Is Anglicanism or Orthodoxy closer to Catholicism?

[GKC]

**While Anglicans do not formally recognize the Bishop of Rome as their official Church leader, we do retain a great respect for that office.
When I asked my priest if I could request a prayer for the safety of Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, he replied that these persons were already included in the Episcopal prayer for all Bishops of the Church. **

And one might also find the Pope being mentioned, by name, under the appropriate para of praying for the whole state of Christ’s Church. I had a rector once, who did so.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Except for those who do affirm the sacrificial nature of the Mass, as an identity with the One Sacrifice of Calvary, represented to us, as history and eternity intersect at the altar, at the hands of the alter Christus

Lots of mileage, traveling across the Anglican spectrum. Never can tell what you’ll find.

When I was Anglican I was told by the pastor that 90% of the new Christians who walk through our doors were former Catholics. So I think they bring their Catholic beliefs with them in these situations. But it’s not official Church teaching which ultimately swayed too far in the way of the reformers to still be considered Catholic, imo.

 

[GKC]

When I was Anglican I was told by the pastor that 90% of the new Christians who walk through our doors were former Catholics. So I think they bring their Catholic beliefs with them in these situations. But it’s not official Church teaching which ultimately swayed too far in the way of the reformers to still be considered Catholic, imo.

No doubt, as to the residue of official Catholicism, in converts. But what I posted is standard (as far as that term can be used amongst Anglicans) belief for Anglo-Catholics. I’ve never had a priest or bishop who differed from that definition.

Generalizing about Anglicans, generally, will be wrong. More or less.

 

[angell1]

yes, I think the orthodoxy separation had a lot to do with ego. and the separations didn’t end there, there are many different branches of orthodoxy now, due to having no central authority.

my issue with Anglicanism is primarily the fact that the reason that church exists is because a king wanted to divorce his wife with hardly any valid reason and then was upset when the pope said it was wrong for him to do that.

 

[GKC]

yes, I think the orthodoxy separation had a lot to do with ego. and the separations didn’t end there, there are many different branches of orthodoxy now, due to having no central authority.

my issue with Anglicanism is primarily the fact that the reason that church exists is because a king wanted to divorce his wife with hardly any valid reason and then was upset when the pope said it was wrong for him to do that.

Decree of nulllity.

 

[Picky_Picky]

yes, I think the orthodoxy separation had a lot to do with ego. and the separations didn’t end there, there are many different branches of orthodoxy now, due to having no central authority.

my issue with Anglicanism is primarily the fact that the reason that church exists is because a king wanted to divorce his wife with hardly any valid reason and then was upset when the pope said it was wrong for him to do that.

Well, apart from the fact that, as GKC said, it was a decree of nullify he was after, the potentially valid reason was that his wife had been the wife of his brother, and that was sufficiently iffy for the Pope to have been asked to give dispensation for his marriage to Catherine in the first place, given the biblical injunction against such marriage. The Pope refused Henry the decree, but it is unlikely that power politics were not a weighty factor in his decision, Moreover the CofE does not exist (at least in its own view) because of that refusal — it had existed, it believes, since at least the third century and probably earlier.

 

[GKC]

Well, apart from the fact that, as GKC said, it was a decree of nullify he was after, the potentially valid reason was that his wife had been the wife of his brother, and that was sufficiently iffy for the Pope to have been asked to give dispensation for his marriage to Catherine in the first place, given the biblical injunction against such marriage. The Pope refused Henry the decree, but it is unlikely that power politics were not a weighty factor in his decision, Moreover the CofE does not exist (at least in its own view) because of that refusal — it had existed, it believes, since at least the third century and probably earlier.

True.

Levitical prohibition. An impediment that had been interpreted variously, over the years, as either being, or not being, dispensable. Not the strongest possible causa, but one that would normally have gotten him his desire. And, theoretically, also lurking was an undispensed impediment of the justice of public honesty.

 

[BrianH]

I have not been to many Orthodox services (lets say 2). I have been to lets say half a dozen Catholic masses. I have been to…30 or 40 Anglican services. I would say the Catholic and Anglican services seemed a lot more alike than the Orthodox service to either one. That is just my perception. The Orthodox service was very different from anything I had/have experienced. JMO

 

[PJM]

I have been to Episcopalian and Orthodox Churches and I found similarities to Catholic Mass in both of them. I feel like reading the history of why both Churches separated from Rome are almost laughable looking at it in today’s context. Who would we be more likely to see a reunion with the EXCEPTION? And really what are even the differences of them with Catholic belief?

I;d HAVE to give this one to the Orthodox who Do have the 7 Sacraments validly; whereas the non-Catholic-Christian do not

GBY

 

[ctb95]

Lots of Anglicans are, yes. Others, not so much.

Yeah, I wasn’t taking into account the Anglicans in Africa who are quite devout as well as the Anglican Realignment that is occurring here in the States.

As for the traditional Anglican bulwarks, such as the Episcopal Church and the C of E, it’s a different story.

 

[jaimeleglise]

Ask around the Ordinariates. You probably will find concurrence.

I agree with you. I trust your judgement because you have first hand experience in that faith but also you are quite knowledgeable.

I know a lot of people in the Ordinariate who were very devout Episcopalians who converted to Catholicism. It seemed like a natural step for them, a type of homecoming. It was like they
found a missing piece of the puzzle. They are very happy people.

I think some Orthodox bear some hurt feelings about the Great Schism. There are wounds that need to be healed. I’m glad that Pope Francis and The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew met together in friendship.

 

[GKC]

Yeah, I wasn’t taking into account the Anglicans in Africa who are quite devout as well as the Anglican Realignment that is occurring here in the States.

As for the traditional Anglican bulwarks, such as the Episcopal Church and the C of E, it’s a different story.

No kidding. Hence the realignment (ACNA) and the Continuum.

There are Anglicans and then there are Anglicans.

 

[GKC]

I agree with you. I trust your judgement because you have first hand experience in that faith but also you are quite knowledgeable.

I know a lot of people in the Ordinariate who were very devout Episcopalians who converted to Catholicism. It seemed like a natural step for them, a type of homecoming. It was like they
found a missing piece of the puzzle. They are very happy people.

I think some Orthodox bear some hurt feelings about the Great Schism. There are wounds that need to be healed. I’m glad that Pope Francis and The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew met together in friendship.

I think it seemed more like an escape hatch, to those who used it. A life raft. Or Barque.

 

[jimkhong]

Interesting thread. I was wondering as well, are RC and orthodoxy the only ones who are considered to have valid apostolic succession? Do Anglican Churches also have Apostolic Succession?

Both the Anglican Communion as well as the Church of Sweden maintain the apostolic succession which of course is not accepted by the Roman Catholics. Church of Sweden is Lutheran and as far as I know is the only one which retains the Apostolic Succession. Some (I believe it was the Church of Norway) intentionally broke the succession while the other Lutheran churches just let it lapse. Methodist bishops do not maintain the apostolic succession.

Then of course there are the non-Roman Catholics: The Old Catholic Church, Polish National Catholic Church, Apostolic Catholic Church in Philippines, Philippine Independent Church, Liberal Catholic Church, etc etc.

Also, by orthodox I presume you mean not just Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox but also Assyrians and a number of splinter churches like the Old Calendarist Church, Mar Thomites, Old Believer/True Orthodox movements and national orthodox churches that officially do not come under any of the official patriarchates.

They all have apostolic succession.

 

[Sy_Noe]

yes, I think the orthodoxy separation had a lot to do with ego. and the separations didn’t end there, there are many different branches of orthodoxy now, due to having no central authority.

my issue with Anglicanism is primarily the fact that the reason that church exists is because a king wanted to divorce his wife with hardly any valid reason and then was upset when the pope said it was wrong for him to do that.

The beginnings of the Church of England, from which The Episcopal Church derives, date to at least the second century, when merchants and other travelers first brought Christianity to England. It is customary to regard St. Augustine of Canterbury’s mission to England in 597 as marking the formal beginning of the church under papal authority, as it was to be throughout the Middle Ages.

episcopalchurch.org/page/history-episcopal-church

 

[PluniaZ]

They both make the same mistake - they don’t accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Both the Anglican Communion as well as the Church of Sweden maintain the apostolic succession which of course is not accepted by the Roman Catholics. Church of Sweden is Lutheran and as far as I know is the only one which retains the Apostolic Succession. Some (I believe it was the Church of Norway) intentionally broke the succession while the other Lutheran churches just let it lapse. Methodist bishops do not maintain the apostolic succession.

Then of course there are the non-Roman Catholics: The Old Catholic Church, Polish National Catholic Church, Apostolic Catholic Church in Philippines, Philippine Independent Church, Liberal Catholic Church, etc etc.

Also, by orthodox I presume you mean not just Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox but also Assyrians and a number of splinter churches like the Old Calendarist Church, Mar Thomites, Old Believer/True Orthodox movements and national orthodox churches that officially do not come under any of the official patriarchates.

They all have apostolic succession.

If we accept for the sake of argument that the English and Swedish churches maintained apostolic succession (or if the CofE regained it from the Old Catholics), then I think such succession has now been spread throughout the Nordic Lutheran churches because of the Porvoo Communion.

Meanwhile the CofE and the Methodist Church of Great Britain are struggling to find an acceptable way for episcopacy in apostolic succession to be introduced into Methodism (at present the British Methodists don’t have bishops).

 

[jimkhong]

Meanwhile the CofE and the Methodist Church of Great Britain are struggling to find an acceptable way for episcopacy in apostolic succession to be introduced into Methodism (at present the British Methodists don’t have bishops).

Don’t they? In my country, Methodists have bishops but they only have some supervisory role, not the monarchial/magisterium role there are in other churches. As I understand it, Holy Orders is not even a sacrament in the Methodist Church and that is if they understand sacraments in a similar way to us/Anglicans which they don’t.

So I find it interesting to introduce apostolic succession to Methodists when the idea of the office is so fundamentally different. What is the progress that they have made?

 

[Picky_Picky]

Don’t they? In my country, Methodists have bishops but they only have some supervisory role, not the monarchial/magisterium role there are in other churches. As I understand it, Holy Orders is not even a sacrament in the Methodist Church and that is if they understand sacraments in a similar way to us/Anglicans which they don’t.

So I find it interesting to introduce apostolic succession to Methodists when the idea of the office is so fundamentally different. What is the progress that they have made?

The two churches are covenanted to achieve full visible unity, and have made a great deal of progress is working together. But they have come up against (not for the first time) the problem of interchangeability of ministers.

The CofE requires the existence of the historic episcopate in a church with which it unites (under the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral) and requires as a matter of order that priests ordained by bishops in apostolic succession preside at sacraments in CofE churches. The Methodist Church of GB has accepted in principle that it will receive the gift of personal episcope, but has shied away from attempts to clarify and formalise that. They are, of course, reluctant to jump through Anglican hoops which they may see as disparaging the orders of their present ministers.

The way ahead is not clear, although based on the acceptance by the CofE in bilateral discussions that the ruling body of British Methodism, the Conference, exercises episcopal oversight in the Methodist Church, the most likely solution is for each President of the Conference to be consecrated a bishop of the Church Catholic (as Anglicans would see it). This would not necessarily be a CofE bishop doing the initial consecration (which might be a sensitive point) since I understand the Methodists are in communion with other churches with (it is believed) apostolic succession.

Full details here:

anglican-methodist.org.uk

 

[GKC]

The two churches are covenanted to achieve full visible unity, and have made a great deal of progress is working together. But they have come up against (not for the first time) the problem of interchangeability of ministers.

The CofE requires the existence of the historic episcopate in a church with which it unites (under the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral) and requires as a matter of order that priests ordained by bishops in apostolic succession preside at sacraments in CofE churches. The Methodist Church of GB has accepted in principle that it will receive the gift of personal episcope, but has shied away from attempts to clarify and formalise that. They are, of course, reluctant to jump through Anglican hoops which they may see as disparaging the orders of their present ministers.

The way ahead is not clear, although based on the acceptance by the CofE in bilateral discussions that the ruling body of British Methodism, the Conference, exercises episcopal oversight in the Methodist Church, the most likely solution is for each President of the Conference to be consecrated a bishop of the Church Catholic (as Anglicans would see it). This would not necessarily be a CofE bishop doing the initial consecration (which might be a sensitive point) since I understand the Methodists are in communion with other churches with (it is believed) apostolic succession.

Full details here:

anglican-methodist.org.uk

Maybe run the Church of South India thingy again.