episcopal and catholic

[Supercatholic]

The Church of England was started by St. Augustine of Canterburry in the 6th century, not Henry VIII. It was reformed after Henry VIII broke ties with Rome along the lines of Erasmus, Luther, and other continental reformers. Just like Roman Catholicism sought reform around the Council of Trent, clarity in doctrines was needed in Anglicanism because Roman Catholics had done such a bang-up job of leaving some things, like indulgences, purgatory, the Communion of Saints, up to uneducated, superstitious minds (Luther wrote the first Christian catechism that was widely published, BTW). I fully agree that some of the reformers often were excessive in their anti-Catholicism and introduced errors of their own (Cranmer in particular ended up too rationalistic at the end of his life), but I’m also willing to cut them some slack given the “conditions on the ground” that existed in the West in the Church.

Saint Augustine was sent from Rome by Pope Gregory I in 597 to start a church IN England not OF England. And up until the Reformation the church IN (not of) England was under the Authority of the pope.

 

[GKC]

Saint Augustine was sent from Rome by Pope Gregory I in 597 to start a church IN England not OF England. And up until the Reformation the church IN (not of) England was under the Authority of the pope.

I’m no flag-waver for the Celtic Church folks, but it should be remembered that the Church was in England, in some form, for some four hundred years before Augustine arrived. Tertullian and Origen mention the believers in Britain, around 200+ AD. By 300+ AD the Church was organized into dioceses; the bishops of three of them attended the Council of Arles, in 314 AD. No British bishops likely attended Nicea but Athanasius mentions that the Church in Britain accepted the decisions of the council. British bishops attended the council at Rimini, in 359 AD (though they were so poor they had to let the Emperor pay their way). And there are things that might be said of the Celts. History. Full of stuff.

GKC

 

[Supercatholic]

I’m no flag-waver for the Celtic Church folks, but it should be remembered that the Church was in England, in some form, for some four hundred years before Augustine arrived. Tertullian and Origen mention the believers in Britain, around 200+ AD. By 300+ AD the Church was organized into dioceses; the bishops of three of them attended the Council of Arles, in 314 AD. No British bishops likely attended Nicea but Athanasius mentions that the Church in Britain accepted the decisions of the council. British bishops attended the council at Rimini, in 359 AD (though they were so poor they had to let the Emperor pay their way). And there are things that might be said of the Celts. History. Full of stuff.

GKC

Thanx for the additional information. I will not dispute a church existed in England prior to Augustine, but perhaps there was a lapse and Pope Gregory wanted to re-establish the church. Anyway the point I wanted to make in the previous post was, the church commissioned by Augustine and the one started Henry VIII were two different animals.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Are we seeking here to set a personal record for lucid, intelligent, historical analysis coupled with an excessive use of the colloquially thin word “stuff?”

I’m no flag-waver for the Celtic Church folks, but it should be remembered that the Church was in England, in some form, for some four hundred years before Augustine arrived. Tertullian and Origen mention the believers in Britain, around 200+ AD. By 300+ AD the Church was organized into dioceses; the bishops of three of them attended the Council of Arles, in 314 AD. No British bishops likely attended Nicea but Athanasius mentions that the Church in Britain accepted the decisions of the council. British bishops attended the council at Rimini, in 359 AD (though they were so poor they had to let the Emperor pay their way). And there are things that might be said of the Celts. History. Full of stuff.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

So therefore anyone accepting the concepts of things like purgatory and the communion of saints, Catholicism essentially, are superstitious, educated boobs. Nice. This post definitely could have been a little bit more charitable. Superstitious, uneducated minds could’ve been left out and your post would’ve made the point without insulting Catholics.

The Church of England was started by St. Augustine of Canterburry in the 6th century, not Henry VIII. It was reformed after Henry VIII broke ties with Rome along the lines of Erasmus, Luther, and other continental reformers. Just like Roman Catholicism sought reform around the Council of Trent, clarity in doctrines was needed in Anglicanism because Roman Catholics had done such a bang-up job of leaving some things, like indulgences, purgatory, the Communion of Saints, up to uneducated, superstitious minds (Luther wrote the first Christian catechism that was widely published, BTW). I fully agree that some of the reformers often were excessive in their anti-Catholicism and introduced errors of their own (Cranmer in particular ended up too rationalistic at the end of his life), but I’m also willing to cut them some slack given the “conditions on the ground” that existed in the West in the Church.

 

[GKC]

Thanx for the additional information. I will not dispute a church existed in England prior to Augustine, but perhaps there was a lapse and Pope Gregory wanted to re-establish the church. Anyway the point I wanted to make in the previous post was, the church commissioned by Augustine and the one started Henry VIII were two different animals.

Anglicans see it differently.OTOH, RCs see it differently from Anglicans

GK

 

[GKC]

Are we seeking here to set a personal record for lucid, intelligent, historical analysis coupled with an excessive use of the colloquially thin word “stuff?”

Could be.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Could be.

GKC

Added: I will substitute “materia”

 

[Anna_Scott]

“Real Presence” is a widely held belief in Anglicanism, many having beliefs similar to the Orthodox on this matter. A minority would be willing to use the Roman Catholic term “transubstantiation”. I personally I have no problem with it, after having read Pope Benedict’s commentary on the issue. Another minority believes that Christ is present “spiritually”, similar to John Calvin’s theology. Zwinglian memorialism doesn’t have much of a home.

Anglicans practice infant baptism. Confirmation is done similar to Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism. Almost all Anglicans have “open communion” with any baptized Christian. Almost all Anglicans believe salvation is a process. Wesleyan/Arminian and more “catholic” theology is the most common, and even the Calvinists of Anglicanism are not the same as your average Baptists interpretation. Many Anglicans aren’t into deep theologizing. Anglicanism also had a Charismatic movement of its own, older than Roman Catholicism’s.

Beliefs about the relationship to the Jewish people are similar to Roman Catholicism. The average broad church and high church Anglican also tends to have similar views of, the communion of saints and prayers for the dead as Roman Catholics or Orthodox, though it doesn’t necessarily play out in catholic-esque piety (and the idea of purgatory in Anglicanism, is somewhere between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox views of things). Broad church/high church piety seems a mixture of Gothic Romanticism, Reformed sensibilities, and a dry focus on mystery (less sensory than the Eastern Orthodox, and not as sentimental as Roman Catholicism).

The big difference between Anglicanism and Rome, in the 20th century, Anglicanism has been relatively liberal on “social” issues, like women’s ordination, contraception, and homosexuality. This may stem partly from the 19th century attitude of “tolerant conservativism” and the Anglo-Catholic movement (which was politically more left leaning and not as moralistic as the Reformed strains). Anglicanism also has had a larger number of clergy and theologians willingly to openly challenge orthodoxy, and because Anglicanism is less magisterial, they tend to be tolerated moreso. Anglican polity is more democratic and congregational, as well, which means you can have liberal parishes and conservative parishes all within the same denomination.

I have heard that in the UK Anglicanism is on a steady decline, and Episcopalianism has had a steep decline in the last few decades. Particularly some areas are experimenting with “fresh” expressions of church, etc. Influenced by more individualistic strains of postmodernism and “Emergent Church”. (this is also happening in Lutheranism). Some secular types I have read about and talked to are actually turned off by the thought of people painting during a church service, people sitting around a talking about themselves, or hearing contemporary “praise” music (often not very theological/narrative in tone) instead of the more somber tone of traditional hymnody.

Daedelus76,

I really appreciate all the information. I did find the Episcopal beliefs in “The 1979 U.S. Book of Common Prayer.” I found an online version; and want to buy one as well.

I will talk with the Priest at the Episcopal Church, I am visiting, to make sure I understand any variations (if any) in the beliefs of this particular church.

Last Sunday, I attended the Holy Eucharist/Traditional. The service was very reverent; which I really liked.

Thanks again for all the information. Much appreciated.
Anna

 

[Daedelus76]

So therefore anyone accepting the concepts of things like purgatory and the communion of saints, Catholicism essentially, are superstitious, educated boobs.

Nope. Not at all, in fact I accept those beliefs more or less too. But the way that the church of Rome’s hierarchy was handling those issues at the time was very poor. The Orthodox never had issues like this in the East, perhaps because like Protestants they aren’t afraid to say “Jesus Christ is the end of religion” (it’s more than just being religious, epitomized by the juridical tone of Roman Catholicism. Ultimately it’s about a relationship with God through Christ). And the Orthodox never elevated humanistic speculation to where it replaces real, lived experience (and actually, many Protestants were anti-Scholastic as well).

95 percent of Roman Catholic couples use birth control and 2/3 the laity support womens ordination. Many priests and bishops do not share the Magisteriums views on a wide range of issues, and hardcore traditionalists are in the minority. Then Roman Catholics pretend that their church alone has the truth, the keys, the fullness of the faith, but I just don’t see great evidence for it, they have the same issues Anglicans do, they just hide them better and put up a good front. Roman Catholicism was invented at Trent, a stubborn spitefulness at the Reformers and an attempt to destroy diversity in Christianity (hence the suppression of any rite but the Tridentine). Catholic and Reformed are not mutually contradictory. Why should I tun my back on people like Luther and Wesley by becomming Roman Catholic and denying that they were ever part of the Church and validly administered Christ’s ordinances?

Daedelus76,

I really appreciate all the information. I did find the Episcopal beliefs in “The 1979 U.S. Book of Common Prayer.” I found an online version; and want to buy one as well.

I will talk with the Priest at the Episcopal Church, I am visiting, to make sure I understand any variations (if any) in the beliefs of this particular church. Anna

I like some aspects of the 1928 BCP better, but the 1979 is OK (except for the baptismal rite, which could be better). I like the fact the 1979 book includes more liturgical style taken from the eastern liturgies. On the national level the Episcopalians are pretty flakey but there are still consevative bishops, the ACNA/African missions, and alot of Continuing churches.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . I like some aspects of the 1928 BCP better, but the 1979 is OK (except for the baptismal rite, which could be better). I like the fact the 1979 book includes more liturgical style taken from the eastern liturgies. On the national level the Episcopalians are pretty flakey but there are still consevative bishops, the ACNA/African missions, and alot of Continuing churches.

I just ordered the Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey. It should give me a more historical perspective of the BCP and the Articles of Faith, as they have evolved over time.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Fair enough. But the point about Roman Catholicism being “invented at Trent” is a bit much, isn’t it? Purgatory, indulnces, mandatory auricular confession, the Thomistic contributions to Catholicism, Marian devotion, papal power, and all the theology was really in play long before Trent. Trent was just meant to iron out the sola scriptura/sola gratia/sola fide teachings of Luther and re-affirm the Church’s role in salvation. What exactly would you say was invented at Trent. Thanks for explaining your previous post. God bless.

Nope. Not at all, in fact I accept those beliefs more or less too. But the way that the church of Rome’s hierarchy was handling those issues at the time was very poor. The Orthodox never had issues like this in the East, perhaps because like Protestants they aren’t afraid to say “Jesus Christ is the end of religion” (it’s more than just being religious, epitomized by the juridical tone of Roman Catholicism. Ultimately it’s about a relationship with God through Christ). And the Orthodox never elevated humanistic speculation to where it replaces real, lived experience (and actually, many Protestants were anti-Scholastic as well).

95 percent of Roman Catholic couples use birth control and 2/3 the laity support womens ordination. Many priests and bishops do not share the Magisteriums views on a wide range of issues, and hardcore traditionalists are in the minority. Then Roman Catholics pretend that their church alone has the truth, the keys, the fullness of the faith, but I just don’t see great evidence for it, they have the same issues Anglicans do, they just hide them better and put up a good front. Roman Catholicism was invented at Trent, a stubborn spitefulness at the Reformers and an attempt to destroy diversity in Christianity (hence the suppression of any rite but the Tridentine). Catholic and Reformed are not mutually contradictory. Why should I tun my back on people like Luther and Wesley by becomming Roman Catholic and denying that they were ever part of the Church and validly administered Christ’s ordinances?

I like some aspects of the 1928 BCP better, but the 1979 is OK (except for the baptismal rite, which could be better). I like the fact the 1979 book includes more liturgical style taken from the eastern liturgies. On the national level the Episcopalians are pretty flakey but there are still consevative bishops, the ACNA/African missions, and alot of Continuing churches.

 

[gmcbroom]

Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t the Marian devotions ie rosary, like the Jesus prayer rope use of the Orthodox? As in they are private devotions? So anyone can choose to use them. I think that the key issues are apostolic succession, and how conservative the churches are. That’s why the Pope’s current actions of embracing the traditional Anglo Catholics and allowing them to keep some of their traditions yet bring them into the Catholic churches is extremely positive. But, I feel it could drive some even further away as well. Clearly the ordination of women is a huge reason the Anglican church can never fully be under the Catholic church. The apostolic succession issue though can and to some extent has been remedied. While its true that the founders where priests but not bishops they couldn’t be full priests from the catholic perspective thus breaking Apostolic succession. I believe that the dutch touched priests ordained bishops would restore the Apostolic succession later years at least for a small amount of the Anglicans. The rest are ordained using the Anglican apostolic succession which is just as valid to the Anglicans even though the Catholics can’t see it that way. I never thought this subject would prove so interesting. To me its almost an obsession and I’m not even Catholic yet. . GKC might understand though.

 

[GKC]

I might, and thank you for thinking of me.

A point or two to keep in mind. Not all Anglicans are of the opinion that one can validly ordain a women to the Catholic priesthood. That point, while all too common in the official Anglican Communion, was one of the major points of contention that led to the first splits in the Anglican world, back 30+ years ago, and that keep some groups separated now from other groups, themselves separated from the Episcopal Church. But to the extent that an Anglican does share this error (and many do), such an Anglican cannot be brought into communion with Rome. To say the least.

The point of loss of apostolic succession (in Rome’s eyes) does not assume that the consecrators of Anglican bishops, in the beginning, were not bishops themselves, but that there was a problem with the form of the consecration that was specified in the original Edwardine Ordinal, compounded by a presumed invalid intent, usually identified as that manifested by the consecrators of Archbishop Parker, in 1559 (Apostolicae Curae is not clear on that).

I agree. It is an interesting subject. I’ve been reading on it for around 10 years.

GKC

The Dutch touch, if Rome were to accept the concept (and there is no official pronouncement on it), would not merely affect a few Anglican bishops who received it directly. Those bishops, in turn , would have conveyed valid orders through each consecration or ordination in which they took part. It is spread widely, over the past 80 years, in Anglicanism. But, as I said, there is no official position on it, from Rome (the late Graham Leonard being a possible indicator of a possible opinion, though).

Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t the Marian devotions ie rosary, like the Jesus prayer rope use of the Orthodox? As in they are private devotions? So anyone can choose to use them. I think that the key issues are apostolic succession, and how conservative the churches are. That’s why the Pope’s current actions of embracing the traditional Anglo Catholics and allowing them to keep some of their traditions yet bring them into the Catholic churches is extremely positive. But, I feel it could drive some even further away as well. Clearly the ordination of women is a huge reason the Anglican church can never fully be under the Catholic church. The apostolic succession issue though can and to some extent has been remedied. While its true that the founders where priests but not bishops they couldn’t be full priests from the catholic perspective thus breaking Apostolic succession. I believe that the dutch touched priests ordained bishops would restore the Apostolic succession later years at least for a small amount of the Anglicans. The rest are ordained using the Anglican apostolic succession which is just as valid to the Anglicans even though the Catholics can’t see it that way. I never thought this subject would prove so interesting. To me its almost an obsession and I’m not even Catholic yet. . GKC might understand though.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think the reason the Catholic Church hasn’t ruled on the post-Dutch Touch Utrecht-consecrated Anglicans is because it would validate Anglo-Catholics and give validity in general to a host of bishops and priests. The Dutch Touch complicates the matter after Apostolicae Curae with the whole form and intention situation because it over-shadows it completely. And you’re right about women’s ordination…I respect the TAC folks who had the guts and foresight to tell TEC to hit the bricks 30 years ago! They could see the writing on the wall. Women’s ordination is a blight on the Anglican Communion. I’d love to see 'em jettison the whole nutty idea completely.

I might, and thank you for thinking of me.

A point or two to keep in mind. Not all Anglicans are of the opinion that one can validly ordain a women to the Catholic priesthood. That point, while all too common in the official Anglican Communion, was one of the major points of contention that led to the first splits in the Anglican world, back 30+ years ago, and that keep some groups separated now from other groups, themselves separated from the Episcopal Church. But to the extent that an Anglican does share this error (and many do), such an Anglican cannot be brought into communion with Rome. To say the least.

The point of loss of apostolic succession (in Rome’s eyes) does not assume that the consecrators of Anglican bishops, in the beginning, were not bishops themselves, but that there was a problem with the form of the consecration that was specified in the original Edwardine Ordinal, compounded by a presumed invalid intent, usually identified as that manifested by the consecrators of Archbishop Parker, in 1559 (Apostolicae Curae is not clear on that).

I agree. It is an interesting subject. I’ve been reading on it for around 10 years.

GKC

The Dutch touch, if Rome were to accept the concept (and there is no official pronouncement on it), would not merely affect a few Anglican bishops who received it directly. Those bishops, in turn , would have conveyed valid orders through each consecration or ordination in which they took part. It is spread widely, over the past 80 years, in Anglicanism. But, as I said, there is no official position on it, from Rome (the late Graham Leonard being a possible indicator of a possible opinion, though).

 

[GKC]

You may be right, re: Dutch touch…

GKC

I think the reason the Catholic Church hasn’t ruled on the post-Dutch Touch Utrecht-consecrated Anglicans is because it would validate Anglo-Catholics and give validity in general to a host of bishops and priests. The Dutch Touch complicates the matter after Apostolicae Curae with the whole form and intention situation because it over-shadows it completely. And you’re right about women’s ordination…I respect the TAC folks who had the guts and foresight to tell TEC to hit the bricks 30 years ago! They could see the writing on the wall. Women’s ordination is a blight on the Anglican Communion. I’d love to see 'em jettison the whole nutty idea completely.

 

[peary1]

I went to an Episcopal mass and found it to be very Catholic. Are they part of the Catholic Church? I was told they were Protestant but they seem differant from other churches.

When Henry VIII broke England away from Rome, instead of the pope being the head of the Church, Henry made himself the head of the church in England, and retained many ‘catholic’ aspects of the Mass. But it is not the Mass. There’s a whole history behind this. suffice to say the following: First, episcopals do not have a valid priesthood because they do not have valid orders. Second, the episcopal ‘service’ is not a Mass because they reject the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Third, they reject the priest as “another Christ” and only have ‘ministers’. Fourth, they don’t have altars; they have tables. You need sacrifice for an altar. You can just serve food from a table.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Depends on which branch of Anglicanism you’re addressing. Anglo-Catholics have altars, not tables. Even my old Anglican parish, which was broad or middle Church, had an altar and they hated the thought of a “table.”

Regarding the “valid orders” argument, we’ve discussed that in here a great deal, GKC and I, that the Dutch Touch Utrecht consecrations with Old Catholic bishops brought valid apostolic succession into Anglican circles. Apostolicae Curae, the papal bull to which I’m sure you’re referring, said that Anglican orders are defective and null/void because of improper form and intent/issues in the Edwardian ordinal, etc. But Apostolicae Curae by Pope Leo XIII was written in the late 1800’s and the Dutch Touch consecrations were performed decades after that bull.

And in Anglo-Catholic circles as well as many many other Anglican parishes and dioceses, the understanding of the sacrifice of the Mass is similar if not identical to the Catholic understanding. Some Anglo-Catholic parishes are completely in line with that thinking. And in my old parish as well as many Anglo-Catholic parishes the priest is seen in persona christi…like I said, big mistake to think you can ever generalize about Anglicans, a point GKC frequently makes to which I highly agree!

When Henry VIII broke England away from Rome, instead of the pope being the head of the Church, Henry made himself the head of the church in England, and retained many ‘catholic’ aspects of the Mass. But it is not the Mass. There’s a whole history behind this. suffice to say the following: First, episcopals do not have a valid priesthood because they do not have valid orders. Second, the episcopal ‘service’ is not a Mass because they reject the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Third, they reject the priest as “another Christ” and only have ‘ministers’. Fourth, they don’t have altars; they have tables. You need sacrifice for an altar. You can just serve food from a table.

 

[Daedelus76]

: First, episcopals do not have a valid priesthood because they do not have valid orders. Second, the episcopal ‘service’ is not a Mass because they reject the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Third, they reject the priest as “another Christ” and only have ‘ministers’. Fourth, they don’t have altars; they have tables. You need sacrifice for an altar. You can just serve food from a table.

All of that is a gross distortion. Many Anglicans priests would reject the idea they are merely “ministers”. The sacrificial nature of the Eucharist is also not actually denied by many- it depends on what you mean by that term. The idea that the Eucharist involved the representation of Christ’s sacrifice as an eternal event, though, was not alien to Reformers (Luther and Calvin both had surprisingly Catholic beliefs on this issue). The idea the Eucharist propitiates the wrath of God, a folk belief, is rejected though.

Trent was just meant to iron out the sola scriptura/sola gratia/sola fide teachings of Luther and re-affirm the Church’s role in salvation. What exactly would you say was invented at Trent. Thanks for explaining your previous post. God bless.

I agree perhaps it is a bit much. Roman Catholicism wasn’t invented at Trent but Trent solidified the identity.

Catholics blame Protestants in general for alot of goofiness in Protestantism, especially among Evangelicals. Extreme individualism and private interpretations of scriptures are almost as alien to some Protesstant groups as they are to Catholics. Some of it is just due to the more extreme Anabaptists and the overall trends of Modernism, though. Roman Catholics haven’t been immune to Modernism, themselves.