Catholicism and Anglicanism are so very close. Why argue with the basics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Traveller1534
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The essence of the sacrament of matrimony is to be found in the marriage contract. Consequently, no marriage of baptized parties is valid unless it is also a sacrament.

Anglicans do not view Matrimony as a sacrament.
What Anglicans *think *about it is not relevant.

I was correcting what you said regarding the validity of Anglican sacraments from the Catholic Church’s point of view. You stated there is only one sacrament recognized as valid, that being baptism, due to the invalidity of Anglican orders.

This is inaccurate. Marriage is also recognized as valid due to the Bride & Groom being the ministers of the Sacrament.
 
I was a cradle Catholic but a few years ago, I left for the Episcopal church for many reasons, one mainly being that I do not believe in the infallability of the pope nor do I believe that the Catholic church is the only institution where the sacrements are truly celebrated and where salvation can only be found. However, I do whole-heartedly believe in the communion of saints, sacred tradition, faith and works, sacremental confession and many other beliefs that us Anglicans share in common with Rome. I believe it is not only hurtful but self serving to label one’s self as the one and only valid church. I believe there is a common thread with those of us who have upheld the early church traditions along with sacred scripture like Catholics and Anglicans too!
Do you believe that the monarch of England is the head of the church? Because that is where you are.

bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/05/19/faith_protestantlondon_feature.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/images/2005/05/19/queen150_150x180.jpg
The Queen is head of the Anglican Church

No way, José!

Subrosa
 
Do you believe that the monarch of England is the head of the church? Because that is where you are.

bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/05/19/faith_protestantlondon_feature.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/images/2005/05/19/queen150_150x180.jpg
The Queen is head of the Anglican Church

No way, José!

Subrosa
(Sigh)

No, that’s the Church of England you are thinking of. The Act of Supremacy (1559) establishing the British Monarch as the supreme governor of the CoE has no bearing on the Episcopal Church in America, which Traveler (alas) is a member of, or on any of the other 26 self-governing Churchs of the Official Anglican Communion. Who have no relationship whatsoever with ol’ Liz, or the Act of Supremacy.

Reminds me of the first post I ever made, maybe 10 years ago.

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus , *
 
(Sigh)

No, that’s the Church of England you are thinking of. The Act of Supremacy (1559) establishing the British Monarch as the supreme governor of the CoE has no bearing on the Episcopal Church in America, which Traveler (alas) is a member of, or on any of the other 26 self-governing Churchs of the Official Anglican Communion. Who have no relationship whatsoever with ol’ Liz, or the Act of Supremacy.

Reminds me of the first post I ever made, maybe 10 years ago.

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus , *
Interesting. So who is the head of the Episcopal Church in America then? :hmmm:
 
Interesting. So who is the head of the Episcopal Church in America then? :hmmm:
There is none such, in the sense you mean. There is an elected presiding bishop (one of the current crowning glories of the Episcopal Church, she is, too), but no head. Anglicanism works at the diocesan level, where it’s not an established church (i.e., everywhere but England).

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
(Sigh)

No, that’s the Church of England you are thinking of. The Act of Supremacy (1559) establishing the British Monarch as the supreme governor of the CoE has no bearing on the Episcopal Church in America, which Traveler (alas) is a member of, or on any of the other 26 self-governing Churchs of the Official Anglican Communion. Who have no relationship whatsoever with ol’ Liz, or the Act of Supremacy.

Reminds me of the first post I ever made, maybe 10 years ago.

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus , *
As far as I know:

The leader of the entire Anglican Church is for all intents and purposes the Archbishop of Canterbury, However the leader of the Church of England, the largest and the original Anglican Church communion, is The Queen.
 
I was a cradle Catholic but a few years ago, I left for the Episcopal church for many reasons, one mainly being that I do not believe in the infallability of the pope nor do I believe that the Catholic church is the only institution where the sacrements are truly celebrated and where salvation can only be found. However, I do whole-heartedly believe in the communion of saints, sacred tradition, faith and works, sacremental confession and many other beliefs that us Anglicans share in common with Rome. I believe it is not only hurtful but self serving to label one’s self as the one and only valid church. I believe there is a common thread with those of us who have upheld the early church traditions along with sacred scripture like Catholics and Anglicans too!
While we don’t have all the answers, the truth is not relative. What you are demanding is basically the admission that the truth is relative in so far as disagreements with Anglicanism are concerned. The Catholic Church is not the only one in which sacraments are celebrated validly. Those denominations which have not departed from the fundamental Christian dogma, have valid baptism and therefore also marriage. Those which have valid holy orders have all sacraments valid, such as the Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox churches. The Anglicans don’t have valid sacraments because while the current rites are sufficient for ordination, the Edwardian rite was not and there is a gap in Apostolic succession. Those Anglican bishops who were ordained validly by e.g. Old Catholic bishops confer ordination validly, which is why Anglican lines are traced and sometimes conditional ordination is conferred.

Why we have to argue about such basics is that if we lie about this, what will we be true on, or true to? The accommodation of dissenting ideas is not as important as the truth is.
 
As an Anglican (of sorts) who is a member of the Church of England and hoping soon to “come home” I have found this thread really interesting.

What many non UK “posters” may not know is that there was a document leaked to the British press regarding the Anglican church, it’s links to Catholicism and the possibilty of a reconciliation.

I’m afraid I haven’t got a clue on how to insert links, so here is the website to copy and paste.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1403702.ece

Here in the UK there was mini uproar at this (we don’t do things big!). However upon closer scrutiny, in order for Anglicanism to reconcile, it would of course need to fully comply with the Catholic church and ALL of Her teachings.

Nevertheless, it’s an interesting article.
 
As far as I know:

The leader of the entire Anglican Church is for all intents and purposes the Archbishop of Canterbury, However the leader of the Church of England, the largest and the original Anglican Church communion, is The Queen.
No, tht’s incorrect. The Archbisop of Castherbury is not the leader of the entire Anglican Church, for any intents and purposes. I’m leaving for the day, but will reply in more detail later. Trust me.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
No, tht’s incorrect. The Archbisop of Castherbury is not the leader of the entire Anglican Church, for any intents and purposes. I’m leaving for the day, but will reply in more detail later. Trust me.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
well he’s the leader of something in your church anyway, I thought he was the leader overall.
 
Depends on which Anglicans you ask. Many do, as also the other six sacraments.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
Just a question, to those Anglicans who recognize that there are seven sacraments. Doesn’t that betray the original tenets of Anglicanism?
 
What Anglicans *think *about it is not relevant.

I was correcting what you said regarding the validity of Anglican sacraments from the Catholic Church’s point of view. You stated there is only one sacrament recognized as valid, that being baptism, due to the invalidity of Anglican orders.

This is inaccurate. Marriage is also recognized as valid due to the Bride & Groom being the ministers of the Sacrament.
And what I meant was that Anglican marriages are not sacramental since they do not believe marriage is a sacrament.
 
And what I meant was that Anglican marriages are not sacramental since they do not believe marriage is a sacrament.
And, this is not true. It doesn’t matter what they “believe” about their marriages. The marriages are sacramental.

You wrote: * “Sorry Trav. The worldwide Anglican communion can only celebrate one sacrament, that one being baptism. As for the rest it is not possible. All Anglican orders are null and void. There is no sacrificing priesthood in Anglicanism.”*

This is NOT true. Marriage is also a valid sacrament in the Anglican Church-- not because *they *say so, but because the Catholic Church does.
 
There is none such, in the sense you mean. There is an elected presiding bishop (one of the current crowning glories of the Episcopal Church, she is, too), but no head. Anglicanism works at the diocesan level, where it’s not an established church (i.e., everywhere but England).

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
So, do the Episcopalians consider themselves autocephalous at the diocesan level or the parish level? How about the Anglicans?

Last night, an Episcopal parish here in Colorado Springs changed to Anglican. What does that mean? Does that mean they rejected the authority of thei diocesan bishop and now submit to some other ordinary in England?

I wonder if the reason they changed was an argument “with the basics.”
 
And what I meant was that Anglican marriages are not sacramental since they do not believe marriage is a sacrament.
Oh yes they do.

They meaning the Anglicans who hold to seven sacraments.

GKC, just passing through for now
 
So, do the Episcopalians consider themselves autocephalous at the diocesan level or the parish level? How about the Anglicans?

Last night, an Episcopal parish here in Colorado Springs changed to Anglican. What does that mean? Does that mean they rejected the authority of thei diocesan bishop and now submit to some other ordinary in England?

I wonder if the reason they changed was an argument “with the basics.”
Comments and explantions to follow.

Thanks for your patience.

GKC

**Anglicanus Catholicus **
 
While we don’t have all the answers, the truth is not relative. What you are demanding is basically the admission that the truth is relative in so far as disagreements with Anglicanism are concerned. The Catholic Church is not the only one in which sacraments are celebrated validly. Those denominations which have not departed from the fundamental Christian dogma, have valid baptism and therefore also marriage. Those which have valid holy orders have all sacraments valid, such as the Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox churches. The Anglicans don’t have valid sacraments because while the current rites are sufficient for ordination, the Edwardian rite was not and there is a gap in Apostolic succession. Those Anglican bishops who were ordained validly by e.g. Old Catholic bishops confer ordination validly, which is why Anglican lines are traced and sometimes conditional ordination is conferred.

Why we have to argue about such basics is that if we lie about this, what will we be true on, or true to? The accommodation of dissenting ideas is not as important as the truth is.
This is a thoughtful post, and calls for a thoughtful comment.

In a little while.

GKC
 
Protestants, including Anglicans, deny papal infallibility. However, they are supremely sure of their own.

Btw Traveller, are you just into hit and run or do you ever actually engage the people who bother to answer your threads?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top