I’ll put some Q&A up for you mate.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.
One of the problems in coming up with a list is that there are now several forms of Anglicanism. One form is that known as the “Continuing Church,” which stems from more conservative folk separating from the Episcopal church over issues doctrine, worship, and practice. Here is a brief list of beliefs from one such group.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.
That’s not the case across Anglicanism.A belief in Democratic leadership of the church.
That makes no sense at all. All churches are “theocratic.” Theocracy is a meaningful concept in civil government, because it has to do with the relationship between civil and religious authorities. It’s not a meaningful concept here that I can see.(This is incompatible with the catholic belief in Theocracy as the only possible way to govern the Church)
What archbishops do you have in mind?even to the extent of some archbishops denying the divinity of Christ.
There is a wide spectrum of views on the Real Presence. The view found in the 39 Articles is significantly different on a number of points. But in fact many Anglicans hold a view that is not significantly different from the Catholic view–the Articles are not treated as binding in the Episcopal church, and in England many Anglicans explain them in a Catholic sense.There is significantly different understanding of the Real Presence.
The Catholic Church does not recognize our sacrament of confession because it doesn’t recognize the validity of our priests. Classic, Reformation-era Anglicanism took the standard Protestant position that penance/confession is not a sacrament, and indeed had less place for private confession than the Lutherans (Richard Hooker lists this as one of the points of difference between Anglicanism and Lutheranism). Anglicans did practice a “general confession” and declaration of absolution, and the sick were encouraged to confess their sins to the priest/minister. However, regular private confession was only reintroduced as a devotional practice in the 19th century, and it was controversial then. It is not binding on us as it is in the Catholic Church: the standard line is “all may, none must, some should.” However, the specifics of how it’s done, when it is done, are essentially the same as in Catholicism, including the obligation of secrecy on the part of the priest. Here’s the rite as it appears in the 1979 American Book of Common Prayer (the official liturgy of the Episcopal Church).They do not have the Sacrament of Confession.
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.The Roman Church is built upon one interpretation of Scripture, the Anglican Church upon another. The latter may be as equally right as the former, for all we know.
Since the Anglican Church is a contradiction of the Catholic Church, it could not possibly be equally as right. If one of the two is right, the other must be wrong. Meantime, the Anglican Church is not based upon Scripture. It is based upon the revolt of Henry VIII. from the Catholic Church. Later on interpretations were read into Scripture to suit the Church he founded. That is a matter of history. Many other non-Catholic churches have been originally based upon peculiar misinterpretations of Scripture, and it would be possible to build up hundreds of other churches upon further such misinterpretations. The Catholic Church, however, whilst in full accord with the true sense of Scripture, is not built upon it She existed before a line of the New Testament was written. Her members wrote the New Testament, and she tells us what they really meant when they wrote them. She is built upon the historical Person of Christ, and proves her divine commission by her continued possession of the attributes Christ conferred upon her. Now that the Gospels are written they confirm her claims when rightly interpreted—but that is all H not a Ifns of the New Testament had ever been written, the Catholic Church would still be here.
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.One of the problems in coming up with a list is that there are now several forms of Anglicanism. One form is that known as the “Continuing Church,” which stems from more conservative folk separating from the Episcopal church over issues doctrine, worship, and practice. Here is a brief list of beliefs from one such group.
We hold to the doctrines of the first seven ecumenical councils prior to the schism between east (Orthodox) and west (Roman) in 1054 AD.
We believe the Holy Scriptures to be the revealed Word of God, containing all things necessary to salvation, and that salvation is found only through Jesus Christ.
We believe the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds to be sufficient statements of personal faith.
We believe in the seven sacraments—outward signs of inward and spiritual grace.
We believe in the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist and deem it as a mystery.
We recognize and support the sanctity of human life, beginning at conception.
We believe that marriage - defined as the lifelong union of one man and one woman - is God’s loving provision for procreation and family life, and that sex outside such marriage is against God’s law.
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.
We worship using the traditional 1928 Book of Common Prayer, the Anglican Missal, the American Missal and the 1940 Hymnal. We approve the use of the King James (Authorized) translation of the Bible as well as the Revised Standard Version and the Jerusalem Bible.
holycatholicanglican.org/about_us.php
Some general differences between Anglicans and Catholics would include the Anglican rejection of such things as papal authority, purgatory, transubstantiation, and celibacy of priests. Certain beliefs about Mary are also not as strongly held:
"An Anglican is free to believe or not to believe that Mary was ever-virgin; Scriptural evidence may be read in different ways in this matter. An Anglican is free to believe or not to believe that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven; there is no Scriptural evidence that she was so assumed. Anglicanism is silent on the contention that Mary was herself immaculately conceived, so as to be free of all original sin; there is no Scriptural evidence whatever on this point. And Anglicanism does not accept Mary as a mediatrix for us; the Prayer for the Whole State of Christ’s Church ends in the name of Jesus Christ, “our only Mediator and Advocate”.
stgeorgeocala.com/leaf17.html
Yep.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
Yes, but one generalization that I think is safe to make–reflected in your remarks above–is that many fewer things are *de fide *in Anglicanism than in Catholicism.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.
Yep.Yes, but one generalization that I think is safe to make–reflected in your remarks above–is that many fewer things are *de fide *in Anglicanism than in Catholicism.
Edwin