Catholics and Anglicans

[followingtheway]

Besides the pope, married priests and women priests

What’s the similarities and differences between Catholicism and Anglicanism?

 

[Indifferently]

Anglicanism, properly understood, taught and practised is catholicism. The problem is the Anglican churches people know best on this forum, the Church of England and the US Episcopal Church, are presently under the leadership of bishops who have little interest in preserving the historic faith of which they are the inheritors, as found in the Book of Common Prayer.

Anglicanism insists on the primacy of Scripture. It interprets scripture by looking at the convergence of the teaching of the early Church Fathers and Ecumenical councils of the undivided Church, particularly the first four. The Anglican provinces which hold fast to this Faith, in the Global South, are growing, whilst the ones in the developed world whose leaders are busy undermining it are rapidly declining.

The emergence of church ‘parties’ within Anglicanism in the 19th century probably has a lot to do with this.

As an Anglican, our faith teaches that there is but one Sacrifice for the remission of sins, but that this sacrifice is made verily and truly present in each Eucharist. We believe in justification by faith, that baptism is God’s election to salvation, his giving of faith by Grace, an election which can be lost by loss of faith. We assert Apostolic Succession and threefold ministry, and accept RC Holy Orders as well as Orthodox.

We do not believe Transubstantiation, treating the Eucharist and nature of Christ’s presence therein as unknowable, much as the Orthodox do. Anglican priests on ordination ordinariate handed a bible rather than chalice and paten which, along with traditional anglican vesture (surplice, scarf and hood) signify the unity of word and sacrament - alas this has broken down, with some clergy now wearing chasuble and stole, and others just wearing standard clothes.

We believe baptism grafts the recipient into the tree, the body of Christ, which is the One holy catholic and Apostolic Church. We believe recipients are regenerste. We acknowledge two Great Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Other sacraments are also acknowledged and practised.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

In no way is what I’m about to write definitive of the differences and similarities between Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism–really, the differences and similarities often depend on the sort of Roman Catholic or Anglican you’re asking. But I would argue that the fundamental similarities and difference are related to rather broad cultural principles at play in both Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism, most of which are related to the historical development of both churches.

I would recommend to you the work of Martin Thornton, an Anglican priest who wrote some terrific books on pastoral and ascetical theology. Specifically, I’d recommend his book “English Spirituality” in which he makes the case that Anglicanism, through the Book of Common Prayer, has retained a distinct and distinctive Benedictine cultural flavor that is not as pronounced in other churches as it is in Anglicanism. He discusses that cultural flavor by expounding on 5 general points:

1–The Prayer Book Rule of Mass, Office, and private devotion. The Prayer Book assumes that these three things are at the core of any and every Anglican’s practice of his or her faith. (Thornton suggests that for a lay Roman Catholic, the rule might be Mass, Rosary, and private devotion as he understands the Prayer Book office as analogous to the Rosary in terms of a visible marker of community identity.)
2–An emphasis on seeing the church community as a family united by a common liturgy. Thornton does not believe that clericalism was as much of an issue in England as it was on the continent due to a more familial Father-family relationship (which, in England, would have come from the Abbot-community relationship given the prevalence of Benedictinism in Britain) priests and their parishes. Thornton mentioned a related idea that spiritual direction in Anglicanism will be empirical as opposed to dogmatic because of this more familial understanding of the church.
3-Related to 2, a humanism and optimism that imparts a more earthy and domestic quality to the church. Thornton writes that we are God’s children, not his militia, and finds that the militarism of the Jesuits or similar orders would be out of keeping with the Anglican spirit, which he writes is better exemplified by “Lead Kindly Light” than “Onward Christian Soldiers.” The “full homely divinity” of which Julian of Norwich writes is applicable here.
4–A balance between head (speculative theology) and heart (affective devotion) which lends itself to a kind of practical eschewing of extremes.
5–An emphasis on regular recollection as the goal of private devotion–the idea, expressed by the Caroline divines that Anglicanism would rather your prayers be frequent than long.

All of which, Thornton writes, is at the service of an ascetical theology which (as opposed to a more Roman Catholic moral theological outlook) asks not, “What am I supposed to do? How should I do this right?” But, “How does this impinge upon my prayer, which is my life?”

I’m sure you can see in the above many similarities between Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism, as well as some differences in theological and/or pastoral emphasis which may result in the discernment of a number of dissimilarities as well. Of course Thornton’s view of things is not the whole story (it’s perhaps a bit rosy), but it’s a good place to start, I think. (For a balance to Thornton, try Eamon Duffy’s “The Stripping of the Altars” about the Enlish Reformation.)

I hope that helps!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Fr_P]

Besides the pope, married priests and women priests

What’s the similarities and differences between Catholicism and Anglicanism?

The first problem I have in trying to address this question, is that the Anglican Communion is a broad church, with wings that massively differ in teaching and practice. At one end you have the Evangelicals, at the other you have the Oxford Movement ‘catholics’, and in the middle you have a broad church protestants where objective truth seems to be negotiable.

In ecumenical dialogue, it is like dealing with a jelly. Catholics can discuss doctrine with Anglicans only to discover that other Anglicans have made agreements with Methodists that are contradictory.

At the end of the day the main root of difference is authority. I have no idea what has authority in the Anglican Communion any more. it is not tradition, it is not even Scripture, it seems to be the latest vote of a Synod. And if you don’t like a vote of the Synod, there is always next year when membership will have changed!

 

[7_Sorrows]

The first problem I have in trying to address this question, is that the Anglican Communion is a broad church, with wings that massively differ in teaching and practice. At one end you have the Evangelicals, at the other you have the Oxford Movement ‘catholics’, and in the middle you have a broad church protestants where objective truth seems to be negotiable.

In ecumenical dialogue, it is like dealing with a jelly. Catholics can discuss doctrine with Anglicans only to discover that other Anglicans have made agreements with Methodists that are contradictory.

At the end of the day the main root of difference is authority. I have no idea what has authority in the Anglican Communion any more. it is not tradition, it is not even Scripture, it seems to be the latest vote of a Synod. And if you don’t like a vote of the Synod, there is always next year when membership will have changed!

i would say that your answer is very honest and has much truth. there is no authority in anglicanism. i am currently Catholic, but was brought up in the Episcopal church in America. i grew up reciting the Apostle and Nicene Creed and learned the Our Father and learned a basic understanding of the Catholic faith, but knew i was not Catholic. i do have fond memories of my book of common prayer and the episcopal church, but, sadly, because there is no authority, anglicanism has separated itself even futher from the Catholic teachings and i could not associate anymore with the Episcopal church and after much soul searching knew that i must become Catholic.

 

[GKC]

The first problem I have in trying to address this question, is that the Anglican Communion is a broad church, with wings that massively differ in teaching and practice. At one end you have the Evangelicals, at the other you have the Oxford Movement ‘catholics’, and in the middle you have a broad church protestants where objective truth seems to be negotiable.

In ecumenical dialogue, it is like dealing with a jelly. Catholics can discuss doctrine with Anglicans only to discover that other Anglicans have made agreements with Methodists that are contradictory.

At the end of the day the main root of difference is authority. I have no idea what has authority in the Anglican Communion any more. it is not tradition, it is not even Scripture, it seems to be the latest vote of a Synod. And if you don’t like a vote of the Synod, there is always next year when membership will have changed!

Yep. Anglicans = motley crew.

GKC

 

[Indifferently]

Yep. Anglicans = motley crew.

GKC

I really hate this. Anglicanism properly understood does have coherent doctrine. It just so happens that the vast majority of practising Christians who call themselves Anglican choose to ignore that, and either become quasi Romanists, quasi Calvinists or outright liberals who reject a great deal of the faith altogether.

Anglicanism is misunderstood in the greatest part, because it attempted to restore Christianity to the teaching and practice of the early, conciliar Church. That has given way to innovation. Justification by Faith, that very clear Pauline doctrine, has been ignored or subverted. 1662 has been denigrated because it does not conform closely enough to the Roman mass.

In England at least, our loss of faith in true Anglicanism is partly a product of our decline in national self confidence. Our church, whose culture engendered one of the freest and most prosperous places on earth, has been reduced to rubble, so much so that British adherents of other religions, who in the past would not dare do this, can openly mock its parlous state. I just thank God that 1662 is still the legal standard of doctrine and practice for Religion in English law. Feel much like a remnant sometimes, especially when other Christian groups use these temporal problems as evidence that our religion is false.

Anglicanism, properly understood, is the faith of the Apostles. It’s a shame nobody understands any more.

 

[GKC]

I really hate this. Anglicanism properly understood does have coherent doctrine. It just so happens that the vast majority of practising Christians who call themselves Anglican choose to ignore that, and either become quasi Romanists, quasi Calvinists or outright liberals who reject a great deal of the faith altogether.

Anglicanism is misunderstood in the greatest part, because it attempted to restore Christianity to the teaching and practice of the early, conciliar Church. That has given way to innovation. Justification by Faith, that very clear Pauline doctrine, has been ignored or subverted. 1662 has been denigrated because it does not conform closely enough to the Roman mass.

In England at least, our loss of faith in true Anglicanism is partly a product of our decline in national self confidence. Our church, whose culture engendered one of the freest and most prosperous places on earth, has been reduced to rubble, so much so that British adherents of other religions, who in the past would not dare do this, can openly mock its parlous state. I just thank God that 1662 is still the legal standard of doctrine and practice for Religion in English law. Feel much like a remnant sometimes, especially when other Christian groups use these temporal problems as evidence that our religion is false.

Anglicanism, properly understood, is the faith of the Apostles. It’s a shame nobody understands any more.

Many types of Anglicans agree with your last observation.

GKC

 

[Indifferently]

Many types of Anglicans agree with your last observation.

GKC

You are very widely read, so I assume we can agree there is a large amount of convergence in the writings of Bishop Jewel, Mr Hooker, and Bishop Andrewes?

 

[Wild_Rover]

Our church, whose culture engendered one of the freest and most prosperous places on earth,

Is this a joke?

Is this why Catholicism was illegal for 200 years?

Don’t tell me you’re one of those Anglicans with a perverted idea of history; the type that thinks the early church in England is a direct ancestor of the CofE and all that other rubbish you convince yourselves.

 

[Indifferently]

Is this a joke?

Is this why Catholicism was illegal for 200 years?

Don’t tell me you’re one of those Anglicans with a perverted idea of history; the type that thinks the early church in England is a direct ancestor of the CofE and all that other rubbish you convince yourselves.

The Church of England is the same church which has existed on this island for almost 1400 years, and quite possibly longer. As for how Roman recusants were treated post Reformation, it was a good deal better than how Protestants were treated under the tyrant Queen Mary I. Let us not forget that the Pope formally called for Good Queen Bess to be overthrown and killed. What a shame we now seem to have exchanged Vatican rule for Brussels.

 

[SteveVH]

The Church of England is the same church which has existed on this island for almost 1400 years

You really are something. When At. Augustine of Canterbury arrived in England in 597 A.D. (a Catholic, by the way, who believed in the real presence) The Church in England was under the authority of the Pope. The Church of England, and its rejection of the Catholic Church, did not begin until 1534. You’re not fooling anyone but yourself.

 

[Indifferently]

You really are something. When At. Augustine of Canterbury arrived in England in 597 A.D. (a Catholic, by the way, who believed in the real presence) England was under the authority of the Pope. The Church of England, and its rejection of the Catholic Church, did not begin unti 1534

, and quite possibly longer. As for how Roman recusants were treated post Reformation, it was a good deal better than how Protestants were treated under the tyrant Queen Mary I. Let us not forget that the Pope formally called for Good Queen Bess to be overthrown and killed. What a shame we now seem to have exchanged Vatican rule for Brussels.

I never tire of telling you that the Church of England teaches the Real Presence. I highly doubt Augustine of Canterbury believed in transubstantiation, transubstantiation however, as Rome did not invent it until some centuries later. You make the mistake of thinking the C of E is a new church, a if the Pope somehow owns Christianity.

 

[SteveVH]

I never tire of telling you that the Church of England teaches the Real Presence. I highly doubt Augustine of Canterbury believed in transubstantiation, transubstantiation however, as Rome did not invent it until some centuries later. You make the mistake of thinking the C of E is a new church, a if the Pope somehow owns Christianity.

It was Catholic until 1534. Those are the facts, plain and simple. So please do not pretend the “Church of England” has been around for 1400 years. Now that truly is amusing.

 

[Indifferently]

It was Catholic until 1534. Those are the facts, plain and simple. So please do not pretend the “Church of England” has been around for 1400 years. Now that truly is amusing.

It was more Catholic in 1559 than it was in 1533. Indeed, the Reformers in England called themselves Catholics, and had rather different names for the recusants.

 

[SteveVH]

It was more Catholic in 1559 than it was in 1533. Indeed, the Reformers in England called themselves Catholics, and had rather different names for the recusants.

Like Abraham Lincoln once said: “If you call a sheeps tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have? It still has only four.”

 

[Indifferently]

Like Abraham Lincoln once said: “If you call a sheeps tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have? It still has only four.”

I’m not quite sure the point of your condescension. So what? I am only defending my religion in a way which would once have been normal, before this country was hoodwinked out of its empire, bankrupted by war and swamped by foreign immigration. I would not be surprised if it soon became illegal for me to publicly profess the faith and doctrine of the established church at some point.

Good news though - many local RC parishes are now having Masses celebrated in Polish!

 

[GKC]

I’m not quite sure the point of your condescension. So what? I am only defending my religion in a way which would once have been normal, before this country was hoodwinked out of its empire, bankrupted by war and swamped by foreign immigration. I would not be surprised if it soon became illegal for me to publicly profess the faith and doctrine of the established church at some point.

Good news though - many local RC parishes are now having Masses celebrated in Polish!

Unless you and I differ even more than I would assume we do, surely your and my religion is the same as the RCs here. Different Churches, yes, different doctrines in many places, but same religion.

GKC

 

[Indifferently]

Unless you and I differ even more than I would assume we do, surely your and my religion is the same as the RCs here. Different Churches, yes, different doctrines in many places, but same religion.

GKC

Yes, same religion. And I doubt you and I differ all that much. Though I do recall saying you believed in justification by faith and works, and I am persuaded that this is the main point of departure in the Reformation.

For my part, I would far sooner attend an RC Mass than communion in a Protestant church which had no episcopate and denied the Real Presence, and I suspect you would too.

 

[GKC]

Yes, same religion. And I doubt you and I differ all that much. Though I do recall saying you believed in justification by faith and works, and I am persuaded that this is the main point of departure in the Reformation.

For my part, I would far sooner attend an RC Mass than communion in a Protestant church which had no episcopate and denied the Real Presence, and I suspect you would too.

You are very correct. I think I’ve been to around 8-10 RC Masses over the past few years, all of them TLM. I can’t recall going to a protestant church save for funerals, etc, during that period.

GKC