholics do believe in the Real Presence just as Catholics do, but many of the priests have invalid orders, some might have valid but illicit orders.
As a Catholic you can’t receive in their churches. Also I noticed that they didn’t have a crucifix on their altar, every other Anglo Catholic church I have been in has a crucifix.
Did the priest actually approach you and ask you to receive? That seems inappropriate to me. When I was Anglo Catholic and even when I was young and attended what they call low church, they had closed communion. Things have changed over the years.
The only time I recieved Holy Communion in an Episcopal church was at my mother’s funeral and I hadn’t converted yet. I still felt I was Catholic and had to struggle with receiving. I did it to honor my mother. It must have been a shock to her when she found out that the Catholic Church was the true Church. She really had no knowledge of the Church and I waited to convert until I knew it wouldn’t hurt her. Although all my children were received before and she attended the Mass. She was a wonderful mother and person and had a deep faith.
The Ordinariates are suppose to be established early next year and hopefully my former parish will join.
Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary
Bernadette
As a Catholic you can’t receive in their churches. Also I noticed that they didn’t have a crucifix on their altar, every other Anglo Catholic church I have been in has a crucifix.
Did the priest actually approach you and ask you to receive? That seems inappropriate to me. When I was Anglo Catholic and even when I was young and attended what they call low church, they had closed communion. Things have changed over the years.
The only time I recieved Holy Communion in an Episcopal church was at my mother’s funeral and I hadn’t converted yet. I still felt I was Catholic and had to struggle with receiving. I did it to honor my mother. It must have been a shock to her when she found out that the Catholic Church was the true Church. She really had no knowledge of the Church and I waited to convert until I knew it wouldn’t hurt her. Although all my children were received before and she attended the Mass. She was a wonderful mother and person and had a deep faith.
The Ordinariates are suppose to be established early next year and hopefully my former parish will join.
Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary
Bernadette
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
I was surprised to hear that the priest approached you. Normally, one would need to leave the pew and go up to receive communion; the priest does not usually come to you in the pew. Effectively, you received a piece of unleavened bread, not the Body of Christ. Catholics (Latin & Eastern) should not receive Communion other than in the Catholic Church (Latin & Eastern).
Most Anglo-Catholics do admit to a belief in the Real Presence. However, if you ask them about transubstantiation they try their best to avoid the issue. This makes the Anglo-Catholic “mass” invalid on at least two counts. 1. Anglican orders are null and void (cf. Apostolicae Curae) so the “mass” isn’t celebrated by a validly ordained priest (or bishop). 2. Their discomfiture with transubstantiation means that even if their priests had valid orders the priest’s intent would probably be invalid. An Anglo-Catholic priest told me belief in the Real Presence is enough, a belief in transubstantiation isn’t necessary.
G
GKC
Guest
It is quite common in my Anglo-Catholic parish for the priest to scan the pews, after all have received, to see if there is someone, invlaid, perhaps, who cannpt approac h the altar rail. And then take the Body, and Blood to anu such.
The priest’s intent would be judged by the degree to which it reflected, externally, the intention facere quod facit ecclesia. If form and matter are valid, this normally suffices for determination of intent. As Apostolicae Curae pointed out.
Not all Anglo-Catholics try to avoid the issue of transubstantiation. I don’t.
All RCs should certainly affirm the conclusion in Apostolicae Curae. Anglicans, OTOH, don’t.
GKC
M
Memento_Mori
Guest
Actually if you see the picture youll notice a crucifix at the top of the altar , not inside , inside is a plain cross , and they are also devoted to the Virgin Mary , Father Alton the Head Priest is Member of the Society of Mary , there are other crucifixes inside the church and teh via cruxis is also shown …i dont know why Pope Leo XIII said the chain is broken …Thomas Cranmer was a valid ordained Archbishop of Canterbury as far as i known and according to anglicans they have apostolic succession since the first arrival of chirstianity to the island …one of the reasons i believe the rev approached to me is that me and other lady were the two only persons in the church …it was quiet empty …compared with the catholic churches in my area who at the same time will have from 20 or more people …
M
Memento_Mori
Guest
Thank you for your answer and by the way im the same guy ( zabulon ) …i just decided to change my nick for something more appropiate …thanks again
G
GKC
Guest
The logic behind the theological statements in Apostolicae Curae was related to the concept of an invalid form, in the Edwardine Ordinal, and an intertwined assumption of invalid intent, in (mostly likely; AC is not clear) the consecrators of Archbishop Parker, in 1559. It’s sad story, involving theology, politics and personalities.
GKC
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Go easy on the Jim Beam GKC
Please translate my Latin is next to non-existent.
OK may be they don’t but I find if I ask: “do you believe in transubstantiation?” I never get a straightforward “yes” or “no”. I always find the answer is qualified in some way. I don’t know why but I always thought you were a Catholic. Well may be you do too, what I mean is the Latin (or Roman) variety.
Theology is definitely NOT my strong point. I’ve read Apostolicae Curae several times and find it more a relief from insomnia than enlightening. I am still not too sure why Anglican Orders are null and void. I would at worse have said they could be seen from the RCC’s point of view as illicit. But then I’m probably too ecumenical for the tastes of a lot of RCC folk.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
My misunderstanding but I’m here to learn as much as to contribute when I can. I understand Catholics see Orthodox sacraments as valid but I was under the impression we weren’t to take Communion in an Orthodox Church. Of course, to a certain extent that’s a moot point because as you say they’d be most unlikely to administer Communion to us. Can you advise which Churches confect a valid Eucharist and where it would be valid for a Catholic to receive?
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Thank you! Now, I know it makes sense - probably could have worked it out from French; presumably facere same verb as faire, quod probably quoi and ecclesia is like église. Mind you not all Latin’s going to be that simple!
G
GKC
Guest
Maker’s Mark, or some of the single barrel Jack Daniels, usually. But the last was Tanquery Sterling vodkaGo easy on the Jim Beam GKC
Please translate my Latin is next to non-existent.
OK may be they don’t but I find if I ask: “do you believe in transubstantiation?” I never get a straightforward “yes” or “no”. I always find the answer is qualified in some way. I don’t know why but I always thought you were a Catholic. Well may be you do too, what I mean is the Latin (or Roman) variety.
Theology is definitely NOT my strong point. I’ve read Apostolicae Curae several times and find it more a relief from insomnia than enlightening. I am still not too sure why Anglican Orders are null and void. I would at worse have said they could be seen from the RCC’s point of view as illicit. But then I’m probably too ecumenical for the tastes of a lot of RCC folk.
I type, post, read, and weep.
As I stated, cryptically, there are a number of reasons that *Apostolicae Curae *says what it does, not all of them edifying. The theological reasons are related to two aspects of what are required for the confection of a valid sacrament. In this case, what was considered was form and intent. And the two had to be taken together. Form, as reflected in the Anglican Edwardine Ordinal, was judged defective for its failure to mention the chief grace and power of the office of priest, that is, to offer the sacrifice of the Mass, and, with respect to the Episcopal office, failure to mention “high priest-hood” as necessary for the conferring of the orders, validly. This presumed defect must be considered together with intent, since there exist a number of liturgical rites which the RCC does consider as conferring valid orders, but which do not have that essential form, either.
Intent is more difficult to pin down, as is discussed in Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, the best exposition of the RC position. After a great deal of back and forthing, Clark concludes, for a number of theological points, that “intent” must refer to the intent of those who consecrated Archbishop Parker, in 1559; intent inhering in the actor in the sacramental act (*AC *is not clear on the issue). The intent of those who consecrated Parker was judged as invalid, as established by the use of the Edwardine Ordinal, itself not differing from valid forms, but judged as constructed so to specifically exclude mention of the Eucharistic sacrifice, etc. This relied on a determinatio ex adiunctus (determination from other means), since intent is, normally, internal, and use of a valid form, and valid matter, by a valid minister, normally means valid intent would be assumed, absent something else permitting a determination of invalidity…
Clark’s book, for the RC position, Fr. J. J. Hughes two books ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD for the best exposition of the Anglican position. Fr. Hughes is RC, though he was the first Anglican priest to be ordained in the RCC sub conditione (conditionally) since *AC *was issued.
Yes, I do too. No, not Latin or Roman.
Transubstantiation seems the most noble effort I’m aware of, to explain how the wheels of the Real Presence go around. If you need one; some folks don’t. I don’t think it should be de fide, but it makes sense to me.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
C’est ca, vraiment.Thank you! Now, I know it makes sense - probably could have worked it out from French; presumably facere same verb as faire, quod probably quoi and ecclesia is like église. Mind you not all Latin’s going to be that simple!
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Ita est.
GKC
GKC
- Status