Catholic position on Anglo-Catholics?

[grandfather]

And which pope shall I ask? Joan?

There are many lunatic stories out there like Pope Joan, the Davinci Code saying Jesus and Mary Magdalene had children and descendents, and others. Their purpose is to attack the legitimate Church. Churchmen have enough sins and do enough damage, but there are also bizarre fables, lies, created to discredit the Church.

Some heresies are understandable in that the questions we wrestle with are difficult. Understanding things like justification, predestination, the christological controversies of the early centuries was tough stuff and it is understandable that sincere intelligent people would struggle with it.

But where are we today?

The fact that we are even discussing whether men can marry men puts us in the age of insanity. The Age of Reason had taken us to the Age of Lunacy. The fact that once Christian civilization protects the murder of the unborn, has doctors killing old people and promotes and defends sexual perversion says how really lost we are.

The fact that individuals fall into sin is nothing new. We all fail to meet the high moral standards it takes to immitate Christ. The fact that some religious leaders embrace evil as acceptable is new.

The leadership of the Anglican communion, not all, but most, has gone off into never never land. Rowan Williams personally supports every wacky idea of the age. Gene Robinson is what he is, but he also has the overwhelming support of Episcopalians in his state and the majority of them in this country support him. He was married and a father and now has a homosexual partner he has married and the members of what is called a church are all in favor of it.

There are phoney stories about a past female pope and anyone who looks at the evidence knows they are false. What is true is that the Episcopalian bishops of this country chose a woman they claim is a bishop as their leader.

When the branch is removed from the vine it withers and dies. The Anglican tragedy is coming to its end, its death. Some are trying to hold it together, but humpty dumpty will not be put back together again. The pope has thrown them a life ring. Their hull of their ship is breached.

The blood of the English martyrs at the same time cries out for the soul of England and the English people, and condemns the evil that caused the breach.

I have followed the recent developments and controversies in the Anglican communion. Dr. Williams faced an impossible task. He was trying to hold together a unity that did not exist. Esau and Jacob could not dwell together. Moses and Pharoah could not get along. Night and day, good and evil, light and darkness, truth and lies, can not marry, and there is no compormise that can bring them together. The opposites who marry are men and women.

John Henry Newman tried to create a compromise. He called Anglicanism the middle way. It was a noble effort. Maybe by being in the middle we can accomodate all. When he realized this is impossible he became Catholic.

As an outsider to Anglicanism I see that is what Williams was faced with doing, accomodate everyone, the sheep and the goats all together. Not that Newman’s age had even contemplated the moral debate that Williams and Anglicans face today, but they are still trying to keep polar opposites in the same flock, find some middle ground where there is none. They want disunity to be unified. They think they can have a church where some people think women can not be priests or bishops while they have women prisests and bishops. They think they can remain in communion when some people believe certain sexual behaviors are evil and others say they are good.

It is really hard to watch. What can an outsider do? Throw them a life ring. If they want to stay on their sinking ship with the crew in civil war and try to save it that is up to them.

All of us at one point or another have to deal with some denial in our lives. It is usually when we fail. If Anglicans want to insist there is nothing wrong with their ship, that it is catholic, that the whole thing was legitmate from the beginning, that they will find a way to make peace with good and evil and their ship is not going under they will pass on the life ring and try to stay afloat.

On the other hand they could become real Catholics and not have to keep pretending. Denial never works. It never makes things better.

If you want to know what pope to ask about what is Catholic or not, his name is Benedict. Communion with him makes one Catholic. Communion with Dr. Williams makes one confused. I pray for the pope every day. On occassion, I pray for Rowan Williams as well, but as a befuddled soul, not as a shepherd of souls.

Grab the life ring.

 

[liturgyluver]

Where the pope is, there is the Church.

The head of the Catholic Church is the pope. The pope decides what and who is Catholic.

The head of the Anglican Church is the Queen of England, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams is the cleric who seems to be at least some sort of figurehead ministerial leader.

If the head of your denomination is a king or queen it is not Catholic.

Anglican claim they are Catholic. Their royal leaders put to death many martyrs who were loyal to the pope as head of the Church.

They are not Catholic. They are welcome to become Catholic. To do so they would have to come under obedience to Rome, recognize the pope’s authority and reject the queen’s authority to govern the Church. They would also have to acknowledge that women can not be priests or bishops and those women who are acting as such would need to find other employment. Until that happens they are pretending to be Catholic.

Saint Edmund Campion, pray for us. Saint Margaret Clitherow, pray for us. Saint Robert Salt, pray for us.

Whilst Anglican orders are invalid as far as our church is concerned (but not for the reasons that you said in a subsequent post), you are wrong to suggest that to be Catholic one has to be under obidience to Rome. The Eastern Churches regard themselves as Catholic but do not consider the Pope to be head of their Churches nor does he have any jurisdiction over them.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Because not all Anglicans are Episcopalians, and this is very confusing to many people!

All Anglicans are not Episcopalians. However, all Episcopalians are Anglicans. That is why I posed the question. When citing Anglicans many people on this board write “Anglicans/Episcopalians”. I don’t see why they add Episcopalians because it isn’t necessary.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The head of the Anglican Church is the Queen of England

She is the Queen of the United Kingdom, not England. Her Majesty isn’t the head of any church.

 

[SteveVH]

What is the Catholic position on anglicans/episcopalians who follow the “high church” tradition and consider themselves anglo-catholics?

Thanks!

I’ve just always wondered why, if one wishes to use the word “Catholic” in their name, they just don’t become Catholic and get it over with. We can always use more holy people in our Church.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I’ve just always wondered why, if one wishes to use the word “Catholic” in their name, they just don’t become Catholic and get it over with. We can always use more holy people in our Church.

It’s because they don’t believe that what we Catholics call the Catholic Church is the entire Catholic Church. They believe they too are a part of the Catholic Church. IIRC I believe they consider themselves catholic and reformed. The Eastern Orthodox churches also use ‘Catholic’ in the names of their churches.

 

[grandfather]

Whilst Anglican orders are invalid as far as our church is concerned (but not for the reasons that you said in a subsequent post), you are wrong to suggest that to be Catholic one has to be under obidience to Rome. The Eastern Churches regard themselves as Catholic but do not consider the Pope to be head of their Churches nor does he have any jurisdiction over them.

My parish is Eastern Catholic. We pray for the pope five times in the Liturgy. My priest says allegiance to the pope is essential to our faith and without it we have chaos.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The Eastern Churches regard themselves as Catholic but do not consider the Pope to be head of their Churches nor does he have any jurisdiction over them.

That depends on what you mean by Eastern Churches. Do you refer to the Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches or the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches and the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East?

 

[GKC]

She is the Queen of the United Kingdom, not England. Her Majesty isn’t the head of any church.

But she is, as the Sovereign, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, per the Act of Supremacy of 1559, which replaced Henry’s title of Supreme Head of the Chirch of England, per his Act of Supremacy of 1534…

GKC

 

[GKC]

Whilst Anglican orders are invalid as far as our church is concerned (but not for the reasons that you said in a subsequent post), you are wrong to suggest that to be Catholic one has to be under obidience to Rome. The Eastern Churches regard themselves as Catholic but do not consider the Pope to be head of their Churches nor does he have any jurisdiction over them.

True. The logic on the RC position on Anglican orders is as stated in Apostolicae Curae, 1896.

GKC

 

[GKC]

It’s because they don’t believe that what we Catholics call the Catholic Church is the entire Catholic Church. They believe they too are a part of the Catholic Church. IIRC I believe they consider themselves catholic and reformed. The Eastern Orthodox churches also use ‘Catholic’ in the names of their churches.

True. Though some will emphasize reformed more, some less.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Matthew_Holford]

But she is, as the Sovereign, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, per the Act of Supremacy of 1559, which replaced Henry’s title of Supreme Head of the Chirch of England, per his Act of Supremacy of 1534…

GKC

The Church of England says that the head of the Church of England is Christ. The Queen’s title is honorary.

This is what the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Office once told me in an email: “The Queen holds the titles Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith. She appoints senior clergy in the Church of England: bishops, deans, etc.; but has no fuller, active role. She has a symbolic rather than an executive function. Christ is the head of the Church.”

It should be noted that The Queen makes the above mentioned ecclesiastical appointments “on advice”; she does not make personal choices.

 

[GKC]

The Church of England says that the head of the Church of England is Christ. The Queen’s title is honorary.

This is what the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Office once told me in an email: “The Queen holds the titles Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith. She appoints senior clergy in the Church of England: bishops, deans, etc.; but has no fuller, active role. She has a symbolic rather than an executive function. Christ is the head of the Church.”

It should be noted that The Queen makes the above mentioned ecclesiastical appointments “on advice”; she does not make personal choices.

This I know. But the Act of Supremacy makes the now symbolic position she holds properly titled the supreme governor of the Church of England, by act of Parliament. As Cantuar’s Office correctly said.

GKC

 

[grandfather]

The Church of England says that the head of the Church of England is Christ. The Queen’s title is honorary.

This is what the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Office once told me in an email: “The Queen holds the titles Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith. She appoints senior clergy in the Church of England: bishops, deans, etc.; but has no fuller, active role. She has a symbolic rather than an executive function. Christ is the head of the Church.”

It should be noted that The Queen makes the above mentioned ecclesiastical appointments “on advice”; she does not make personal choices.

How could anyone swallow this absurdity.

The title does not matter. It doesn’t mean anything, just an honorific. She appoints senior clergy. Sounds a bit more than symbolic ot me. Still, ignore that meaningless title, don’t pay any attention to that man behind the curtain.

Christ is the head of the Anglican Church. Very clever. Christ appointed men to govern the Church here on earth. Read the scripture. He did not give that meaningless title to the queen or give her authority to choose bishops that will govern His Church. It is not there, but you can search the scripture.

The pope is the visible head of the Catholic Church or earth, the Vicar of Christ, His prime minister. But Canterbury’s communication does have some truth to it. The queen really does have no authority in Christ’s Church. She does have authority to choose senior clergy in the withering branch that cut itself off from the vine.

I remember watching Prince Charles be installed as the Prince of Wales. He was in quite a costume and took vows in which he declared himself the only fitting object of earthly worship. No kidding. He said that. What a mess.

 

[GKC]

How could anyone swallow this absurdity.

The title does not matter. It doesn’t mean anything, just an honorific. She appoints senior clergy. Sounds a bit more than symbolic ot me. Still, ignore that meaningless title, don’t pay any attention to that man behind the curtain.

Christ is the head of the Anglican Church. Very clever. Christ appointed men to govern the Church here on earth. Read the scripture. He did not give that meaningless title to the queen or give her authority to choose bishops that will govern His Church. It is not there, but you can search the scripture.

The pope is the visible head of the Catholic Church or earth, the Vicar of Christ, His prime minister. But Canterbury’s communication does have some truth to it. The queen really does have no authority in Christ’s Church. She does have authority to choose senior clergy in the withering branch that cut itself off from the vine.

I remember watching Prince Charles be installed as the Prince of Wales. He was in quite a costume and took vows in which he declared himself the only fitting object of earthly worship. No kidding. He said that. What a mess.

No, he didn’t. I well recall the investiture ceremony at Caernarfon Castle, myself. And he said the Oath of Fealty to the Sovereign: “I, Charles, Prince of Wales, do become your liege man of life and limb and of earthly worship and faith and truth I will bear unto you to live and die against all manner of folks”. You may see it on a number of You Tube sites. Like this one:

youtube.com/watch?v=xNHqHmd4JSU

A more complete covering of the investiture, where you can see him get the regalia, or costume, as you say, is here:

youtube.com/watch?v=YTj_MTvHbzY

You have been wandering, I suspect, in some strange websites.

And the appointments are made in the Queen’s name. She doesn’t choose them.

GKC

 

[Michael85]

I’ve just always wondered why, if one wishes to use the word “Catholic” in their name, they just don’t become Catholic and get it over with. We can always use more holy people in our Church.

Because we don’t agree with certain dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, such as papal supremacy and infallibility. I also do not believe in temporal punishment and the ‘treasury of merits’. I believe that Christ paid the penalty for all our sins on the Cross.

 

[kingal86]

The Church of England says that the head of the Church of England is Christ. The Queen’s title is honorary.

This is what the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Office once told me in an email: “The Queen holds the titles Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith. She appoints senior clergy in the Church of England: bishops, deans, etc.; but has no fuller, active role. She has a symbolic rather than an executive function. Christ is the head of the Church.”

It should be noted that The Queen makes the above mentioned ecclesiastical appointments “on advice”; she does not make personal choices.

On that note, it has in practice actually been the Prime Minister who chooses the bishops in the CofE - although officially he is “advising” Her Majesty. Gradually the PM has moved towards just rubber-stamping the Church’s choice.

According to the book “Is God Still An Englishman?”, Gordon Brown altered the practice of two Archbishop candidates being presented to him to just one being presented to him - so it’s now basically a rubber-stamp enterprise with arguably cosmetic state involvement.

The Queen does still remain a symbolic head though. If the monarchy (and CofE ) survive after her death, it’s not entirely clear what will happen with Charles - him being considered King by divine right and swearing to uphold the 39 Articles (I never heard of those personally til I joined CAF) would be seen as quite odd by most of his subjects in this day and age.

 

[liturgyluver]

That depends on what you mean by Eastern Churches. Do you refer to the Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches or the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches and the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East?

Sorry - my post was ambiguous. I didn’t mean the Eastern Catholic churches, I meant the Eastern Orthodox churches.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

How could anyone swallow this absurdity.

The title does not matter. It doesn’t mean anything, just an honorific. She appoints senior clergy. Sounds a bit more than symbolic ot me. Still, ignore that meaningless title, don’t pay any attention to that man behind the curtain.

Christ is the head of the Anglican Church. Very clever. Christ appointed men to govern the Church here on earth. Read the scripture. He did not give that meaningless title to the queen or give her authority to choose bishops that will govern His Church. It is not there, but you can search the scripture.

The pope is the visible head of the Catholic Church or earth, the Vicar of Christ, His prime minister. But Canterbury’s communication does have some truth to it. The queen really does have no authority in Christ’s Church. She does have authority to choose senior clergy in the withering branch that cut itself off from the vine.

I remember watching Prince Charles be installed as the Prince of Wales. He was in quite a costume and took vows in which he declared himself the only fitting object of earthly worship. No kidding. He said that. What a mess.

Let us set aside the polemics.

You need to understand how things work in the British Monarchy. It’s a constitutional monarchy. The Queen is responsible for all sorts of things such as appointing the bishops of the Church of England, government ministers, judges, etc. However, The Queen actually makes no personal decisions. Everything Her Majesty does is “on advice”. In other words she follows the advice of HM’s government. She never varies from this. I can assure you that the situation will not change if HRH The Prince of Wales becomes king. If he acted differently the UK would have a major constitutional crisis. He will act in the same way as his mother: on the advice of the ministers of his government.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

On that note, it has in practice actually been the Prime Minister who chooses the bishops in the CofE - although officially he is “advising” Her Majesty. Gradually the PM has moved towards just rubber-stamping the Church’s choice.

According to the book “Is God Still An Englishman?”, Gordon Brown altered the practice of two Archbishop candidates being presented to him to just one being presented to him - so it’s now basically a rubber-stamp enterprise with arguably cosmetic state involvement.

The Queen does still remain a symbolic head though. If the monarchy (and CofE ) survive after her death, it’s not entirely clear what will happen with Charles - him being considered King by divine right and swearing to uphold the 39 Articles (I never heard of those personally til I joined CAF) would be seen as quite odd by most of his subjects in this day and age.

Yes it is usually the Prime Minister who advises The Queen. He accepts the nominations of the Crown Nominations Commission. Margaret Thatcher was the only prime minister in the recent past who refused to accept one of it’s nominations. The actual appointment of a Church of England bishop is quite a convoluted process. Gordon Brown produced a Green Paper that proposed the Crown Nominations Commission only nominated one candidate and that the Prime Minister’s Private Secretary be no longer involved in the process.