Differences between us and Anglicans

[batman1973]

Bravo, your method of participating in this discussion leaves something to be desired. You are obviously reproducing a rather old–and probably English?–piece of Catholic apologetics in question-and-answer form. The “questions” (the short statements) are stereotypical (and not very serious) Anglican propaganda lines (not produced by real Anglicans but by a Catholic for purposes of refutation, though a hundred years ago these were the sorts of things many Anglicans said, and they aren’t completely irrelevant even today). The lengthier paragraphs are Catholic refutations.

Cutting and pasting lengthy material is discouraged in this forum. It would have been better simply to give a link. That would have had the further advantage of telling us exactly where this is coming from.

Edwin

Yeah… I thought he was having a one sided conversation…

 

[andrewstx]

Pardon my ignorance, but can you please help with a list of differences between Catholics and Anglicans, both beliefs and practices at Church?
Or where I can find such a list.
Much obliged.

There is no list and cannot be. There are two many differences and variation between Anglicans them selves. I would think the differences between Catholics and Anglicans would be greatest in Sydney it’self.

 

[Deegie]

This is my first visit to Catholic Answers but I enjoyed what I was reading in other sections. Then I came across this thread, which seems rather hostile to anything other than Roman Catholicism. But, as a lifelong Episcopalian (and current seminarian), I thought perhaps I would dip my toe in the water and join the conversation. As long as the discussion is a genuine one, I would like to help explore Anglicanism with you.

I am not sure if this is the forum to make this observation, however I think one of the key differences between the two is imperialism. To me the Anglican Church is coloured by imperialism through out.

This is a reasonable conclusion to draw since the Church of England (COE) is a national church. Anglicanism was also the established faith of some of the American colonies, as well as many other British imperial regions. However, one can say the same about Catholicism. Europe tended to use Christianity (of all denominations) to “civilize” the people the conquered. The Spanish did it, the French did it, and the English did it. I don’t think it’s fair to say that Anglicanism is a tool any longer of imperialism. God willing, that phase of Christian history is over.

This can be observed in the choice of words in the King James translation such as the use almost exclusivly of the word worship where in many cases the Douay Reims uses adoration or adore.

Please provide some specific references. I would like to do some research into the original language words.

This imperialism can also be observed in the liturgy of the two Churches e.g when the Anglicans say the lords prayer in worship services after the last line “but deliver us from evil” the Anglican liturgy then adds “for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory now and for ever” Amen. Where as the Catholic liturgy after the last line goes “deliver us oh lord from every evil and grant us peace in our day” Amen.

First, I fail to see the imperialism behind the doxology appended to the Lord’s Prayer. Second, the addition of kingdom, power, and glory is an ancient one. It’s found in many of the early manuscripts of Matthew. The Didache (dated somewhere around the close of the first century AD) includes it. The Apostolic Constitutions (dated perhaps to the end of the fourth century AD) includes a shortened version. So I would argue that the longer version is more faithful to the worship of the early church.

 

[bzkoss236]

We accept the ordained ministry of male Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in Apostolic Succession (as in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches), and as in Eastern churches, married men may be ordained.

Why have I seen female anglican priests?

 

[Deegie]

Why have I seen female anglican priests?

Because it depends where you look. As the poster stated, the “continuing Anglican” groups largely do not ordain women as priests. The Episcopal Church (by far the largest Anglican group in the United States) does, as does the Church of England, the mother church so to speak.

 

[GKC]

Because it depends where you look. As the poster stated, the “continuing Anglican” groups largely do not ordain women as priests. The Episcopal Church (by far the largest Anglican group in the United States) does, as does the Church of England, the mother church so to speak.

Anglicans = motley crew.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[JonNC]

True, in essence. But an amendment. Not all Anglicans reject Papal authority. The question of what that authority is, is the point. Nor do all reject the concept of purgatory (C.S. Lewis, for example), though again, precise details on the concept may differ. And you will find Anglicans who affirm fully transubstantiation. But it, as with some of the Marian points you mention, is not de fide. Few things are.

As I often note, in general, generalizations re: Anglicans are generally wrong.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus, posterus traditus Anglicanus

Is the bolded one of those “saved for future use” posts you recommended I start keeping?

Jon

 

[guanophore]

I am an Anglican, and I was present in the Anglican Church of St. James in Sydney where a Requiem Mass was celebrated for the repose of the soul of one of our deceased priests. This occurred in 1930.

I have been trying to wade through this mass of posts with difficulty. It was this statement that convinced me the source of your posts is not your own, but copied and pasted from here:

radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-1.php?t=28

In doing what you have on this thread, you have violated the forum rules.

[CONDUCT RULES

Messages should be short. Do not post lengthy replies (including replies that consist largely of quotes from an earlier message). ](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2)

CONTENT RULES

Do not paste entire articles from web sites into a post. If you wish to reference an article on the web, link to its web address, instead.

It is also not conducive to much discussion. Many of those comments are merely opinon (uncharitably expressed), some of that info is flat out erroneous, and none of them appear to be referenced to authorative Catholic sources.

 

[bzkoss236]

Because it depends where you look. As the poster stated, the “continuing Anglican” groups largely do not ordain women as priests. The Episcopal Church (by far the largest Anglican group in the United States) does, as does the Church of England, the mother church so to speak.

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification!

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Anglicans can believe and bless gay marriage, deny the ressurection, women priests and don’t have a pope I guess as well.

 

[GKC]

Anglicans can believe and bless gay marriage, deny the ressurection, women priests and don’t have a pope I guess as well.

Except for the last, all that would depend on which Anglican you asked.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Is the bolded one of those “saved for future use” posts you recommended I start keeping?

Jon

Yep. But that one is so short (like motley-crew-isms), that I just dash them off.

The long ones on history, I save. Then I cut and paste, and patch, suitable to the occasion.

GKC

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Except for the last, all that would depend on which Anglican you asked.

GKC

Makes me dissapointed. The conservatives need to excomunicate the liberals.

 

[GKC]

Makes me dissapointed. The conservatives need to excomunicate the liberals.

The conservatives tend to leave for better pastures.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus.

 

[guanophore]

I am not sure if this is the forum to make this observation, however I think one of the key differences between the two is imperialism. To me the Anglican Church is coloured by imperialism through out. This can be observed in the choice of words in the King James translation such as the use almost exclusivly of the word worship where in many cases the Douay Reims uses adoration or adore.

This is understandable as when the King James was being written the anglican church was very aware that it would be used to form thier liturgy where as the Catholic church already had a well formed liturgy.

I don’t see how this translation relates to the Anglican Church being imperialistic.



There are few entitiies in the history of the Western civilization that have been more imperialistic than the Roman Catholic Church. Any imperialism the Anglicans had was rooted in that of the Holy Roman Empire.

  This imperialism can also be observed in the liturgy of the two Churches e.g when the Anglicans say the lords prayer in worship services after the last line "but deliver us from  evil" the Anglican liturgy then adds "for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory now and for ever" Amen. Where as the Catholic liturgy after the last line goes "deliver us oh lord from every evil and grant us peace in our day" Amen.

This doesn’t make any sense to me at all. They use a doxology that is older than the NT. What is imperialistic about that?!

Are you saying you believe Anglicans don’t pray for peace and deliverance because they think they don’t need it? That they are beyond that? I find that notion incoprehensible.

  Just like the words "worship" and "adore" the former implies an old testament fear of God and by extension a fear of Gods representatives on earth i.e the king. where as the later implies a comming to Christ. A journy that culminates in total and completet adoration as we move ever deeper into the mystery of the Godhead.

Such a premise lacks any validity when one compares it to the history of the Holy Roman Empire and the beliefs of the Roman cura that they were God’s representatives on earth. Any such lingering effects of this in Anglicanism pale in comparison.

 Let me know what you think?

How did I do?
:

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The conservatives tend to leave for better pastures.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus.

Well I suppose thats better than staying in a church that fundamentally does not accept Christianity. Well meaningful Christianity.

 

[GKC]

Well I suppose thats better than staying in a church that fundamentally does not accept Christianity. Well meaningful Christianity.

I agree, in principle.

Not all who are orthodox have left, of course.

GKC

 

[Deegie]

Anglicans can believe and bless gay marriage, deny the ressurection, women priests and don’t have a pope I guess as well.

Speaking for the Episcopal Church of the USA…the first is a matter of personal choice, the second quite rare but unfortunately (IMHO) does happen, the third is both commonplace and celebrated, and the fourth…well, yeah. Of course not.

But you must remember that there is no monolithic denomination called Anglicanism. It’s a collection of churches that agree on enough fundamentals of the faith to come to the altar together in common worship. Dare I say it…Roman Catholics often don’t all agree, either. I know plenty of Catholics who have no problem with contraception, for example. But we Anglicans celebrate the diversity instead of stifling it. Does that sometimes go too far? Absolutely. We’ve had our share of nutjobs. But what large organization hasn’t?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Speaking for the Episcopal Church of the USA…the first is a matter of personal choice, the second quite rare but unfortunately (IMHO) does happen, the third is both commonplace and celebrated, and the fourth…well, yeah. Of course not.

But you must remember that there is no monolithic denomination called Anglicanism. It’s a collection of churches that agree on enough fundamentals of the faith to come to the altar together in common worship. Dare I say it…Roman Catholics often don’t all agree, either. I know plenty of Catholics who have no problem with contraception, for example. But we Anglicans celebrate the diversity instead of stifling it. Does that sometimes go too far? Absolutely. We’ve had our share of nutjobs. But what large organization hasn’t?

But when you abandon fundamentals, the ressurection, don’t excommunicate or simply ignore the spongs. You ignore established Christianity, by being in communion with baal you jeporadize your own communion. That Homosexuality (something never accepted in the grand history of Christianity), ressurection and female priests are existent in your church marks something wrong with your church. Theologumnia is fine but if you don’t have a consistent orthodox core, then what are you but unitarians Universalists?

 

[guanophore]

 Speaking for the Episcopal Church of the USA...the first is a matter of personal choice, the second quite rare but unfortunately (IMHO) does happen, the third is both commonplace and celebrated, and the fourth...well, yeah. Of course not.  :)

Thanks for contributing. I don’t have any experience with Episcopal congregations.

 But you must remember that there is no monolithic denomination called Anglicanism. It's a collection of churches that agree on enough fundamentals of the faith to come to the altar together in common worship.

Who decide what the “fundamentals” are?

How can there be an altar, when there is no sacrifice?

It just boggles the mind that someone could call themselves Christian and still deny the resurrection. Isn’t this kinda basic?

1 Cor 15:14-15
if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ

Doesn’t such a position pretty much invalidate the whole thing? Such a position seems to be a fundamental departure from the faith of the Apostles.

Dare I say it…Roman Catholics often don’t all agree, either. I know plenty of Catholics who have no problem with contraception, for example. But we Anglicans celebrate the diversity instead of stifling it. Does that sometimes go too far? Absolutely. We’ve had our share of nutjobs. But what large organization hasn’t?

I see your point, but I have not been so strongly grateful I am Catholic in a very long time. The main difference is that the One Faith passed on to us by the Apostles stands above all of our individual agreements and opinions. Though there are many (I would say most) Catholics who do not believe and practice their faith, that does not change the faith itself. It is still one, whole, seamless and indivisible garment. It remains on solid foundation, no matter how many baptized into it later abandon it. I don’t see this in the Anglican or Episcopalian ecclesial communites. Frankly, reading this thread has been a very sad experience for me. I guess I just never realized how many had drifted from the faith, since the Anglicans I meet here on CAF are the traditional variety.