Do Catholics despise Anglicans?

[Nella]

It seems to me that Catholics seem to have more of a disliking for The Anglican Communion than for anyone else, even Lutherans. Why is this? Is is because the Anglican reformers in the 16th century kept most of the RC form of worship when they split from Rome? Is it because of King Henry or Queen Elizabeth II? Or possibly could it be that Anglicans actually profess the Eucharist to be exactly what RC’s believe that it is?

I agree that Catholics seem to really have it in for Anglicans in general. I think it may be because many ex-Catholics end up becoming Anglican. I am an ex-Catholic that became received into the Anglican church. I hear alot of venom toward King Henry and Queen Elizabeth from many Catholics. As far as the Anglican worship being very similar and in some instances exactly the same as the RCC, this could be it as well. There is a stereotype among many Catholics that all Protestants are vastly different or at least should be. But, Anglicans are Protestants that are not much different at all.

 

[mgrfin]

I agree that Catholics seem to really have it in for Anglicans in general. I think it may be because many ex-Catholics end up becoming Anglican. I am an ex-Catholic that became received into the Anglican church. I hear alot of venom toward King Henry and Queen Elizabeth from many Catholics. As far as the Anglican worship being very similar and in some instances exactly the same as the RCC, this could be it as well. There is a stereotype among many Catholics that all Protestants are vastly different or at least should be. But, Anglicans are Protestants that are not much different at all.

What statistics do you have to say that many ex-Catholics become anglican?
I think many ex-catholics become nothing, just 'lapsed Catholic".

Why would a Catholic accept another religion whose Episcopsy and Priesthood is in question, and therefore whose eucharist is also in question, who possibly believes in blessing gay and lesbian relationships, female and gay and lesbian ‘priesthood’.???
A religion established by a human (Henry VIII)?

peace

 

[RobHom]

Wow. I can’t speak to your experiences, but I feel confident in saying that if a Catholic despises anyone, they’re not a very good Catholic.

I tend to agree quite strongly with your sentiments. I have never had a problem with Anglican’s. In fact I have known some who are really good people and have never had a problem with them…and they know I’m Catholic.

I think what was occasioned was a very local thing. But even still… I have never, personally, heard a Catholic Priest disparage another faith or religion.

 

[RobHom]

I agree that Catholics seem to really have it in for Anglicans in general.

Malarkey!! This is not the case at all. This sounds like verbalization of a “persecution complex”. Sorry, but thats how it comes across.

I think it may be because many ex-Catholics end up becoming Anglican. I am an ex-Catholic that became received into the Anglican church.

Proofs?

I hear alot of venom toward King Henry and Queen Elizabeth from many Catholics.

Lets see, he divorced and/or murdered his wives…and maybe that could have something to do with it? Which Elizabeth are we talking about here?

As far as the Anglican worship being very similar and in some instances exactly the same as the RCC, this could be it as well.

This in no way consititutes a problem for me, or Catholics I know.

There is a stereotype among many Catholics that all Protestants are vastly different or at least should be. But, Anglicans are Protestants that are not much different at all.

Actually, I don’t see Anglican’s as protestants so much as “separated kindred”… There is not all that much that we disagree upon is there… its not like Anglican’s are like…you know…those other guys…

Now if you happen to be hanging out in bars or social clubs in certain parts of Boston…where it is all Irish Catholics… you may be hearing what you are saying…but in other places, I have serious doubts…

 

[RobHom]

Edwin, your statement: I should add that Anglicans in general seem to be more anti-Catholic in the Northeast than in the South. In the South they have a common enemy with Catholics–Protestant fundamentalism. In the Northeast Catholics are the dominant group and this stirs up a lot of resentment. I was amazed at how hostile to Catholicism the mainline Episcopalians and Methodists in New Jersey were.

…probably contains more truth than many may realize. I have seen it to be that way in my travels. I think alot of it has to do with demographics and history quite a bit. If you study the history of the northeastern states, who the wealthy were aka employers, and who the poorer workers were when this country was in its growth spurts, you will find that the Catholics…Irish, Italians,…Catholics were the workers…and there were problems. Some of the unfriendly sentiments continue.

And yes, in the South…frankly, the average “rube” hasn’t really a clue as to the difference.

 

[THutch04]

JoyForCatholic, I can see what you mean by some Anglicans having very high opinions of themselves. I too was in a Continuing Church and became Catholic about two years ago, and at least in my experience there were definitely some people who thought they were better because they were Anglicans. Yet at the same time, they felt that way about just about every other religious body. I’m sure there are others who feel differently. I’ve never heard any Anglicans actually say that they felt anyone was jeopardizing their salvation by becoming Catholic though. Actually at least in my experience, I’d say that the Anglicans I’ve known were probably the friendliest towards Catholics.

 

[Contarini]

What statistics do you have to say that many ex-Catholics become anglican?

I myself have no statistics, but based on personal experience in real life and on the Internet it seems to me that this claim is correct–many ex-Catholics do become Episcopalians. The Episcopal discussion board on beliefnet is full of ex-Catholics (very angry and bitter ones too), and the Episcopal churches I have attended (all of whom were very small) all had some ex-Catholics in it (this is primarily true of the parishes in North Carolina and New Jersey–so far I only know of one in the parish I attend currently in Indiana, although there is another couple that appear to be mixed Episcopalian and Catholic and attend both churches, from what I’ve been able to tell).

I think the reasons are pretty clear–the Episcopal Church gives people a liturgical and sacramental life that is relatively close to that of Catholicism (I’m making no theological claims here–the similarities may well be superficial, but they allow people to feel as if they haven’t abandoned their heritage), without making the same kinds of demands, particularly with regard to sexual morality. The issues you mention simply do not matter to most of these people–or they see them differently. I’m not here to defend them–I feel pain every time I meet yet another ex-Catholic Episcopalian, and guilt for being an Episcopalian and thus in some way participating in their leaving the Catholic Church–but this is something I’ve encountered quite frequently, particularly in New Jersey.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

My apoligies Edwin if the prior post seemed a bit harsh; it’s just that I’ve taken quite a bit of “flak” from the CC types recently (of the jurisdiction from which I came); I don’t know who GKC is but thank you for your words as well.

GKC is, of course, no more the real Gilbert Keith Chesterton than I am the real Gasparo Cardinal Contarini (maybe I should change to GCC?). Rather, he is a one-man argument for Continuing Anglicanism, being one of the wisest and most generous people I’ve encountered on the Internet.

I will differ however on several statements-- First on our friend Belloc; granted that although he may be a bit “coarse” he is certainly not a type for “political correctness”. IF he states the truth then how he states it is not as important as what he states.

I’m not talking about his rhetoric, which I enjoy, but about his attention to historical evidence and willingness to look at both sides of an issue. He reduces the Reformation to its political/social dimenson and does not do justice to the real theological issues involved. And he reduces historical figures to cookie-cutter heroes and villains.

As for Mr. MacCulloch, I am not so sure I would be ready to categorize him as free of the “revisions” of history; granted I have his rather large tome on the Reformation (given as a gift) setting on my desk and yet to be read however I seem to recall having been given varying opinions on him.

Sorry–we are using “revisionist” in different senses. You are using it pejoratively to describe views you consider tendentiously inaccurate. I am using it to refer to scholarship that overturns a previous paradigm. It’s not evaluative–revisionists are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, and usually, like most historians, some of both.

Edwin

 

[Nella]

What statistics do you have to say that many ex-Catholics become anglican?
I think many ex-catholics become nothing, just 'lapsed Catholic".

Why would a Catholic accept another religion whose Episcopsy and Priesthood is in question, and therefore whose eucharist is also in question, who possibly believes in blessing gay and lesbian relationships, female and gay and lesbian ‘priesthood’.???
A religion established by a human (Henry VIII)?

peace

My guess would be that they were met with compassion and an honest progression toward the spirit as opposed to a need for continual church disciplines to supposedly be pleasing to God. When one comes to this epiphany in life, it is a metamorphesis to both life and soul. I think King Henry experienced this peace and comforting even though he didn’t actually start the Anglican church, Thomas Cranmer actually did as first Archbishop of Canterbury. Your despise is really evident in your post which unfortunately confirms my previous beliefs about Catholic’s attitudes toward Anglicans.

As for ordination of gays and lesbians, not in my Anglican church!! My priest and parish vehimately opposes it. Much of TEC condones these things but may soon find themselves no longer a part of the Anglican communion. The Anglican church teachings NEVER condoned such a thing, just as the Catholic church teachings NEVER condoned child sexual abuse. Both however have unfortunately taken place.

 

[RobHom]

I think King Henry experienced this peace and comforting even though he didn’t actually start the Anglican church, …

Nella, Nella, Nella… I think you need to do a little more research on who founded the Anglican Church…

biblicalheritage.org/Religions/Christian/anglican.htm

1534 Anglican Church

I. Group Profile

1. Name - Anglican Church
2. Year Founded - 1534 England
3. Founder - King Henry VIII
   A. Date of Birth & Death
   B. Place of Founder’s Birth
4. Sacred Texts
5. Size of Group
   II. History

In the 1530s, when King Henry VIII wished to obtain a divorce from Queen Catherine of Aragon for not producing a male heir. The Pope would not grant it. After a long campaign to reverse this decision, the King ran out of patience and proclaimed himself Supreme Head of the Church of England and the Church began its separate existence from Rome, although, and this is important, its bishops have been consecrated in unbroken succession from St Peter. Innovative from the first, the new Church simplified the liturgy, ensured it was in English rather than Latin and set it out in a new Book of Common Prayer. (From the website of the Church of England.)

Read Here:
justus.anglican.org/resources/timeline/06reformation.html

1529 Henry VIII decides he does not need to get permission from the bishop of Rome to have his marriage annulled. (The idea is probably Thomas Cromwell’s.) He declares himself head of the English church (whatever that means), forcibly cuts the Anglican bishops off from communion with Rome, calls the Reformation Parliament, and marries Anne Boleyn. Services at the churches, however, remain essentially the same. (The mass is in Latin, there is no sermon or systematic Bible reading, and the people are passive and receive communion only at Easter, getting only the consecrated bread.)

More:

anglican.org/church/ChurchHistory.html

No matter how you claim it… Ole Henry the 8th…he’s the one that done it!!

 

[GKC]

Nella, Nella, Nella… I think you need to do a little more research on who founded the Anglican Church…

biblicalheritage.org/Religions/Christian/anglican.htm

1534 Anglican Church

I. Group Profile

1. Name - Anglican Church
2. Year Founded - 1534 England
3. Founder - King Henry VIII
   A. Date of Birth & Death
   B. Place of Founder’s Birth
4. Sacred Texts
5. Size of Group
   II. History

In the 1530s, when King Henry VIII wished to obtain a divorce from Queen Catherine of Aragon for not producing a male heir. The Pope would not grant it. After a long campaign to reverse this decision, the King ran out of patience and proclaimed himself Supreme Head of the Church of England and the Church began its separate existence from Rome, although, and this is important, its bishops have been consecrated in unbroken succession from St Peter. Innovative from the first, the new Church simplified the liturgy, ensured it was in English rather than Latin and set it out in a new Book of Common Prayer. (From the website of the Church of England.)

Read Here:
justus.anglican.org/resources/timeline/06reformation.html

1529 Henry VIII decides he does not need to get permission from the bishop of Rome to have his marriage annulled. (The idea is probably Thomas Cromwell’s.) He declares himself head of the English church (whatever that means), forcibly cuts the Anglican bishops off from communion with Rome, calls the Reformation Parliament, and marries Anne Boleyn. Services at the churches, however, remain essentially the same. (The mass is in Latin, there is no sermon or systematic Bible reading, and the people are passive and receive communion only at Easter, getting only the consecrated bread.)

More:

anglican.org/church/ChurchHistory.html

No matter how you claim it… Ole Henry the 8th…he’s the one that done it!!

Hank done it all right. But as to what he did, and why, and how, I suggest J. J. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII. It’s not pro-Henry, it’s pro-history. Which is a good thing to be. Deep, remember. Deep.

GKC

 

[GKC]

“GKC is, of course, no more the real Gilbert Keith Chesterton than I am the real Gasparo Cardinal Contarini (maybe I should change to GCC?). Rather, he is a one-man argument for Continuing Anglicanism, being one of the wisest and most generous people I’ve encountered on the Internet”

There is no way to comment on this, without challenging Contarini’s well-known perspicacity. I can only say I hope to merit part of that, in some way, some of the time, to some degree.

GKC

 

[JoyforCatholic]

I’m not talking about his rhetoric, which I enjoy, but about his attention to historical evidence and willingness to look at both sides of an issue. He reduces the Reformation to its political/social dimenson and does not do justice to the real theological issues involved. And he reduces historical figures to cookie-cutter heroes and villains.

Sorry–we are using “revisionist” in different senses. You are using it pejoratively to describe views you consider tendentiously inaccurate. I am using it to refer to scholarship that overturns a previous paradigm. It’s not evaluative–revisionists are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, and usually, like most historians, some of both.

Edwin

Belloc was a historian and a realist and a Catholic who saw history as a defense of Catholicism and the fact that Catholicism is indeed what made all of Europe great. While you feel he “ignored” “both sides of the issue” the main thrust here is that he really got it right.

While I might like to think that Henry and Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer, et. al. were all thinking along the lines of “theology” when they facilitated the break with the Pope, I can’t ignore the fact (nor can anyone) that the historical record of the Supression of the Monasteries and the Church in England is inexcusable. While Henry may have had “solid ground” (although I do doubt it) for an annulment, does what follow justify the breach? It does not. If anything, Henry showed his true colors. I suppose Henry was a little angry (and perhaps justifiably so) that

This is the elephant in the room, if you will for the Anglican argument that Henry (and later Elizabeth) were merely returning to the Old Religion of the Realm. NO THEY WERE NOT. The Old Religion was that of the Catholic Faith that was in union with the Holy Father. Cranmer (and I’d recommend a reading of Michael Davies for this subject, unless of course he is also be considered a mere bomb thrower in the mold of Belloc) did revise the Mass into the Lord’s Supper and it is a well known fact of history that he held many Lutheran and Calvinist positions. Therefore, he did NOT hold to what the Church had always taught and he sought to change it.

This was one of the biggest struggles I had as an Anglican by the way, but when one sees and reads and understands history and the truth of it then one can’t merely look away anymore. I had always wanted to be “catholic” without having to be “Catholic”, I guess is the best way to sum it up.

As for reducing historical figures to “cookie cutter” heroes and villans-- again, Belloc is simply putting forth, through the political/economic dimension, the reality of the event. While we might like to think the Reformation was all about theology, we can’t ignore the other elephant in the room which is the real economic and political motivations of some of the actors on the stage. It was as much about the attainment of wealth and power for some of the actors as it was theology, if not more. The almighty dollar, if you will.

Finally Edwin, to your reference of the difference of the use of “revisionism”. I am using it in the same sense because the facts remain that Catholics were considered second class citizens in Britain until the 19th century (I believe when the ban on building Catholic Churches was lifted) and still are today-- the fact (I believe it was mentioned earlier) that a member of the royal family cannot marry a Catholic and retain their place in the succession. Although Chucky can divorce and still remain in the line (of course his wife, HRH Diana, had been long dead when he remarried, so at least he didn’t follow the Tudor way of doing things) of succession.

In Christ the Lord,

 

[JoyforCatholic]

Hank done it all right. But as to what he did, and why, and how, I suggest J. J. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII. It’s not pro-Henry, it’s pro-history. Which is a good thing to be. Deep, remember. Deep.

GKC

And as Cardinal Newman said I believe, “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”.

In Christ the Lord,

 

[JoyforCatholic]

To Edwin and GKC:

On a side note, I wish to thank both of you for the fact you are both more charitable in your debating with me (a former CC Anglican) than many others in my own experience have been.

This is the only way Ecumenism can move forward in all honesty-- when done charitably

In Christ the Lord,

 

[mgrfin]

My guess would be that they were met with compassion and an honest progression toward the spirit as opposed to a need for continual church disciplines to supposedly be pleasing to God. When one comes to this epiphany in life, it is a metamorphesis to both life and soul. I think King Henry experienced this peace and comforting even though he didn’t actually start the Anglican church, Thomas Cranmer actually did as first Archbishop of Canterbury. Your despise is really evident in your post which unfortunately confirms my previous beliefs about Catholic’s attitudes toward Anglicans.

As for ordination of gays and lesbians, not in my Anglican church!! My priest and parish vehimately opposes it. Much of TEC condones these things but may soon find themselves no longer a part of the Anglican communion. The Anglican church teachings NEVER condoned such a thing, just as the Catholic church teachings NEVER condoned child sexual abuse. Both however have unfortunately taken place.

I hope Henry VIII experienced peace. He gave little loyalty and peace to those around him. He built up a story in his mind that Catherine was not his wife. He marries Anne Boleyn, but cuts off her head. He marries again, this time to Jane Seymour. She dies of a fever, so he marries Anne of Cleves. He lets her go, and marries Kathryn Howard, whom he beheads. He finally marries Katherine Parr.
He beheads his Chancellor, Thomas More. He beheads John Fisher. Cranmer is burned at the stake.

Your opinion about my feelings towards Anglicans is baseless. As far as your ‘priest’ and your ‘parish’ opposing ‘ordination’ of gays, just wait a little time.

You are wrong about the Church confirming pederasty - this is an old saw of yours which you throw up whenever you don’t have anything more nasty to say. And your telling me, with all the approved homosexuality in the Anglican Church that there is no pederasty hiding away there? Please.

peace

 

[GKC]

And as Cardinal Newman said I believe, “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”.

In Christ the Lord,

Yep. And hence, deep. Deep.

No protestants here.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus.

 

[GKC]

To Edwin and GKC:

On a side note, I wish to thank both of you for the fact you are both more charitable in your debating with me (a former CC Anglican) than many others in my own experience have been.

This is the only way Ecumenism can move forward in all honesty-- when done charitably

In Christ the Lord,

For myself, you are very welcome. I know more than one Anglican, of the traditional mindset, who has gone where you have gone. It is, in my mind, no great distance. I wish you well.

Charitable, I hope. Lord Halifax is my model. Cardinal Vaughan, not so much.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[GKC]

“Cranmer is burned at the stake.”

Now let’s don’t blame Hank for this one.

GKC

 

[lukewarm]

It seems to me that Catholics seem to have more of a disliking for The Anglican Communion than for anyone else, even Lutherans. Why is this? Is is because the Anglican reformers in the 16th century kept most of the RC form of worship when they split from Rome? Is it because of King Henry or Queen Elizabeth II? Or possibly could it be that Anglicans actually profess the Eucharist to be exactly what RC’s believe that it is?

Irish Catholics pretty much despise the Anglican Church. As the official state Church of England, the Anglican Church was directly invovled in the eviction of tenant farmers, stealing of land, forced tithing upon the Catholic community even during the great famine that killed 1/3rd of the Irish population (and they weren’t even Anglicans)… The Anglican Church desecrated the bodies of the Saints, burnt the monasteries, and killed the priests.

If you live in a community with a lot of Irish who still have roots in Ireland, or even English Catholics you will find a lot of hatred for the Anglican Church.