Regarding Anglicans: Have I got this right?

[Bluegoat]

Fr John
I will try as best as I can to describe some of the actions of my Anglican “brethren” on this matter. True we do retain 7 sacraments and the historic teachings, and apostolic succession going back to the 12 apostles so in that sense many in the Anglican world like to view themselves as being “Catholic.” They point out that they kept the teachings of before Trent and Vatican 2 so we are the “pure church,” HOWEVER, this is where there is a major difference in Anglican thinking. There are some in Anglican circles who take the views of the aforementioned and say, “we are Catholic” no ifs ands and buts even though when cornered like Robert Hart’s bishop that ordained him will tell you “We are Protestant in that we do not follow the teachings of Rome, we are only Catholic in teaching and tradition.” I find it interesting that Fr. Hart left this tidbit out of his article that he posted to his blog that was linked on this thread.

Other Anglicans will blatantly tell you, “because we do not follow Rome we are Protestant, the Prayer book says so” right off the bat, “We are part of a worldwide communion.” These same Anglicans retain the same 7 sacraments, historic teachings, apostolic succession etc as the other group of Anglicans who say “We are Catholic.”

The Anglo Catholic Party within Anglicanism has always been very vocal about their “Catholicity” so this is why we have a member of this thread who does everything Protestant in that he is not under Rome, but claims to be Catholic because of the teachings, sacraments, etc maintained by his church.
I hope that makes it clearer.

But it is really only the Catholics who claim that the litmus test of catholicity is to be “under Rome” in the sense that they (Catholics) use the word now. But why is that view the definitive one? THe Orthodox also claim to be catholic, although they are clearly not protestants.

And are “protestant” and “catholic” necessarily opposed? In all things, or some? Ultimately, as in the split with Orthodoxy, Protestantism is primarily a disagreement about political structure (although clearly they all answer the question differently.) To show that protestantism is wrong in this sense, you would have to make a convincing argument that Catholicism is correct in its understanding of the political structure, authority, and unity of the Church. If not, Protestantism could, theoretically, be more catholic than Catholicism.

 

[GKC]

It would appear to me that maintaining the sacraments, teachings, apostolic succession, etc, is the essence of Catholicism, not the single issue of the Papacy. The issue of the Papacy is the issue of what sort of Catholic.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

Fr John
I will try as best as I can to describe some of the actions of my Anglican “brethren” on this matter. True we do retain 7 sacraments and the historic teachings, and apostolic succession going back to the 12 apostles so in that sense many in the Anglican world like to view themselves as being “Catholic.” They point out that they kept the teachings of before Trent and Vatican 2 so we are the “pure church,” HOWEVER, this is where there is a major difference in Anglican thinking. There are some in Anglican circles who take the views of the aforementioned and say, “we are Catholic” no ifs ands and buts even though when cornered like Robert Hart’s bishop that ordained him will tell you “We are Protestant in that we do not follow the teachings of Rome, we are only Catholic in teaching and tradition.” I find it interesting that Fr. Hart left this tidbit out of his article that he posted to his blog that was linked on this thread.

Other Anglicans will blatantly tell you, “because we do not follow Rome we are Protestant, the Prayer book says so” right off the bat, “We are part of a worldwide communion.” These same Anglicans retain the same 7 sacraments, historic teachings, apostolic succession etc as the other group of Anglicans who say “We are Catholic.”

The Anglo Catholic Party within Anglicanism has always been very vocal about their “Catholicity” so this is why we have a member of this thread who does everything Protestant in that he is not under Rome, but claims to be Catholic because of the teachings, sacraments, etc maintained by his church.
I hope that makes it clearer.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

It would appear to me that maintaining the sacraments, teachings, apostolic succession, etc, is the essence of Catholicism, not the single issue of the Papacy. The issue of the Papacy is the issue of what sort of Catholic.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

For once I agree with you!

 

[GKC]

For once I agree with you!

Oops.

GKC

 

[luckyfredsdad]

But it is really only the Catholics who claim that the litmus test of catholicity is to be “under Rome” in the sense that they (Catholics) use the word now. But why is that view the definitive one? THe Orthodox also claim to be catholic, although they are clearly not protestants.

And are “protestant” and “catholic” necessarily opposed? In all things, or some? Ultimately, as in the split with Orthodoxy, Protestantism is primarily a disagreement about political structure (although clearly they all answer the question differently.) To show that protestantism is wrong in this sense, you would have to make a convincing argument that Catholicism is correct in its understanding of the political structure, authority, and unity of the Church. If not, Protestantism could, theoretically, be more catholic than Catholicism.

I receive a Bog, or some e.publication from the Patriarchy of Jerusalem. They are most punctual, evry two or three days this scholarly and informative multi page publication arrives in my box. It has an enormous subscription list amongst whom are many Bishops and Abbots of the Orthodox Church! Indeed there are Patriarchs, if I’m correct. When they speak of Rome, they usually use the term*** Papaist***, or Protestant! Just before Christmass , there was a reference to heretics! I’m glad they don’t publish on these boards!

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Fr John
I will try as best as I can to describe some of the actions of my Anglican “brethren” on this matter. True we do retain 7 sacraments and the historic teachings, and apostolic succession going back to the 12 apostles so in that sense many in the Anglican world like to view themselves as being “Catholic.” They point out that they kept the teachings of before Trent and Vatican 2 so we are the “pure church,” HOWEVER, this is where there is a major difference in Anglican thinking. There are some in Anglican circles who take the views of the aforementioned and say, “we are Catholic” no ifs ands and buts even though when cornered like Robert Hart’s bishop that ordained him will tell you “We are Protestant in that we do not follow the teachings of Rome, we are only Catholic in teaching and tradition.” I find it interesting that Fr. Hart left this tidbit out of his article that he posted to his blog that was linked on this thread.

Other Anglicans will blatantly tell you, “because we do not follow Rome we are Protestant, the Prayer book says so” right off the bat, “We are part of a worldwide communion.” These same Anglicans retain the same 7 sacraments, historic teachings, apostolic succession etc as the other group of Anglicans who say “We are Catholic.”

The Anglo Catholic Party within Anglicanism has always been very vocal about their “Catholicity” so this is why we have a member of this thread who does everything Protestant in that he is not under Rome, but claims to be Catholic because of the teachings, sacraments, etc maintained by his church.
I hope that makes it clearer.

I have never met an Anglican who believes Anglicanism is the ,‘pure Church’! What is said is that the Anglican Church is a communion within the Catholic Church andd keeps to the original deposit,[Paul.].
As for the Anglo Catholic Party, I do not know what their fundamental beliefs are, most, * simply copy Rome blindly and hang on to their stipends. It is interesting that they are referred to as The Anglo Catholic Party. Kelly, SSM, used to refer to Anglo-Papalists as ,‘the political party!’*

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

In a sense they do and they don’t. Obviously Anglicans of your brand feel the papacy is a nasty dictatorship that is full of lies, false representations of church polity, and has usurped for itself huge amounts of power and a job description it never had before or deserves. It has turned its back on the conciliarism and ancient deposit as well from your standpoint. So it is highly tainted from that approach. Then the Orthodox, whom Anglicans like to quote and side with in debates, since they are opposed to the pope as well, are full of beliefs contrary to the 39 Articles and much of the more Protestant elements of Anglicanism, so they are also tainted from your angle. The Lutherans and other Protestants don’t have apostolic succession and they don’t believe in the same sacramentary beliefs as Anglicans so they are incomplete. What is left? If the Via Media is viable truth and the right way, you are the only “pure” church. If too hot and too cold is bad, just right is the only papa bear choice. I don’t remember sola scriptura, Calvinism, and many other elements of the 39 Articles being a part of the “original deposit” of women’s ordination and gay marriages as well as incorporating pagan worship but that’s another talk show I suppose…

I have never met an Anglican who believes Anglicanism is the ,‘pure Church’! What is said is that the Anglican Church is a communion within the Catholic Church andd keeps to the original deposit,[Paul.].
As for the Anglo Catholic Party, I do not know what their fundamental beliefs are, most, * simply copy Rome blindly and hang on to their stipends. It is interesting that they are referred to as The Anglo Catholic Party. Kelly, SSM, used to refer to Anglo-Papalists as ,‘the political party!’*

 

[Bluegoat]

In a sense they do and they don’t. Obviously Anglicans of your brand feel the papacy is a nasty dictatorship that is full of lies, false representations of church polity, and has usurped for itself huge amounts of power and a job description it never had before or deserves. It has turned its back on the conciliarism and ancient deposit as well from your standpoint. So it is highly tainted from that approach. Then the Orthodox, whom Anglicans like to quote and side with in debates, since they are opposed to the pope as well, are full of beliefs contrary to the 39 Articles and much of the more Protestant elements of Anglicanism, so they are also tainted from your angle. The Lutherans and other Protestants don’t have apostolic succession and they don’t believe in the same sacramentary beliefs as Anglicans so they are incomplete. What is left? If the Via Media is viable truth and the right way, you are the only “pure” church. If too hot and too cold is bad, just right is the only papa bear choice. I don’t remember sola scriptura, Calvinism, and many other elements of the 39 Articles being a part of the “original deposit” of women’s ordination and gay marriages as well as incorporating pagan worship but that’s another talk show I suppose…

I think many Anglicans would simply say that there was no “pure” catholic Church, not that they had it. It would be rather like looking for a “pure catholic” something one also won’t find here in space and time as we know it now.

Anglicans like to bring up the Orthodox because many Catholics like to make out that they are somehow the lone remnant of the Early Church, which of course understood and accepted (or would have accepted ) the modern Catholic structure and the papacy. Anyone who disagrees must be a Protestant (often without understanding what a Protestant is) and a heretic. The Orthodox are simply a reminder that it is not that simple an argument, and even the CC admits that to some extent.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Blue,

I think you’re very correct in many ways. Great points. The Orthodox do complicate the equation. But the Catholic Church is very gracious toward the Orthodox if you not only look at what the Church has said about them but also how even most Catholics here at CAF are very cautious and sheepish at times in debating them, not wanting to step on toes. I agree with Pope Benedict that the Orthodox Church is full of richness, beauty, powerful devotion, rich theology, valid orders, awesome sacraments, and yet unfortunately they have a defect in that they have parted with the source of true unity–the Pope. Orthodox views are incorrect thinking that the pope left the Church. It’s the other way around. The Orthodox walked out on the source of their unity–the Holy Father.

While I understand your point, I observe many many Anglicans use any instance of discord within the family of the Early Church like St. Cyprian vs. Pope Stephen, to try and attempt an argument against the papacy rather than looking at the situation for what it was. Many Anglican arguments I read come more from the approach–the enemy of my enemy is my friend (the Orthodox are the enemy of my enemy, the dictatorial Papacy, so they must be a friend) yet Orthodox typically want nothing to do with the Anglicans. It is interesting how many American Orthodox are former Anglicans. Martin Luther used the Orthodox in his arguments as well.

I respectfully disagree that there is no pure Church. I believe the Catholic Church to be such a Church. It possesses the fullness of what it means to be the Church. It is sacramentally complete with apostolic succession, has maintained the truth of the Gospels, has a valid priesthood, is holy, is universal, and it maintains the Chair of Peter that is the source of unity as I’ve said. It is often-cited, true, but the Gates of Hell were said not to prevail against the Church presided over by Peter. To believe a church is tainted with error is admission, in my opinion, that the gates have been breached. I don’t believe they ever have been, thanks to Peter.

May God bless you.

I think many Anglicans would simply say that there was no “pure” catholic Church, not that they had it. It would be rather like looking for a “pure catholic” something one also won’t find here in space and time as we know it now.

Anglicans like to bring up the Orthodox because many Catholics like to make out that they are somehow the lone remnant of the Early Church, which of course understood and accepted (or would have accepted ) the modern Catholic structure and the papacy. Anyone who disagrees must be a Protestant (often without understanding what a Protestant is) and a heretic. The Orthodox are simply a reminder that it is not that simple an argument, and even the CC admits that to some extent.

 

[Padrej]

I have never met an Anglican who believes Anglicanism is the ,‘pure Church’! What is said is that the Anglican Church is a communion within the Catholic Church andd keeps to the original deposit,[Paul.].
As for the Anglo Catholic Party, I do not know what their fundamental beliefs are, most, * simply copy Rome blindly and hang on to their stipends. It is interesting that they are referred to as The Anglo Catholic Party. Kelly, SSM, used to refer to Anglo-Papalists as ,‘the political party!’*

If you have never met and Anglican who believes that they are the “Pure church” then WHY did you bring up Rev. Robert Hart as that is clearly his viewpoint. Do you not read his material he writes that you asked me to comment on?

 

[Padrej]

If you have never met and Anglican who believes that they are the “Pure church” then WHY did you bring up Rev. Robert Hart as that is clearly his viewpoint. Do you not read his material he writes that you asked me to comment on?

May I also add these are Fr. Harts own words on Anglicans being Protestant.
*“I would indeed place the “P” of Protestantism back in “Anglicanism” to the via media degree required to make it truly Patristic, and so truly Scriptural” *

Cited from the Continuum blog
As to him believing them to be “Pure” listen to this:
“A lost child of Rome? It is more accurate to say that the Church of England kept its Catholic heritage, sharing some common ground with Rome that other Reformed Churches did not, but not as a spineless compromise: Rather, the Anglicans were as deliberate and discriminating in what they refused to part with, as they were with what they did throw away. What appears to be inconsistency to so many people, even to this day, is more accurately the result of honesty and of genuine conviction. So, we may indeed use the term via media, the middle way that avoids the unreasonable demands, and even dictatorships, of extremism. But, first we must look at how that term has been used, and what serves as a more enlightening definition as we apply the term to the Church of England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.”
Also
“Rome and most kinds of Protestantism are built partly on the Catholic Faith, but partly on innovations that have no basis in Scripture and Tradition. The reason to be Anglican is to be free from innovations.”
Again
“To whatever degree we may have common ground with Rome, and aside from other differences, any real union with them would make it necessary that they receive from us a good healthy dose of this Biblical Doctrine: Christ’s sacrifice full, perfect and sufficient. This does not take away from the sacrifice of the Church on its many altars; rather it gives it its context and meaning. This example demonstrates that our Faith is Biblical, Patristic and thoroughly Catholic in ways that can enrich Rome, and that has been affirmed within Orthodoxy. In a rite designed to attract Anglicans, the removal of this irrefutably true doctrine, as though it needed to be subjected to some correction, shows that we have further cause, at present, to maintain our distinct identity. The line that provides the context of the sacrifice, the meaning of it and the joining of our own worship to the actual sacrifice of the cross on Calvary, indicates that we are better able than Rome, at this time, to declare the Gospel in its fullness with the power of directness and simplicity.”

Does this not sound like someone who is writing that Anglicans have a “pure faith” and the Catholicism is not?
All of these comments can be found of the site earlier linked on this thread.

 

[Padrej]

I think many Anglicans would simply say that there was no “pure” catholic Church, not that they had it. It would be rather like looking for a “pure catholic” something one also won’t find here in space and time as we know it now.

Anglicans like to bring up the Orthodox because many Catholics like to make out that they are somehow the lone remnant of the Early Church, which of course understood and accepted (or would have accepted ) the modern Catholic structure and the papacy. Anyone who disagrees must be a Protestant (often without understanding what a Protestant is) and a heretic. The Orthodox are simply a reminder that it is not that simple an argument, and even the CC admits that to some extent.

What you write makes a great deal of sense. Shame you and Fr. Hart don’t get together.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

On the Continuum blog it says:
***Anglican Catholics believe in infallibility, but they believe that it is found not within the Office of the Pope, but within the Church itself, and that this is best expressed when it is acting as an undivided unity through the medium of the Ecumenical Councils. But since A.D. 1054 this hasn’t happened. As a result the pronouncements and decisions of Church Council’s within the Roman Catholic Church, such as the Council of Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II are not considered to have the same authority.

We do however recognise and give due honour to the Pope as Bishop of Rome and as Patriarch of the West on the ancient principle of primus inter pares. He is the ‘first among equals’ in the episcopate and has a special role and responsibility because of this.***

It’s fascinating. I find it interesting how the Pope is the “Patriarch of the West,” a title Pope Benedict XVI has dropped actually, and the “primus inter pares” and that the Anglican Church views infallibility only in the form of an ecumenical council. Since these Anglicans reject the pope, the reject the primus inter pares, the first among equals, and they can’t possibly sit at his table. He has authority, just not authority that is worth listening to evidently…and anyone seeking reconciliation with him is a sell-out. Patriarch of the West, first among equals, but staying out of communion with him is the right move…and ecumenical councils are the only way to assure correct doctrine yet we haven’t had one in this millenium really and since the entire Church of East and West plus Anglicans isn’t united so there won’t be any more councils, how is it possible to hammer out doctrine and make decisions about moral situations that would be infallible? The Anglicans admitedly here make it impossible to come to solutions.
Pope = head chief among equals at the head of table
Pope is not to be followed
Council = infallible
No councils in 1,000 years = impossible to hammer out truth and theology

Sounds great. Father Hart and company are interesting to say the least.

What you write makes a great deal of sense. Shame you and Fr. Hart don’t get together.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

If you have never met and Anglican who believes that they are the “Pure church” then WHY did you bring up Rev. Robert Hart as that is clearly his viewpoint. Do you not read his material he writes that you asked me to comment on?

I was taught in the last century, by my Bishop, that there is only One Church, that is the Catholic Church,the Body of Christ and we are made members by Baptism and later we are confirmed in our membership of Christ by the Bishop.
We hold to the faith once delivered by Christ to the saints, the Holy People of God. This Revelation being recorded in Scripture and explained and interpreted by the Holy Fathers in Council and the Consensus of the Greek Fathers of the First three centuries. Any body of Christians who do not hold to this formula and who either add to it,[Rome,] or detract from it, Protestantism] are sects! A sect
is a body of dissidents who secede from the parent or main body, usually on a single principal i.e. baptism or Rome on papalism!

Within the Church there are definitely differences of opinion which leads to seperate Communions, but only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Body of Christ. It has over the centuries become popular to refer to,‘particular churches,’ the term being used by the Anglican Fathers and Continental or Latin Fathers to describe their particular Communion. Today we do not use the term Communion except in reference to the apostate Canterbury Group, which latter name, would in my opinion, be preferable.

The Anglican Church is as pure as any ,'particular church, and finer than most! Not ,‘The, pure church,’ but a pure one! We are talking about different things. The Anglican Church is not ,‘the’ ,Church of God, as it were, that would indeed be foolish, but we are a manifestation of that Church of God.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

On the Continuum blog it says:
***Anglican Catholics believe in infallibility, but they believe that it is found not within the Office of the Pope, but within the Church itself, and that this is best expressed when it is acting as an undivided unity through the medium of the Ecumenical Councils. But since A.D. 1054 this hasn’t happened. As a result the pronouncements and decisions of Church Council’s within the Roman Catholic Church, such as the Council of Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II are not considered to have the same authority.

We do however recognise and give due honour to the Pope as Bishop of Rome and as Patriarch of the West on the ancient principle of primus inter pares. He is the ‘first among equals’ in the episcopate and has a special role and responsibility because of this.***

Note the Bishop of Rome was given this title by the Church and the patriarchy of the East was settled on the Bishop of New Rome some time after! *The Gift of the Church!
*

It’s fascinating. I find it interesting how the Pope is the “Patriarch of the West,” a title Pope Benedict XVI has dropped actually, and the “primus inter pares” and that the Anglican Church views infallibility only in the form of an ecumenical council.

 

[Padrej]

On the Continuum blog it says:
***Anglican Catholics believe in infallibility, but they believe that it is found not within the Office of the Pope, but within the Church itself, and that this is best expressed when it is acting as an undivided unity through the medium of the Ecumenical Councils. But since A.D. 1054 this hasn’t happened. As a result the pronouncements and decisions of Church Council’s within the Roman Catholic Church, such as the Council of Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II are not considered to have the same authority.

We do however recognise and give due honour to the Pope as Bishop of Rome and as Patriarch of the West on the ancient principle of primus inter pares. He is the ‘first among equals’ in the episcopate and has a special role and responsibility because of this.***

It’s fascinating. I find it interesting how the Pope is the “Patriarch of the West,” a title Pope Benedict XVI has dropped actually, and the “primus inter pares” and that the Anglican Church views infallibility only in the form of an ecumenical council. Since these Anglicans reject the pope, the reject the primus inter pares, the first among equals, and they can’t possibly sit at his table. He has authority, just not authority that is worth listening to evidently…and anyone seeking reconciliation with him is a sell-out. Patriarch of the West, first among equals, but staying out of communion with him is the right move…and ecumenical councils are the only way to assure correct doctrine yet we haven’t had one in this millenium really and since the entire Church of East and West plus Anglicans isn’t united so there won’t be any more councils, how is it possible to hammer out doctrine and make decisions about moral situations that would be infallible? The Anglicans admitedly here make it impossible to come to solutions.
Pope = head chief among equals at the head of table
Pope is not to be followed
Council = infallible
No councils in 1,000 years = impossible to hammer out truth and theology

Sounds great. Father Hart and company are interesting to say the least.

This is why I say Fr. Hart’s theology is tainted and weak as it contradicts itself. You have just proven my point. This is why I have been so harsh on Luckyfredsdad as he seems to be falling lockstep into this theology. No disrespect intended to him but the 39 articles which he claims to espouse would also take him away from this line of thinking.

To view the Pope as a collegial Authority would be a correct Anglican view (Just as the Orthodox do) but that would be as far as that debate should really go by traditional Anglicanism.

 

[Padrej]

I was taught in the last century, by my Bishop, that there is only One Church, that is the Catholic Church,the Body of Christ and we are made members by Baptism and later we are confirmed in our membership of Christ by the Bishop.
We hold to the faith once delivered by Christ to the saints, the Holy People of God. This Revelation being recorded in Scripture and explained and interpreted by the Holy Fathers in Council and the Consensus of the Greek Fathers of the First three centuries. Any body of Christians who do not hold to this formula and who either add to it,[Rome,] or detract from it, Protestantism] are sects! A sect
is a body of dissidents who secede from the parent or main body, usually on a single principal i.e. baptism or Rome on papalism!

 

[GKC]

Not much here that I would call for pistols at dawn over.

GKC

I was taught in the last century, by my Bishop, that there is only One Church, that is the Catholic Church,the Body of Christ and we are made members by Baptism and later we are confirmed in our membership of Christ by the Bishop.
We hold to the faith once delivered by Christ to the saints, the Holy People of God. This Revelation being recorded in Scripture and explained and interpreted by the Holy Fathers in Council and the Consensus of the Greek Fathers of the First three centuries. Any body of Christians who do not hold to this formula and who either add to it,[Rome,] or detract from it, Protestantism] are sects! A sect
is a body of dissidents who secede from the parent or main body, usually on a single principal i.e. baptism or Rome on papalism!

Within the Church there are definitely differences of opinion which leads to seperate Communions, but only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Body of Christ. It has over the centuries become popular to refer to,‘particular churches,’ the term being used by the Anglican Fathers and Continental or Latin Fathers to describe their particular Communion. Today we do not use the term Communion except in reference to the apostate Canterbury Group, which latter name, would in my opinion, be preferable.

The Anglican Church is as pure as any ,'particular church, and finer than most! Not ,‘The, pure church,’ but a pure one! We are talking about different things. The Anglican Church is not ,‘the’ ,Church of God, as it were, that would indeed be foolish, but we are a manifestation of that Church of God.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Not much here that I would call for pistols at dawn over.

GKC

This is going to far! I’m going to have to eat humble pie and apologise!
To much , far to much>

But thanks.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

I do withdraw my remarks about Beria, and the Stasi. The fact remains however that the popes used the Roman polis and army to enforce their will! Leo did have S.Vincent of Lerins and carted over the Alps in the middle of winter!