Is Anglicanism or Orthodoxy closer to Catholicism?

[Peter_J]

It’s a start.

Indeed … or, arguably, you might say that “zero-sum game” thinking was already a start, inasmuch as it recognizes the existence of another side, i.e. recognizes that Anglicans who convert to Roman Catholicism are leaving something.

 

[Faithdancer]

In the West–Anglicanism, again it’s authority (isn’t it always?) and their idea that morality/doctrine can be changed by vote.

It’s a common assumption by both Roman Catholics and non-RC’s that all “Anglicans” subscribe to the innovations of the TEC and/or Canterbury–e.g. same sex “marriage,” syncretism, and female ordination. However, there are Anglican jurisdictions that subscribe to none of these changes, and have left communion with TEC, CofE, Anglican Church of Canada, etc. over them.

From what little study I’ve done of the Orthodox churches, I think that the High-Church Anglicans are theologically closer to Rome. My jurisdiction, the Anglican Church in America, follows the more High-Church 1928 prayer book and posits Real Presence; our communion services follow the same general order as the RC service.
Hope this helps!

 

[Faithdancer]

Yes. You understand what I meant by “flavor”

There is no “Continuing Church”. The Continuum is a loose collection of independent Anglican jurisdictions, some in communion with others, some not, who all are basically the same sort of orthodox Anglicans, who have left the Anglican Communion, and who are, in varying degrees, more or less, either Anglo-Catholic or evangelical. The major jurisdictions, and minor ones, too, are listed on the Wiki page. Most have links to their sites. If you click on, say, the Anglican Catholic Church, you will see at their page their history and organization. Some of the jurisdictions are quite small, some are more or less centered in a geographical area (Anglican Province of Christ the King is centered in California, for example). But the major jurisdictions at least have some wide spread presence.

Each is hierarchically independent. In other words, the Anglicans that separated from the Anglican Communion began to split apart soon after and are having a hard time becoming unified, for the roughly 40 years since orthodox Anglicans began bailing out of the Anglican train wreck. Progress will be made from time to time, in overcoming the separation, then splits will occur again. It is a long and complicated story; Currently four of the major jurisdictions are moving toward some unified status. Good for them.

No doubt it is a confusing story. But if you don’t expect me to be able to make you understand, I won’t be surprised if you don’t,

. ,

Well said, as always. We (the ACA) are in close communion (but separate governance) with the Anglican Province in America and there have been talks with the ACC, but nothing firm. It would be nice…

 

[Faithdancer]

That rector passed away. The current one follows the 1928 BCP more closely.

That’s interesting as I was just reading something the other day–and if I can find it again I’ll post it–wherein the writer was trying to make the case that the 1928 BCP is “too Catholic.”

 

[Lenten_ashes]

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?

Yes

 

[GKC]

That’s interesting as I was just reading something the other day–and if I can find it again I’ll post it–wherein the writer was trying to make the case that the 1928 BCP is “too Catholic.”

Some Anglicans feel that way, yes.But the 1928 BCP doesn’t mandate the mention of any particular bishop. The mention of the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriach is an addition, by some celebrants.

 

[GKC]

Well said, as always. We (the ACA) are in close communion (but separate governance) with the Anglican Province in America and there have been talks with the ACC, but nothing firm. It would be nice…

Those 3 are among the 4 jurisdictions I referenced. The 4th is the Diocese of the Holy Cross.

As noted here, at the ACA site (and the other jurisdictional sites, similarly):

anglicanchurchinamerica.org/interjurisdictionalletter.pdf

It’s a start. There have been starts, before.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

It’s a common assumption by both Roman Catholics and non-RC’s that all “Anglicans” subscribe to the innovations of the TEC and/or Canterbury–e.g. same sex “marriage,” syncretism, and female ordination. However, there are Anglican jurisdictions that subscribe to none of these changes, and have left communion with TEC, CofE, Anglican Church of Canada, etc. over them.

From what little study I’ve done of the Orthodox churches, I think that the High-Church Anglicans are theologically closer to Rome. My jurisdiction, the Anglican Church in America, follows the more High-Church 1928 prayer book and posits Real Presence; our communion services follow the same general order as the RC service.
Hope this helps!

I believe though the Anglican Church in North America is varied with regards to female ordination, isn’t it?

 

[GKC]

I believe though the Anglican Church in North America is varied with regards to female ordination, isn’t it?

It is. It is grappling with it.

 

[Contarini]

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.

American Methodists have bishops because Wesley laid his hands on a couple of ministers and made them “superintendents” of the Methodist Church in the new United States (where Anglicanism was in disarray). He didn’t want them to be called bishops, but the Americans had other ideas. They don’t have episcopal succession, since Wesley himself was a presbyter (he had become convinced that in the very early Church there was no distinction between the two offices and that bishops were just presbyters who supervised other presbyters–a view that many low-church Anglicans hold). Methodist churches deriving from the Americans rather than the British tend to have bishops for this reason.

Edwin

 

[jimkhong]

American Methodists have bishops because Wesley laid his hands on a couple of ministers and made them “superintendents” of the Methodist Church in the new United States (where Anglicanism was in disarray). He didn’t want them to be called bishops, but the Americans had other ideas. They don’t have episcopal succession, since Wesley himself was a presbyter (he had become convinced that in the very early Church there was no distinction between the two offices and that bishops were just presbyters who supervised other presbyters–a view that many low-church Anglicans hold). Methodist churches deriving from the Americans rather than the British tend to have bishops for this reason.

Edwin

Thanks Edwin

I would presume the same reasons exists in al countries. In my country there are three Methodist bishops, one each for the English-speakers, Mandarin-speakers and Tamil-speakers. I haven’t asked them how that is reconciled with the oneness of the Church.