F
Future_Prodigy
Guest
I was curious as to what specifically seperates the two churches, theologically of course!
Bless,
Jason
Bless,
Jason
- Status
B
buzzcut
Guest
These are informal terms that refer to tendencies within the Anglican church. They have no precise definition, and they are both within Anglicanism, not two separate bodies.
F
Future_Prodigy
Guest
what? I know their are low church and high church anglicans if thats what you mean? I am asking what seperates the high churhc anglicans from the roman catholics!
H
Hesychios
Guest
Well, they are Anglicans, that means they subscribe to the 39 Articles. High church doesn’t mean much any more, because it has only to do with the liturgy. It refers to people who appreciate and enjoy the ancient ceremonial, it does not refer to anything theological.
In other words, there are women priests who are “high church”. There are also people who accept abortion. There are people who accept birth control. There are people who have remarried after divorce. There are people who are gay/lesbian/bi-sexual/transgendered. There are even people who doubt the resurrection! There are many former Roman Catholics among them, who would not be in good standing with the Roman Catholic church as they are today.
Come to think of it, they might not be so different after all…
Am I saying that all “high church” Anglicans are like this? No, but high church Anglicans will exhibit any of the same characteristics as other Anglicans, except for their appreciation for the ceremonial aspects of worship (vestments, incense, bells, etc.).
Bells and Smells.
F
Future_Prodigy
Guest
good point i never thought of it that way… i always understood higher theology of the sacrament of comunion to be more real presence oriented whereas the lower was more in line with other protestant churches?
What about anglicanism (in general) vs RC?
As you can tell i dont know much about my own tradition. I have spent the last 4 years looking into RC and just recently EO.
What about anglicanism (in general) vs RC?
As you can tell i dont know much about my own tradition. I have spent the last 4 years looking into RC and just recently EO.
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
Well, let’s look at the 39 Articles, which have been mentioned above, for some differences. Two things: This is a quick look, and does not try to clearly set out and examine every difference they exhibit. Second (and this is a difference between Anglicans and Catholics), according to which Anglican one asks, the 39 Articles are very binding, somewhat binding, or not at all binding on Anglicans. Compare that with the teachings of the Catholic Magisterium as it applies to Catholics.
Now for some differences:
Article VI on Holy Scripture, departs from the Canon of Holy Scripture of the Church, and makes its interpretation independent of Sacred Tradition.
Article X on free will was constructed to placate Calviosist thought.
Articles XII to XV on faith and works does not express the teaching of the Catholic Church on these subjects.
Article XVII on predestination and election again departs from Catholic teaching, in an effort to accommodate Calvinist thought (which most Calvinists I’ve encountered don’t find very accommodating).
Article XIX declares that the Catholic Church has erred in matters of faith.
Article XX effectively denies that Sacred Tradition is a source of divine revelation, making that source exclusively Holy Scripture.
Article XXI declares general councils fallible.
Article XXII denies purgatory.
Articles XXV and XXVI declare there are only 2 sacraments.
Article XXVIII denies real presence and transsubstantiation.
Article XXXI denies the sacrificial character of the Mass (and therefore, impolicitly, the sacerdotal nature of the priesthood).
There are, no doubt, other differences to be pointed out, by those more scholarly than I. (I overlooked to point out that in them, for example, the supremacy of the successor to St. Peter is also, of course, denied.)
But the main thing to note is that High, Middle, Low, or Broad Church, and Anglican is a Protestant. Indeed, the Monarch of England, on taking the throne, swears to uphold the Protestant faith in the Church of England.
Blessings,
Gerry
G
GKC
Guest
The opinion one gets about the Articles depends on how well informed the one you ask might be. No Anglican is bound by the Articles, save, in a technical sense, ordinands of the Church of England, due to the Erastian nature of the CoE (it goes back to an act of Parliment from Elizabeth I’s time). And even then, you’ll find CoE AngloCatholics who cut the things from the Prayer Book.
The articles are religion as statecraft, and reflect the means by which Elizabeth chose to govern a fractious Church, 450 years ago. Anglicans other than in the CoE are free to affirm, deny, selectively affirm (and I bet you could, too), or burn them.
OTOH, I’m surprised that no one has mentioned
*Apostolicae Curae *and its judgement on Anglican orders.
Anglicans differ on that opinion, too.
And no, Anglo-Catholicism isn’t just smells and bells (and yells). Part of the reason that so many new Anglican jurisidictions have arisen in the past 30 years has to do with those Anglo-Catholics who understand quite well the nature of the sacerdotal priesthood, and other classical Catholic doctrine, that the official Anglican communion is running away from.
GKC
Anglicanus Catholicus
- Status