Hi! Can you help me understand the Anglican Church?

[GKMotley]

Same way RCs do. And up to 1559, there was no question.

Remember, I’ve been looking at Apostolicae Curae for 20 years.

 

[ltwin]

But then that gets to the heart of it:

How and who decides what is essential – what is Catholic?

As Cyprian said in the third century:

“If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition).

You should read some of the great Anglican theologians for their most compelling arguments, like Richard Hooker of the 16th century.

 

[catholic1seeks]

No. There would have been Protestants in England whether King Henry wanted a divorce or not. That only made the kings and Parliament a factor in shaping what kind of Protestantism would become dominant.

No, the Church of England formed because of Henry. He made himself head of the church.

Protestants in England? Sure. But not the same as a separate entity distorting the entire Catholic church into something of the state, as the monarchy did.

 

[GKMotley]

Decree of nullity.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Thanks, but I’ll stick to the forum for now.

My purpose is to interact with others on here. I’m sure there are great many Anglican thinkers now and in history.

 

[GKMotley]

I often recommend reading, outside, in depth too. Watch out.

 

[tafan2]

I have one friend from England who proudly proclaims the Church of Egland to be Calvinists, and insists it is a Protestant church. I have a Anglican friend from British Columbia who says they are Catholic, and decidely not Protestant, one if the branches of the true church.
The 39 Articles are actually quite ambiguous. It’s been like this since the split with Rome.

 

[catholic1seeks]

So am I supposed to trust your decision on apostolic succession in the Anglican world? Am I supposed to determine this for myself? How should the typical Christian know what is authentic Christian truth and what is not?

 

[ltwin]

No, the Church of England formed because of Henry. He made himself head of the church.

Protestants in England? Sure. But not the same as a separate entity distorting the entire Catholic church into something of the state, as the monarchy did.

But you are arguing that the only reason someone would have been Anglican was because the king told them to be. My point is that people would have been Anglican for many reasons:

1. the king told them to be
2. they were already doctrinally Protestant and wanted an English Reformation
3. they wanted to transfer church wealth to secular persons
4. they resented papal interference in English affairs
5. a church is a church is a church who cares
6. and many more

 

[catholic1seeks]

So then be an English Lutheran or Calvinist.

Anglicanism as its own communion seems redundant, non-essential, and just another wound to church unity.

 

[GKMotley]

One cigar and a gold star awarded.

But keep in mind the articles are in no sense necessarily normative for Anglicanism, broadly considered. Much history and a small thousand of my posts related to that topic.

 

[ltwin]

So then be an English Lutheran or Calvinist.

Yes, John English can be Lutheran and Bob English can be Calvinist. That’s not the point.

The point is–what will the Book of Common Prayer be–Lutheran or Calvinist? What will the polity of the church be – episcopalian or presbyterian?

John and Bob are going to have to learn to live with each other in the same church, under the Elizabethan Settlement.

 

[GKMotley]

And then there is the whole issue of the on-gong conflicts between the Throne and Rome, stretching back at least to the first Statute of Westminster, up to the Henrician Acts. An intertwining of Church and State, in a power struggle brought to a head by nascent nationalism. History is full of history.

 

[catholic1seeks]

So then how do these folk claim to be Catholic – in the sense of apostolic succession?

I don’t understand.

Do most Anglicans not accept apostolic succession, but only a few like some other participants in this forum?

It seems just as many want to be separate from all things Catholics.

 

[blackforest]

As has been repeatedly mentioned here, using the term “Anglican Church” is broad and sweeping.

I was brought up in the Anglican Catholic Church and frequently consider returning to it. I miss the reverent worship, the Book of Common Prayer, and the well-written hymns, (next to which Eagle’s Wings feels like something from Elmo’s World).

The greatest pull that Rome has for me is its sheer passion. Anglicans of various stripes can seem a wee bit, um, spineless and comfort-zoney at times. I came to associate my Anglican Catholic church with wealthy intellectuals, where the Roman Catholic Church just feels raw and real. It was Catholic nuns who exposed me to the Works of Mercy and the deeper meaning behind the Beatitudes.

Don’t pounce on me, flame me, or debate me, please. I’d like to speak from the heart in a non-flaming context, with what follows below.

What has frustrated me about my experience as a Catholic, since I became one in 2000, is a particular streak of anti-intellectualism that I’m finding. With the exception of some astute priests and deacons that I know, (including those at my parish), many Catholics that I encounter answer far too many of my theological questions with, “Because the Magisterium says so. So there.” I’m not saying that obedience plays no role in our faith because Christ certainly demands a lot of it from us. But it isn’t healthy or even wise to shut people completely off from the “why” of things. My Anglican upbringing encouraged lots of questioning and learning. I value that to this day.

In short, I still consider myself a Catholic but most certainly understand the draw to some Anglican tradition and approaches.

 

[ltwin]

So then how do these folk claim to be Catholic – in the sense of apostolic succession?

I don’t understand.

Do most Anglicans not accept apostolic succession, but only a few like some other participants in this forum?

It seems just as many want to be separate from all things Catholics.

Depends. Some Anglicans care a lot about AS. Others don’t. Though, I’m sure all would say that their AS is just as good as Rome’s AS.

 

[Edward_H]

The Anglican Church was born from Divorce.

That says about all you need to know.

 

[blackforest]

This is a simplistic understanding.

I hope that others feel inspired to read up on the English Reformation and its underlying causes.

 

[GKMotley]

There is no question as to the apostolic succession of the Church in England, up to the issues raised in Apostolicae Curae. Anglicans don’t accept AC. RCs do and should.

This is a point where I recommend outside reading. I will refrain.

But why in the world would you think I would want you to accept my decision? Affirm what the RCC requires you to affirm. I’ve said that a lot, over the years.

 

[BartholomewB]

I have one friend from England who proudly proclaims the Church of Egland to be Calvinists, and insists it is a Protestant church. I have a Anglican friend from British Columbia who says they are Catholic, and decidely not Protestant, one if the branches of the true church.

I heard a Catholic priest say that there are not just two categories, Catholic and Protestant, but three, Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant. In other words – according to this view – the Anglican Church is neither Catholic nor Protestant but something else, in a category of its own. Of course, that’s not the way Anglicans think of themselves.