In what category do Anglicans fit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter iaskquestions
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Will_B said:
We just came under the umbrella of the Anglican Church in America… Our history is long and complicated.

Our Bishop, who just resigned for medical reasons, was once an Episcopal priest… In 1982 he founded a Benedictine Community. In 1995 or 1996 he and the community left the Episcopal Church for moral reasons. … They then joined the CEC (Charismatic Episcopal Church)… In 2005 there were major problems in the CEC, I don’t know all… Again, the community split with the CEC and formed the Communion of Corpus Christi under the authority of our diocesan bishop… (FYI, there are three churches in our state in Corpus Chirsti, a community in New England and a small church in Texas…) >>> We are seeking and have just come under the authority of the Anglican Church in American. >> Since we are new to the ACA, I’m not 100% up on their status with Rome…

You can see why I am tired of splits… See one of my earlier post, in this thread, on division in the church…
Click to expand...
Thank you. I’m familiar with the CEC story, and with smaller Anglican groups coming into communion with other continuing groups. It’s happened all over.

As to what the TAC and Rome are doing, I await, skeptically.

And I’m still curious as to the “valid sacraments” issue.

GKC
 
GKC said:
And I’m still curious as to the “valid sacraments” issue.

GKC
Click to expand...
Valid Sacraments:: Rome looks at sacraments as valid, say for Example: the Eucharist being consecrated by a priest in true apostolic succession… Or not valid >> For example the same by a Lady Priest or even by an Episcopal priest…

Our line of succession after the bishop was consecrated was to Rome thru the National Apostolic Church…

Therefore, many (not all) Roman priest and bishops saw our church has having valid sacraments, while still not accepted by Rome.
 
Will_B said:
Valid Sacraments:: Rome looks at sacraments as valid, say for Example: the Eucharist being consecrated by a priest in true apostolic succession… Or not valid >> For example the same by a Lady Priest or even by an Episcopal priest…

Our line of succession after the bishop was consecrated was to Rome thru the National Apostolic Church…

Therefore, many (not all) Roman priest and bishops saw our church has having valid sacraments, while still not accepted by Rome.
Click to expand...
Thank you again. *Apostolicae Curae *and the issue of the validity/licitness of Anglican orders (hence, of Anglican sacraments, other than baptism and matrimony) is a hobby of mine and the basic concept of validity is well known to me. What I was asking was just who said your sacraments (and thus, your orders) were valid, and why.

What do you mean by the National Apostolic Church?

And who were the priests who said that your sacraments were valid? I note that this is not to say that Rome said they were, which is the only issue, in the eyes of the RCC.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
i think there are different anglican groups.

episcopalians are part of the anglican communion, but they are different from anglicans.

there are the anglicans that make up GAFCON that had the historic meeting in Jerusalem this summer and i believe they have made no move to try to be in union with Rome so i see them as definitely still protestant.

someone had just told me the other day that TAC might be in union with Rome by pentecost of 2010, whether that is true or not i do not know.

that is why the Pope told the anglicans that they need to decide whether they want to be protestant or catholic. meaning, you can’t straddle the fence forever. either you accept the infallibility of the Pope and the magesterium and the teachings of the church or you don’t.

how the orthodox churches fit into that i do not know.

anyhow, i am sure there will be someone who will disagree with something i have said, so if i have made any errors, please bring them to my attention.
 
deborahaz said:
i think there are different anglican groups.

episcopalians are part of the anglican communion, but they are different from anglicans.

there are the anglicans that make up GAFCON that had the historic meeting in Jerusalem this summer and i believe they have made no move to try to be in union with Rome so i see them as definitely still protestant.

someone had just told me the other day that TAC might be in union with Rome by pentecost of 2010, whether that is true or not i do not know.

that is why the Pope told the anglicans that they need to decide whether they want to be protestant or catholic. meaning, you can’t straddle the fence forever. either you accept the infallibility of the Pope and the magesterium and the teachings of the church or you don’t.

how the orthodox churches fit into that i do not know.

anyhow, i am sure there will be someone who will disagree with something i have said, so if i have made any errors, please bring them to my attention.
Click to expand...
Ok.

It was Cardinal Kaspar who said that about Anglicans.

And all 38 jurisdictions within the official Anglican Communion are different, in some sense, as is TEC.

And don’t forget the Continuing Anglican Churches.

My opinion about the TAC issue is about what you said. I’ve watched it for over 10 years, waiting for something to actually happen.

GKC
 
It varies all over, depending on what you consider “anglican” to be.

I’ve honestly met some high-church Anglicans who are more Roman Catholic in theology than many American RCs 🙂

It gets even more complicated in that some Anglicans (particularly “Anglo-Catholics”) think of themselves as, while separated from the RC, still “Catholic”, I think in the sense that the “apostolic tradition” has still been passed down through the archbishop of Canterbury. Or at least I think that’s what they mean by “Catholic”.
 
Jack_245814 said:
It varies all over, depending on what you consider “anglican” to be.

I’ve honestly met some high-church Anglicans who are more Roman Catholic in theology than many American RCs 🙂

It gets even more complicated in that some Anglicans (particularly “Anglo-Catholics”) think of themselves as, while separated from the RC, still “Catholic”, I think in the sense that the “apostolic tradition” has still been passed down through the archbishop of Canterbury. Or at least I think that’s what they mean by “Catholic”.
Click to expand...
Pretty much, yes.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
Will_B said:
Two big blocks… Rome has not accepted our branch into communion… We are working on it… Second and maybe the largest is the closed communion table of the Roman Church…

We believe that a person who has confessed their sins, is truly repented of their sins *(such as David is Psalm 51) *and acknowledges, and believes that the the host is the body of Christ should receive communion…
Click to expand...
At the risk of just repeating what has already been said …

No offense (I hope) but with all the issue that divide Christians, it seems a little strange to me that you single out the “closed communion” issue. 🤷
 
deborahaz said:
that is why the Pope told the anglicans that they need to decide whether they want to be protestant or catholic.
Click to expand...
GKC said:
Ok.

It was Cardinal Kaspar who said that about Anglicans.
Click to expand...
I either case, can someone provide a link to actual statement that told Anglicans they need to decide whether they want to be protestant or catholic?
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

Depends what you mean. 🙂 Catholic =//= Roman Catholic. If it did, only the Roman Rite would be Catholic. It say there are other Catholic Churches.​

As for the assumption that one has to be in union with Rome to be Catholic - which what you mean, I think - it is only an assumption. The Orthodox are not in union with Rome, but Rome says they are part of the Church: so Rome is contradicting itself (& its past teaching). If the Orthodox can be Catholic yet not in union with Rome, it is only Rome’s say-so, nothing else, that says Anglicanism can’t be Catholic.

And Anglicans judge what is Anglican by Anglican standards, not by what the man in the Vatican says. The CC does not judge itself by SBC standards - why should Anglicans apply Rome’s standards to themselves ? The Pope has no jurisdiction over nor authority in Anglicanism, any more than the Dalai Lama has.
Click to expand...
How about Catholic =//= Roman Catholic =//= Roman-Rite Catholic

? 🙂
 
Peter_J said:
I either case, can someone provide a link to actual statement that told Anglicans they need to decide whether they want to be protestant or catholic?
Click to expand...
sorry, peter j, i don’t have the quote. i believe it was stated back in early spring before both GAFCON and the Lambeth conference began.

hopefully, someone will be able to find a link to it.
 
I have been attending a continuing Anglican church (ACC) for several months. I consider myself both catholic and protestant.

I am protestant in the sense that I am a christian of the western tradition that rejects universal papal authority.

I am catholic in the sense that I believe the faith that was “believed everywhere, always and by all”. Also, the anglican bishops have a line of apostolic succession just as the Romans and Byzantines.

The Romans define catholicity as union with the pope. Anglicans, Orthodox and St Vincent of Lerins define it differently.
 
VARC said:
I have been attending a continuing Anglican church (ACC) for several months. I consider myself both catholic and protestant.

I am protestant in the sense that I am a christian of the western tradition that rejects universal papal authority.

I am catholic in the sense that I believe the faith that was “believed everywhere, always and by all”. Also, the anglican bishops have a line of apostolic succession just as the Romans and Byzantines.

The Romans define catholicity as union with the pope. Anglicans, Orthodox and St Vincent of Lerins define it differently.
Click to expand...
i am not sure what a “continuing” anglican church is. are anglican bishops still considered to be in line with apostolic succession according to the Roman Catholic Church or just by the anglican church? there might be a difference of opinion depending on which side you are on. your definition of what an anglican is might be too simplistic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top