Is Anglicanism or Orthodoxy closer to Catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jimkhong said:
Thanks for your patience, GKC. Sorry if I am prejudicial, but from what I can see you start off with a label within a communion. As it is within the Anglican communion, it is already a rather loose association held together by a common history and a very small core of beliefs (small in comparison to Catholics or Orthodox, or even Baptists & Methodists for that matter). I presume that due to the diverse doctrinal positions held by the different flavours, the different flavours objected to the changing TEC doctrines for different reasons. So, the different flavours united by the single fact that they all disagree with the theological drift in the TEC, but not necessarily agreeing on which drift is the defining break with Anglican tradition. So a new label is adopted outside of the Anglican communion with the same diffused divergence in doctrinal opinions. The only difference with the first label is whether there was an unacceptable (but undefined) theological drift under the first label.

Sorry but is my understanding correct? I guess it is premised on that there is no single drift which all flavours agree is the defining break. If there is one, then I stand corrected and it all makes a bit more sense to me. If there isn’t I will just have to sigh and say that is the part of Anglican thinking that is incomprehensible to my Catholic mind. :confused::confused:
Click to expand...
I’ll go with your closing statement. My ability to elucidate is unequal to the task.
 
GKC said:
I’ll go with your closing statement. My ability to elucidate is unequal to the task.
Click to expand...
Aw, I’m sorry we both gave up. I hope I wasn’t being offensive.

What was the theological drift that got you anyway?
 
jas84173 said:
Is Anglicanism or Orthodoxy closer to Catholicism?
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean.

Catholic sacraments are recognized as valid by Anglicans but not by Orthodox.

The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Orthodox sacraments but not of Anglican sacraments.

Hope that helps.
 
Peter_J said:
Depends what you mean.

Catholic sacraments are recognized as valid by Anglicans but not by Orthodox.

The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Orthodox sacraments but not of Anglican sacraments.

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...
Well…not of Anglican sacraments that depend upon valid Orders, for confecting.
 
jimkhong said:
yes I forgot that too. Actually Catholics also accept even non-Christian and even secular civil marriages.
Click to expand...
Do they really though? If a non Catholic couple marry and later divorce, if they later become Catholics and want to remarry others, do they still need an annulment?
 
prodromos said:
Do they really though? If a non Catholic couple marry and later divorce, if they later become Catholics and want to remarry others, do they still need an annulment?
Click to expand...
You do not treat the non-Catholic marriages as Catholic just as we do not accept non-Catholic baptisms as Catholic.

We treat a Christian baptism as a Christian act and as a valid baptism acceptable to Catholics as having fulfilled the requirements to be called a baptism but does not carry the rights and obligations of a Catholic baptism - meaning no right to Catholic sacraments unless the person so baptised is accepted into the Catholic Church.

Similarly, we accept a civil marriage as valid and having fulfilled the requirements to be called a marriage but do not carry the rights and obligations of a Catholic sacrament of matrimony until the parties to the marriage are baptised/accepted into the Catholic Church on the basis of their acceptance, inter alia, to be bound under the Catholic Canon Law provisions relating to marriage.

I guess you already know all that and is not looking for an argument :):). It sometimes gets very tiring if we need to cross every T and dot every i so that everything we say is correctly defined. :(😦
 
GKC said:
Well…not of Anglican sacraments that depend upon valid Orders, for confecting.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

But anyhow, I think discussions about “closer to Catholicism” etc tend to miss the point. Better to consider, for example

In this regard, Kasper says in the interview:

“In Cyprus, in order to avoid misunderstandings, I immediately told our Orthodox counterparts that this is not a matter of proselytism or a new Uniatism. …] Uniatism is an historical phenomenon involving the Eastern Churches, while the Anglicans are from the Latin tradition. The Balamand document of 1993 is still valid, according to which this is a phenomenon of the past that took place in unrepeatable circumstances. It is not a method for the present or the future. The Orthodox were mainly interested in understanding the nature of the personal ordinariates for the Anglicans, and I clarified that this is not a matter of a Church ‘sui iuris’, and therefore there will not be the head of a Church, but an ordinary with delegated powers.”

(Incidentally I recently discussed Cardinal Kasper’s thoughts about the Orthodox on another thread with rcwitness and others, but is don’t believe we got around to this side of things.)
 
Peter_J said:
Indeed.

But anyhow, I think discussions about “closer to Catholicism” etc tend to miss the point. Better to consider, for example

In this regard, Kasper says in the interview:

“In Cyprus, in order to avoid misunderstandings, I immediately told our Orthodox counterparts that this is not a matter of proselytism or a new Uniatism. …] Uniatism is an historical phenomenon involving the Eastern Churches, while the Anglicans are from the Latin tradition. The Balamand document of 1993 is still valid, according to which this is a phenomenon of the past that took place in unrepeatable circumstances. It is not a method for the present or the future. The Orthodox were mainly interested in understanding the nature of the personal ordinariates for the Anglicans, and I clarified that this is not a matter of a Church ‘sui iuris’, and therefore there will not be the head of a Church, but an ordinary with delegated powers.”

(Incidentally I recently discussed Cardinal Kasper’s thoughts about the Orthodox on another thread with rcwitness and others, but is don’t believe we got around to this side of things.)
Click to expand...
I’m in this thread only to address Anglicanism(s). I do that a lot.
 
Peter_J said:
Indeed.

But anyhow, I think discussions about “closer to Catholicism” etc tend to miss the point. Better to consider, for example

In this regard, Kasper says in the interview:

“In Cyprus, in order to avoid misunderstandings, I immediately told our Orthodox counterparts that this is not a matter of proselytism or a new Uniatism. …] Uniatism is an historical phenomenon involving the Eastern Churches, while the Anglicans are from the Latin tradition. The Balamand document of 1993 is still valid, according to which this is a phenomenon of the past that took place in unrepeatable circumstances. It is not a method for the present or the future. The Orthodox were mainly interested in understanding the nature of the personal ordinariates for the Anglicans, and I clarified that this is not a matter of a Church ‘sui iuris’, and therefore there will not be the head of a Church, but an ordinary with delegated powers.”

(Incidentally I recently discussed Cardinal Kasper’s thoughts about the Orthodox on another thread with rcwitness and others, but is don’t believe we got around to this side of things.)
Click to expand...
GKC said:
I’m in this thread only to address Anglicanism(s). I do that a lot.
Click to expand...
Well the way I see it, the Cardinal’s remarks were primarily about Anglicanism; but since the Balamand Agreement (Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, And the present search for full communion) was signed with the Orthodox that made them relevant to his remarks as well.

But whoever talks to whomever about it, the bottom line is that we’re no longer interested in a zero-sum proselytism struggle where your loss is our gain.
 
Peter_J said:
Well the way I see it, the Cardinal’s remarks were primarily about Anglicanism; but since the Balamand Agreement (Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, And the present search for full communion) was signed with the Orthodox that made them relevant to his remarks as well.

But whoever talks to whomever about it, the bottom line is that we’re no longer interested in a zero-sum proselytism struggle where your loss is our gain.
Click to expand...
It’s a start.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top