Is Anglicanism or Orthodoxy closer to Catholicism?

[exnihilo]

This is true, however the Anglican/Episcopal Church is closer in philosophy and culture than the Orthodox. Theologically, they both have serious differences from Catholicism.

I agree as to culture. I’m not sure I’d say the Orthodox have serious differences theologically. It seems to me theologically they have substantial agreement with Catholicism. Then again when you consider specifics like Original Sin the Anglicans may be closer.

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.

Maybe the main difference is that Orthodoxy is more uniform within itself. The variety allowed in Anglicanism may be what makes it more different.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Maybe run the Church of South India thingy again.

Now, now …

That has been suggested.

 

[GKC]

Now, now …

That has been suggested.

Well, sure.

 

[GKC]

I agree as to culture. I’m not sure I’d say the Orthodox have serious differences theologically. It seems to me theologically they have substantial agreement with Catholicism. Then again when you consider specifics like Original Sin the Anglicans may be closer.

Maybe the main difference is that Orthodoxy is more uniform within itself. The variety allowed in Anglicanism may be what makes it more different.

May be. Makes it more something or other, to be sure.

 

[FollowChrist34]

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 think Orthodoxy on paper is probably closer. But in practice, it is Eastern, not Western, in terms of cultural identity. Feels different in that sense. Anglicanism (as it was originally laid out, not its modern varieties) is probably a bit further out but is Western in origin. For this reason I think it feels more like home - at least to me. Mind you the Anglican Church I am referencing is largely an abstract one, from the past, not the present. On that score, I will credit the Orthodox Church - one thing they are very good at is safeguarding the past, liturgy, tradition, doctrine. They keep it simple. On point. Serves them well if leaving them somewhat insular on occasion. Keep an eye on the Orthodox Church in the coming centuries…they could be a real source of revitalization.

 

[Vanny]

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.

Thank you, interesting. Yes I meant EO and OO, ect. I didn’t know that about the Church of Sweden, I had heard someone say that The Scandanavian Lutheran churches retained it but thanks for the clarification.

 

[Vanny]

Anglicans believe they do. The RCC disputes that. But I was told by an Episcopal priest that since I was confirmed in the RCC, I would not need to be reconfirmed in TEC precisely because they both have apostolic succession.

Thanks!

 

[jimkhong]

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

Thanks Picky, that was very enlightening.

Just a little baffled. Why would the Methodists be so interested in the apostolic succession? Their concept of the ministry is far off from the concept of Holy Order ministering sacraments under a unified magisterium - the concept on which the apostolic succession rests (some may say founded). I know Methodists have been moving in the Catholic direction in the area of liturgy. But in ecclesiology & sacramental theology as well? hmmm, must speak to some Methodist friends

 

[jimkhong]

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

That is because Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants for that matter, all originates from the Latin Rite. In fact to the classical Orthodox mind, all Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants are lumped together as the Western Church. As opposed to the Eastern Church, which covers the Orthodox churches. Liturgies in both halves were different from the onset, although there were cross-sharing of ideas. Most of the parts of the Western mass like the Lamb of God originates in the East. Generally, Eastern liturgies have remained the same after the initial flurry of innovations compared to the West but did adapt to the vernacular much earlier than the West.

Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran liturgies diverged from the time of the Reformations. All three derived their liturgy from the Latin Rite prevailing in Rome, which is why some Orthodox identify Anglicans and Lutherans as Roman as well. Anglican and Lutheran liturgies preserve some of the practices of that age which the Catholics have since reformed. Which is why some of the Lutheran vestments in Scandinavia reflect the vestments of the age. Other churches liturgies are spinoff of one of these three traditions or arose independently by people familiar with these liturgies.

One question: Of the 30-40 Anglican services you attended, did you try different churches? Most Anglican services are based on the Book of Common Prayer but not all. The TEC is a lot smaller than the CofE, which accommodates a much wider range of worship styles and indeed doctrines. At one end, Anglo-Catholics are characterised as more Catholic than Catholics. I have been to newly-built Anglo-Catholic churches replete with 14 stations of the cross, wings for Our Lady & Sacred Heart, tabernacles and altar rails. In other words, virtually identical to a Catholic Church. On the other hand, I have also attended the Evangelical end where they only use the BCP occasionally, preferring charismatic style worship. If anything, the pastor (he didn’t like being called a priest) considers himself more in communion with the evangelical church down the road than his own bishop. It is not easy for a Catholic mindset like mine to comprehend why he was still an anglican priest.

 

[jimkhong]

Anglicans believe they do. The RCC disputes that. But I was told by an Episcopal priest that since I was confirmed in the RCC, I would not need to be reconfirmed in TEC precisely because they both have apostolic succession.

I am not sure apostolic succession is the sole criteria as Anglicans also accept Lutheran confirmation, some of which do not have apostolic succession.

In any case, please note that this is the Anglican practice - a broad church that accepts many different shades of doctrines. Ultimately (as someone mentioned int his thread) they accept anyone who believes in Jesus Christ. Anglicans cannot understand why Catholics refuse them communion when we are all Christians.

It doesn’t work the other way round. Only Anglican baptism is accepted in the Catholic Church but not the other sacraments. So, an Anglican wishing to be a Catholic will be received but not baptised. He/she will then be confirmed, if an adult, before receiving Holy Communion.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

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

Did you attend a Western Catholic Mass? If you attended an Eastern Catholic Mass there is little difference between that and Orthodoxy.

Catholic theology is closer to Orthodoxy. Anglican is moving further and further away from not only other Protestant communities but also the Catholic Church.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Thanks Picky, that was very enlightening.

Just a little baffled. Why would the Methodists be so interested in the apostolic succession? Their concept of the ministry is far off from the concept of Holy Order ministering sacraments under a unified magisterium - the concept on which the apostolic succession rests (some may say founded). I know Methodists have been moving in the Catholic direction in the area of liturgy. But in ecclesiology & sacramental theology as well? hmmm, must speak to some Methodist friends

I must have mis-explained, sorry! I’m not suggesting the Methodists are particularly interested in apostolic succession (although I believe their understanding is that they have it). The interest is on the Anglican side, since the absence in the Methodist Church of GB of ordination by bishops in apostolic succession is an impediment (for the CofE) to interchangeability of ministers. Indeed it is the question which led to the scuppering (by the CofE) of the last scheme of reunion 50 or so years ago, (much to the disappointment of Archbishop Michael Ramsey).

I don’t know much about Methodist ecclesiology and sacramental theology, but I suspect there may be just a tinge of motleyness about it – do you think that may be true? Isn’t the influence of Whitefield still present to some extent in, for instance, the UMC, whereas in England Wesley reigns supreme?

 

[Picky_Picky]

I am not sure apostolic succession is the sole criteria as Anglicans also accept Lutheran confirmation, some of which do not have apostolic succession.

In any case, please note that this is the Anglican practice - a broad church that accepts many different shades of doctrines. Ultimately (as someone mentioned int his thread) they accept anyone who believes in Jesus Christ. Anglicans cannot understand why Catholics refuse them communion when we are all Christians.

It doesn’t work the other way round. Only Anglican baptism is accepted in the Catholic Church but not the other sacraments. So, an Anglican wishing to be a Catholic will be received but not baptised. He/she will then be confirmed, if an adult, before receiving Holy Communion.

This is the CofE take on confirmation:

Those who have been confirmed in a church whose ministerial orders are recognised and accepted by the Church of England and in which confirmation is performed by a bishop, or by a priest acting on the bishop’s behalf and using chrism blessed by the bishop, do not need to be confirmed. They are simply received into the Church of England instead.

 

[Picky_Picky]

My understanding is that the churches whose orders are “recognised and accepted” by the CofE, incidentally, are (a) those churches with which the CofE is in communion and (b) the Church of England in South Africa, the Free Church of England, and … the Roman Catholic Church.

(That doesn’t necessarily reflect the CofE’s view of, say, Orthodoxy, it just means the English archbishops have not been asked to rule on the acceptance of Orthodox orders)

 

[jimkhong]

I must have mis-explained, sorry! I’m not suggesting the Methodists are particularly interested in apostolic succession (although I believe their understanding is that they have it). The interest is on the Anglican side, since the absence in the Methodist Church of GB of ordination by bishops in apostolic succession is an impediment (for the CofE) to interchangeability of ministers. Indeed it is the question which led to the scuppering (by the CofE) of the last scheme of reunion 50 or so years ago, (much to the disappointment of Archbishop Michael Ramsey).

I don’t know much about Methodist ecclesiology and sacramental theology, but I suspect there may be just a tinge of motleyness about it – do you think that may be true? Isn’t the influence of Whitefield still present to some extent in, for instance, the UMC, whereas in England Wesley reigns supreme?

Ok thanks for clarifying. Makes a bit more sense. Though I find it a hoot that CofE pushing Methodists into agreeing to doctrines they are not interested in. Sorry if Anglicans find this offensive but it really sounds so inept CofE attempts at ecumenism: looking at its current debacle over trying to maintain its own internal communion.

No I don’t know much about Methodist ecclesiology or sacramental theology either - other than that it is nowhere near Catholic or Anglican thinking. I find their ecclesiology rather rudimentary - more like justifications for their rather simple church organisations. Sacramental theology is also rather wishy washy. Anything fluff seems to be sacraments - like the stuff Catholics relegate to sacramentals so that the more serious stuff remains as sacraments.

haha, I feel like so offensive. I do like Methodists - their fervour their singing and their social work.

 

[jimkhong]

My understanding is that the churches whose orders are “recognised and accepted” by the CofE, incidentally, are (a) those churches with which the CofE is in communion and (b) the Church of England in South Africa, the Free Church of England, and … the Roman Catholic Church.

(That doesn’t necessarily reflect the CofE’s view of, say, Orthodoxy, it just means the English archbishops have not been asked to rule on the acceptance of Orthodox orders)

CofE love the Orthodox. After the break with Rome they got rather excited when they found these ancient churches in the East as old as the Catholics, have bishops and also hates the Catholics. They sent a number of delegates to the Ecumenical Patriarch to discuss intercommunion. Until the Patriarch interviewed them and decided that Anglicans were heretics.

 

[Kliska]

Actually the UMC (United Methodist Church) has moved closer to Catholic teaching in recent years, at least in the US, starting to stress Methodist ordination more as applied to sacraments/ordinance. They had been more… lax on such things.

 

[jimkhong]

Actually the UMC (United Methodist Church) has moved closer to Catholic teaching in recent years, at least in the US, starting to stress Methodist ordination more as applied to sacraments/ordinance. They had been more… lax on such things.

I find two factors at work here.

Generally, Methodist worship and that of other Protestant groups have gotten more liturgical in the past few decades. I now have Methodist friends praying the rosary. So, it is no surprise that movement is spilling over into other doctrinal areas as well.

Also, in the US there has been a lot more intellectual intercourse between Catholic and other Christian churches. It seems like Catholic intellect is much admired in evangelical circles as it provides the intellectual theological justifications for conservative moral views that they hold. Note that before Alito passing we had an unprecedented 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices being Catholics. (The intercourse work both ways and it led to the culture wars waged by American Catholics in a way a little beyond Catholics in the rest of the world.) So, it didn’t take a great leap for non-Catholic churches in US to start looking to Catholic doctrines to fill the gaps in these theological areas where they are not so developed and do not violently disagree with the Catholic position.

These are just my observations.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Ok thanks for clarifying. Makes a bit more sense. Though I find it a hoot that CofE pushing Methodists into agreeing to doctrines they are not interested in. Sorry if Anglicans find this offensive but it really sounds so inept CofE attempts at ecumenism: looking at its current debacle over trying to maintain its own internal communion.

No I don’t know much about Methodist ecclesiology or sacramental theology either - other than that it is nowhere near Catholic or Anglican thinking. I find their ecclesiology rather rudimentary - more like justifications for their rather simple church organisations. Sacramental theology is also rather wishy washy. Anything fluff seems to be sacraments - like the stuff Catholics relegate to sacramentals so that the more serious stuff remains as sacraments.

haha, I feel like so offensive. I do like Methodists - their fervour their singing and their social work.

Yeah, well, ecumenical talks are often a hoot like that. One thinks of the long ARCIC debates about mariology. And CofE ecumenism has not been unsuccessful.

 

[GKC]

That is because Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants for that matter, all originates from the Latin Rite. In fact to the classical Orthodox mind, all Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants are lumped together as the Western Church. As opposed to the Eastern Church, which covers the Orthodox churches. Liturgies in both halves were different from the onset, although there were cross-sharing of ideas. Most of the parts of the Western mass like the Lamb of God originates in the East. Generally, Eastern liturgies have remained the same after the initial flurry of innovations compared to the West but did adapt to the vernacular much earlier than the West.

Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran liturgies diverged from the time of the Reformations. All three derived their liturgy from the Latin Rite prevailing in Rome, which is why some Orthodox identify Anglicans and Lutherans as Roman as well. Anglican and Lutheran liturgies preserve some of the practices of that age which the Catholics have since reformed. Which is why some of the Lutheran vestments in Scandinavia reflect the vestments of the age. Other churches liturgies are spinoff of one of these three traditions or arose independently by people familiar with these liturgies.

One question: Of the 30-40 Anglican services you attended, did you try different churches? Most Anglican services are based on the Book of Common Prayer but not all. The TEC is a lot smaller than the CofE, which accommodates a much wider range of worship styles and indeed doctrines. At one end, Anglo-Catholics are characterised as more Catholic than Catholics. I have been to newly-built Anglo-Catholic churches replete with 14 stations of the cross, wings for Our Lady & Sacred Heart, tabernacles and altar rails. In other words, virtually identical to a Catholic Church. On the other hand, I have also attended the Evangelical end where they only use the BCP occasionally, preferring charismatic style worship. If anything, the pastor (he didn’t like being called a priest) considers himself more in communion with the evangelical church down the road than his own bishop. It is not easy for a Catholic mindset like mine to comprehend why he was still an anglican priest.

The Anglo-Catholic church you describe sounds a lot like mine. No Sacred Heart, though. Just a Mary Shrine (OL of Walsingham).

What you are pointing out is one of my main posting points. Anglicanism is a loose and general term. All sorts of things to be found in Anglicanism.