Are Catholics following Anglicans?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The_Reginator

The_Reginator

Active member
I grew up an Anglican. In later years I learned that the Anglican communion was divided into ‘high church’ (even ‘Anglo-catholic’) and ‘low church’ (purely protestant).

Now I see a similar divide evolving in the Catholic Church Herself.
On one hand we have the ultra-orthodox Catholics (some of whom even deny the validity of Vatican II).
On the other hand we find the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ crowd. (I see many protestant leanings there.)

This has been on my mind ever since I had to stop attending an FSSP Mass (due to health reasons and transportation woes).

Do others see a similar danger? Or am I too sensitive to the extremes?
 
I don’t see the “high church” vs. “low church” comparison as very accurate. The Anglicans do not even share the same ecclesiology as the Catholic Church, so any comparison is quite a stretch.

This is not to say there are not dissident Catholics who reject the teachings and disciplinary norms prescribed by the Roman Pontiff, some claiming to be more “traditional” than the pope, and others claiming to be more “progressive” than the pope.

I neither seek to be more progressive or more traditional than the pope. He’s my pastor. I listen to him. I obey him. I pray for him.

I agree with St. Pius X:
“If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the precise limits to which this duty of obedience extends… one does not seek to restrict the domain within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope.” (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)
 
I have followed Anglican vicissitudes recently as I used to be an Anglican. The Anglicans are chaotic, but if you visit an Anglican church or splinter group, you more or less know where they stand. Anglicans fight, then go off in a snit and found their own group. In the Catholic church, you may know where it stands, but none of the congregation, unless you’re attending an Latin mass. There are the ultra-right, the right, the ‘orthodox’, the lukewarm, the ‘cafeteria’ and the attend once-a-years. There are those who are a hair to the left of the SSPX crowd, who are Catholic, and those who support women’s ordination and married priests, who are also Catholic. Each think that the other crowd is wrong and are inauthentic.
 
I do not know about upper or lower churches, but I know ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC are the marks of the one true church, which since the first pentecost has been guided and protected by the Holy Spirit, and which from Jesus own words there is the declaration that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, so to answer your question, no, I do not have any concern as to the duplication of the Anglican church within the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC Church.
 
All Catholics MUST adhere to the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” first printed in the US in March 2005, regarding Faith and Morals.

Catholics who believe otherwise are Catholic heretics.
As Cardinal John O’Connor once said: “The Catholic Church is not a salad bar. You can not pick and choose what you want to believe.”

This Catechism was promulgated by Pope John Paul II, and the person appointed to head the Commission was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.
This Catechism is a great gift so that we can insure we have formed a correct conscience to the best of our ablity.
It lets all of us know what the Popes (& Magesterium) want us to live our lives from and convey to others.
  1. Under normal circumstances it is a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday - per the Catechism.
  2. Celebacy is covered in this Catechism.
  3. Marriage is between one man and one woman as covered in this Catechism.
  4. Its clear that Priesthood is related to men not women per this Catechism.
  5. Etc., etc.
Heretics should not be receiving Holy Communition, and talk to their Confessor.

Always know your Faith to the best of your ability.
Always be aware of heresies since there are many amongst individual Catholics.

A man of conscience, is one who never acquires tolerance, well-being, success, public standing , and approval on the part of prevailing opinion, at the expense of truth." Pope Benedict XVI.
 
The_Reginator said:
I grew up an Anglican. In later years I learned that the Anglican communion was divided into ‘high church’ (even ‘Anglo-catholic’) and ‘low church’ (purely protestant).

Now I see a similar divide evolving in the Catholic Church Herself.
On one hand we have the ultra-orthodox Catholics (some of whom even deny the validity of Vatican II).

Yes, ythere is this divisiveness in the church. Vat. II came nto play in the 60’s???!!! Some people can’t or won’t grow up with the church. If people can’t move forward we will be in the Dark Ages again soon. we need to keep up with the church, IMHO.

On the other hand we find the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ crowd. (I see many protestant leanings there.)
Yes, and the Angilcan Mass is more like the Catholic Mass used to be. I used to be an Anglican. Catholics came over to this church for Christmas and Easter because of the beautiful Mass. Catholics who are divorced or come from different religious backgrounds often go to the Anglican Church. When I first joined the Catholic church it did have a Protestant feel to it but more heart, not as dry. No matter what you see on the surface there is far more depth in the Catholic Church as I have come to realize.

This has been on my mind ever since I had to stop attending an FSSP Mass (due to health reasons and transportation woes).

Call your church for a ride. They probably have a transportation ministry as ours does.

The Bishops, Cardinals, and Pope are entursted with the direction the church takes Let’s trust them and worship our Lord Jesus the Christ.

Read the Catechism but do not become a legalist, there is even info on this in the CCC.If you don’t have a copy it can be found at the USCCB site orthe Vatican site.

Do others see a similar danger? Or am I too sensitive to the extremes?
Click to expand...
There is no danger except that which we wish to see. There is no danger except what lies in the hearts of each person. It is not the church that is in danger, but the way we think. It is our attitude not the church that needs to adapt.

The Anglican Church is a Protestant Apostolic Catholic Church and divided from the Catholic Church in the 1500’s under Elizabeth I. Protestants chose to have as the head of their church the Queen and Catholics have the Pope. There is no longer required an allegience to a Queen therefore the two may unite once again. Anglican dogma is not very much different than the Catholic. They follow the Nicean Creed. They don’t have the CCC but they agree on the same values. Let’s work to help our church and not give in to or spread gossip about it.👍
 
The_Reginator said:
Do others see a similar danger? Or am I too sensitive to the extremes?
Click to expand...
You have a point. I have thought the same thing myself!!!

I would qualify your analysis though, I would say in its human dimension the Catholic Church has become like the Anglican Church, in that in practice today in the Catholic Church you can believe whatever you want as long as a certain “unity” is maintained. Heck, I mean the Pope even had a “friendly” meeting with Hans Kung when the guy should have been excommunicated a long time ago. Same thing with Fr. Pfleger in Chicago who goes completely undisciplined. I mean these are two priests that are technically “in good standing” with the Church. I really pray this situation changes because there are a lot of people despairing and going over to sedevacantism. We really need to pray for the Holy Father.

In its divine dimension, the Church can never nor will ever be divided.
 
WatchingMedia said:
All Catholics MUST adhere to the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” first printed in the US in March 2005, regarding Faith and Morals.

Catholics who believe otherwise are Catholic heretics.
As Cardinal John O’Connor once said: “The Catholic Church is not a salad bar. You can not pick and choose what you want to believe.”

This Catechism was promulgated by Pope John Paul II, and the person appointed to head the Commission was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.
This Catechism is a great gift so that we can insure we have formed a correct conscience to the best of our ablity.
It lets all of us know what the Popes (& Magesterium) want us to live our lives from and convey to others.
  1. Under normal circumstances it is a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday - per the Catechism.
  2. Celebacy is covered in this Catechism.
  3. Marriage is between one man and one woman as covered in this Catechism.
  4. Its clear that Priesthood is related to men not women per this Catechism.
  5. Etc., etc.
Heretics should not be receiving Holy Communition, and talk to their Confessor.

Always know your Faith to the best of your ability.
Always be aware of heresies since there are many amongst individual Catholics.

A man of conscience, is one who never acquires tolerance, well-being, success, public standing , and approval on the part of prevailing opinion, at the expense of truth." Pope Benedict XVI.
Click to expand...
If the RCC really cared about this, it would institute a sort of* apostolic visitation for the laity, *in which an oath of allegiance and belief in the Catechism would be administered every few years to each and every parishioner in every parish and diocese throughout the land. If you didn’t sign or swear, you couldn’t belong, couldn’t attend and couldn’t support the church.

I doubt that this initiative would go very far.
 
anode said:
If the RCC really cared about this, it would institute a sort of* apostolic visitation for the laity, *in which an oath of allegiance and belief in the Catechism would be administered every few years to each and every parishioner in every parish and diocese throughout the land. If you didn’t sign or swear, you couldn’t belong, couldn’t attend and couldn’t support the church.

I doubt that this initiative would go very far.
Click to expand...
You’re right. It probably wouldn’t go very far.
My initial reaction: a great idea.
 
The_Reginator said:
You’re right. It probably wouldn’t go very far.
My initial reaction: a great idea.
Click to expand...
Protestants and even Anglicans,* sort of* do this, btw. By putting on pressure for financial support. You want to be a member of St. Richest-Church-In-Town? Sign here, please. 10% of the gross (5% of the gross for Anglicans, their grosses are so high;)) You’re a doctor, (lawyer, exec, etc.)? Didn’t I see a pic of you in the local rag at the So-and-so country club gala? Etc. Baptists and others tithe (10%). Stop giving and you’re out. No more friendly welcome by The Greeters.

You won’t donate if you don’t believe. So they weed them out.
 
I can sort of see what you are talking about, but how about this thought; If you are talking about only the Roman (latin) Rite Catholic church, I can see similarities, but you have to look at the whole Catholic church. What about all of the eastern Rites and some recognized Orthodox. Mix them into the pot and you get an entirely different picture.

And we think WE have trouble raising kids. What about our Heavenly Father and all His children?
 
Its up to each of us to make certain that our own Diocese and our own Parish has some reference about the *“Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” * first printed in the USA in March 2000 prominently located on their web-sites.

It serves not only RICA but cradle Catholics, so it should not be located under RICA only.

Contact your own Bishop and your own Pastor if it is missing from their web site.
 
Within Anglicanism, there are two axes that should be used to plot any individual congregation, and it is important that we don’t confuse them.

The first axis is the one mentioned – the low church to high church axis. This is about worship style with a few related theological issues thrown in.

The second axis is what is splitting Anglicanism now and can roughly be described as going from traditional theological teachings to modern reinterpretation of these teachings. See for instance the debate over ordaining non-celibrate gays and lesbians.

There exist parishes that are Anglo-Catholic, high church Anglicans that support ordaining non-celibrate gays and there exist Evangelical, low church Anglicans that support a traditional understanding. And there is everything in between.

Litugical practices alone does not tell you a congregations theology. It does not tell you what they are preching from the pulpit.

Now, think about the Catholic Church. It has a great range of liturgy, especially when one considers the non-mass prayer services which many Prostestants would recognize as similar to their Sunday worship services, but a smaller range of theological differences preached from the pulpit (broader if one includes what is debated within theological circles). For instance, in the Episicopal Church there is a bishop who denies that Christ rose from the dead (Bishop Spong).

In short, liturgical unity doesn’t necessarily equal theological unity.
 
The_Reginator said:
On one hand we have the ultra-orthodox Catholics (some of whom even deny the validity of Vatican II)
Click to expand...
I couldn’t agree more. After all Cardinal Ratzinger said this about Vatican II in 1988:
“The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately
chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat
it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma…”

It’s fairly easy to see why people would dissent from the Second Vatican Council’s declarations.
The_Reginator said:
On the other hand we find the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ crowd. (I see many protestant leanings there.)
Click to expand...
👍 I concur…
 
anode said:
I have followed Anglican vicissitudes recently as I used to be an Anglican. The Anglicans are chaotic, but if you visit an Anglican church or splinter group, you more or less know where they stand. Anglicans fight, then go off in a snit and found their own group. In the Catholic church, you may know where it stands, but none of the congregation, unless you’re attending an Latin mass. There are the ultra-right, the right, the ‘orthodox’, the lukewarm, the ‘cafeteria’ and the attend once-a-years. There are those who are a hair to the left of the SSPX crowd, who are Catholic, and those who support women’s ordination and married priests, who are also Catholic. Each think that the other crowd is wrong and are inauthentic.
Click to expand...
You give the impression you believe the Catholic Church has split. If it has each “group”, you speak of, would have its own parish. They don’t. One finds members who believe in these extremes and moderations in each Parish. What is accepted, or not, depends upon the leadership of the diocesan Bishop and then the individual pastor. Many are confused.
 
anode said:
I have followed Anglican vicissitudes recently as I used to be an Anglican. The Anglicans are chaotic, but if you visit an Anglican church or splinter group, you more or less know where they stand. Anglicans fight, then go off in a snit and found their own group. In the Catholic church, you may know where it stands, but none of the congregation, unless you’re attending an Latin mass. There are the ultra-right, the right, the ‘orthodox’, the lukewarm, the ‘cafeteria’ and the attend once-a-years. There are those who are a hair to the left of the SSPX crowd, who are Catholic, and those who support women’s ordination and married priests, who are also Catholic. Each think that the other crowd is wrong and are inauthentic.
Click to expand...
anode said:
If the RCC really cared about this, it would institute a sort of* apostolic visitation for the laity, *in which an oath of allegiance and belief in the Catechism would be administered every few years to each and every parishioner in every parish and diocese throughout the land. If you didn’t sign or swear, you couldn’t belong, couldn’t attend and couldn’t support the church.

I doubt that this initiative would go very far.
Click to expand...
Burning incense before Roman gods? Makes a chill in my bones. Too strict.
 
anode said:
If the RCC really cared about this, it would institute a sort of* apostolic visitation for the laity, *in which an oath of allegiance and belief in the Catechism would be administered every few years to each and every parishioner in every parish and diocese throughout the land. If you didn’t sign or swear, you couldn’t belong, couldn’t attend and couldn’t support the church.

I doubt that this initiative would go very far.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t denying entry to Mass go against the idea that every Mass (though not, of course, recieving the Eucarist) is open to all? This is often said on this forum to those who express an interest in visiting, with reasons including encouraging potential converts, because it is considered a mortal sin for a Catholic (included lapsed, cafeteria, etc.) to miss Mass, and that some places have no churches except Catholic churches (I imagine this may be the case in much of Latin America and maybe small towns in parts of France etc.), and in other places Catholic churches have more services available than local Protestant churches.
 
anode said:
If the RCC really cared about this, it would institute a sort of* apostolic visitation for the laity, *in which an oath of allegiance and belief in the Catechism would be administered every few years to each and every parishioner in every parish and diocese throughout the land. If you didn’t sign or swear, you couldn’t belong, couldn’t attend and couldn’t support the church.

I doubt that this initiative would go very far.
Click to expand...
already made, the Eucharist. but the catholic laity needs to be taught what they are doing when receiving communion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top