Rome tells Anglicans: it's time to decide if you are Protestants or Catholics

[Primrose]

There is a long Anglican tradition of perceiving the C of E as the Middle Way (“Via Media”) between the “extremes” of the Puritans and Rome. It’s a very conscious distinction/situation, not a case of just not having made up their minds about which side they’re on.

This situation allows some parties in the Anglican Communion to emphasize a Reformed theology and tradition and others to embrace a more Catholic theology and tradition; yet they’re all full members of the C of E, equally Anglican. This autonomy is at the parish level: there are Anglo-Catholic parishes, more Reformed Anglican parishes, and run-of-the-mill liberal Anglican parishes, and which ever side an individual Anglican feels “called” to that’s the kind of parish he or she chooses to become a part of in their faith life. (I can imagine certain Anglicans attending certain Anglican parishes and being horrified at what they saw and heard, like a Catholic showing up at a Calvinist worship service.)

In sum, the Church of England has become kind of its own ball of wax. As much as I’d LOVE to see the C of E reunite with Rome – imagine a distinct, ancient Anglican Rite in full communion with Rome! I might switch over to that myself! – I don’t think they as a Church see a need for making a defining decision between Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy. Their identity lies in-between.

Please excuse my ignorance. I was brought up C of E (but my family stopped going when I was 9).

I always thought the Anglican church was the C of E? I only found out yesterday that the Anglican church believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary and the Immacuate conception of Mary. And although they don’t believe in the eucharist being Jesus they do believe in a ‘Holy Presence’. I have tried to get information on doctrine on their website but find it impossible. At least the Catholics have a Catechism (no disrespect meant)

Last month when the Vicar mentioned about the immaculate conception a parishioner went up to him and called him a heretic!!! So I am so confused!!!

So is the Anglican church the High Church of England, and the C of E is a middle ground where they don’t believe in Mary’s immaculate conception? It’s as clear as mud to me!!!

Primrose:shrug:

 

[Primrose]

The Catholic Church has weathered greater storms than this, pal, numerous times.

If anything, it is Islam that is on the way out, thanks to the Jihadis in their ranks and their supporters. Word on the street is, stay away from those kill-crazed Muslims.

Just released in the news in the Uk that muslims will out number Christians in 3 years. Having said that the Catholic church is getting bigger (due to the influx of Polish)

Primrose

 

[Sam_777]

Just released in the news in the Uk that muslims will out number Christians in 3 years.

Thanks to the unlimited polygamy.

 

[Primrose]

Nota Bene: please do not confuse Britain with England - it confuses the history of the Reformation (for instance) horribly. Thank you for your co-operation.

United Kingdom= England, Scotland, & Wales
Great Britain= England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland
British Isles= England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland

 

[nsper7]

Please excuse my ignorance. I was brought up C of E (but my family stopped going when I was 9).

I always thought the Anglican church was the C of E? I only found out yesterday that the Anglican church believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary and the Immacuate conception of Mary. And although they don’t believe in the eucharist being Jesus they do believe in a ‘Holy Presence’. I have tried to get information on doctrine on their website but find it impossible. At least the Catholics have a Catechism (no disrespect meant)

Last month when the Vicar mentioned about the immaculate conception a parishioner went up to him and called him a heretic!!! So I am so confused!!!

So is the Anglican church the High Church of England, and the C of E is a middle ground where they don’t believe in Mary’s immaculate conception? It’s as clear as mud to me!!!

Primrose:shrug:

Technically, there is no ‘Anglican Church’. There is the Anglican Communion (which is made up of many Provinces, each led by a Primate [usually an Archbishop or Presiding Bishop]). The Church of England is the English Province of the Anglican Communion and kind of the ‘seed’ province or ‘mother church’ from which every other Anglican province began (where the British Empire spread, so did Anglicanism). The term Communion is used because all Anglican Provinces are in full-communion with the Church of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury is Primate of the Church of England and primus inter pares (first among equals) among all the other Anglican Primates. We talk about instruments of communion that hold the Anglican Communion togethers, among these are the Archbishop of Canterbury (the spiritual head of Anglicanism), the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting.

There is also the Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral which is used primarily for ecumenical relations and establishes Anglican identity:

1. The Holy Scriptures (OT and NT)
2. The Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds
3. The two Christ ordained Sacraments (Baptism and Holy Eucharsit)
4. The historic episcopate

In America, when we talk about the Episcopal Church, that is technically a misnomer. ‘Episcopal’ describes the polity of the Church (led by bishops, or the historic episcopate) and the full name is actually the Episcopal Church in the Unites States of America (there are other Anglican Provinces that have ‘Episcopal Church’ in their name, including in the Sudan and also in Jerusalem/Middle East).

 

[GKC]

Please excuse my ignorance. I was brought up C of E (but my family stopped going when I was 9).

I always thought the Anglican church was the C of E? I only found out yesterday that the Anglican church believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary and the Immacuate conception of Mary. And although they don’t believe in the eucharist being Jesus they do believe in a ‘Holy Presence’. I have tried to get information on doctrine on their website but find it impossible. At least the Catholics have a Catechism (no disrespect meant)

Last month when the Vicar mentioned about the immaculate conception a parishioner went up to him and called him a heretic!!! So I am so confused!!!

So is the Anglican church the High Church of England, and the C of E is a middle ground where they don’t believe in Mary’s immaculate conception? It’s as clear as mud to me!!!

Primrose:shrug:

Anglicanism is a muddle and always has been. And I’m one of them.

I’m going to supplement nsper7’s post with a C&P of something I said to address this question, long ago.

Anglicans were, originally, just the Church of England, when Hank took the Church in England private, 450+ years ago… From the outset, there was a range of confused opinion in the CoE, with some folks happily splitting from Rome, lots not so happily wondering what the ganars was going on, many fighting the whole idea. There was a resulting range of doctrine in the CoE that ran from reformed/ evangelical, to (eventually) Anglo-Catholic, with stops in between. Thus you will find Anglcains who affirm the Real Presence, or perpetual virginity of the BVM,(for example) and those who do not. This untidy mess lived together under what we referred to as the Elizabethan Compromise, which sort of kept a general order amongst the unruly. Point is, there is a wide variety in what is now known as Anglicanism, and always has been.

In the early 19th century, beginning with the Oxford movement and the Tractarians (including Newman) and later including the Ritualist movement, there was conscious development of a flavor of Anglicanism that came to be called Anglo-Catholic, that sought to reclaim the essential Catholic roots of Anglicanism. I’m one of those types.The terms “high” or “low” church refer more directly to “churchmanship” (how many candles on the altar, what kind of vestments), and Evangelical or Anglo-Catholic more to doctrine, but there is a great deal of overlap between the categories. Anglo-Catholic is always high, evangelical almost always lower.

Anglicanism, as I said, was originally just the CoE. The CoE spread, following the British Empire, and eventually became what we have now, the official Worldwide Anglican Communion, under the titular headship of the Archbishop of Canterbury, comprised of 38 self-governing basically national churches. Within these churches reside all manner of Anglican opinion, though heterodoxy with a touch of apostasy seems to be the rage currently. Frequently, the name of the national church will include the word “Anglican”, as in the Anglican Church of Canada, of South Africa, of Australia, etc. But not always. Obviously, the mother church of them all is the Church of England. And in this country, the official representative church in the official Anglican Communion is the Episcopal Church (TEC), USA. So, some Anglicans are in the CoE, but not all. All members of the CoE are Anglican, but that doesn’t exhaust the category. And Anglicans can be found affirming a wide range of doctrine, from evangelical reformed, to Anglo-Catholic.

And all that doesn’t touch on the Anglicans who are no longer in communion wih Canterbury. It’s all messy, yes.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Primrose]

Thankyou GKC for that:thumbsup: . I must say that I have certainly been educated on theology and history since joining this forum.

The more I learn the more I am leaning towards Catholicism.
Praise the Lord that there is somewhere where we can debate and be educated.
Primrose

 

[Primrose]

Technically, there is no ‘Anglican Church’. There is the Anglican Communion (which is made up of many Provinces, each led by a Primate [usually an Archbishop or Presiding Bishop]). The Church of England is the English Province of the Anglican Communion and kind of the ‘seed’ province or ‘mother church’ from which every other Anglican province began (where the British Empire spread, so did Anglicanism). The term Communion is used because all Anglican Provinces are in full-communion with the Church of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury is Primate of the Church of England and primus inter pares (first among equals) among all the other Anglican Primates. We talk about instruments of communion that hold the Anglican Communion togethers, among these are the Archbishop of Canterbury (the spiritual head of Anglicanism), the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting.

There is also the Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral which is used primarily for ecumenical relations and establishes Anglican identity:

1. The Holy Scriptures (OT and NT)
2. The Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds
3. The two Christ ordained Sacraments (Baptism and Holy Eucharsit)
4. The historic episcopate

In America, when we talk about the Episcopal Church, that is technically a misnomer. ‘Episcopal’ describes the polity of the Church (led by bishops, or the historic episcopate) and the full name is actually the Episcopal Church in the Unites States of America (there are other Anglican Provinces that have ‘Episcopal Church’ in their name, including in the Sudan and also in Jerusalem/Middle East).

Again I am claiming ignorance, but who are Episcopal? Is that another breakaway from Catholism?

Primrose:shrug:

 

[MelanieAnne]

Again I am claiming ignorance, but who are Episcopal? Is that another breakaway from Catholism?

Primrose:shrug:

I was Episcopalian once. It is basically the US version of the Church of England, but there are some differences. For now, the Episcopal church is within the Anglican Communion, but they seem to be going down a different path, so it’s hard to say if they will remain within the Anglican Communion.

Not waiting for these things to be all sorted out, and with the Episcopal Church going more and more “out there”, I became Catholic

 

[nsper7]

Again I am claiming ignorance, but who are Episcopal? Is that another breakaway from Catholism?

Primrose:shrug:

The Episcopal Church (of the United States of America) is the American Province of the Anglican Communion.

 

[thirdn6]

To G of G,

Let’s not complicate simple statements- my statements.

1. I said, the Catholic Church is teaching the fullness of truth with the guidance of the HS which is biblical.
2. Like you, most of us Catholics are sinners.
3. Anglicans are not members of the Catholic Church. They are members of one of the provinces of the Anglican Communion. They have the bible as their sole authority in matters of faith.

Now, you agreed that the CC is holy- but is without sin and always in need of reform.
The teachings and doctrines of the Church is not to be mistaken or judged as errors or sins which are to be attributed to its human individual erring members. The conduct and abuses of some members do not make the teachings and doctrines false.

If it needs reforms, it should only be effected by its members- not by members from any religion or denomination unless they convert first and become members of the CC. The deposit of faith is closed. Whatever had been declared as doctrines can no longer be changed.

The members are always in need of personal reforms or transformations to draw them closer to God thru Jesus- not the Church! That’s why I said, as members of the Catholic Church we can be washed clean, purged, and nourished again and again thru the holy sacraments until we become pure, unblemished, spotless in the eyes of the Lord- to be His bride. No matter how much a person is mired in the mud he can be washed clean. That is why we have valid priests even in prisons to attend to those who are in death rows (I’m talking about real criminals here) that they may convert in their hearts and be cleansed. No matter how much scrubbing you would do you can not remove a tattoo in your body. No matter what Anglicanism do its doctrines and teachings will always poison the minds of the innocents.

Anybody can not say that one can become a member of Christ’s body without becoming a member of His visible Church- that is a heresy of individualism! And one can not say that it doesn’t matter which church one belongs so long as one profess that one is Christian- a heresy of relativism! If these statements are false, there is no reason for the Cardinal to ask Anglicans to decide whether they are protestants or ‘c’atholics.

If you are an Anglican pastor, or a minister, or a priest(?)- we have nothing to argue or discuss anymore. You have 7,000 plus posts in here and I see you as placing a “buffer zone” to those who are seeking the truth and swimming their way to Rome.

Anyway, I am a mere construction worker who happen to be a faithful Roman Catholic. We are building real bridges NOT “monkey” bridges.

God bless.

 

[GKC]

thirdn6,

Not to derail the thread, but Anglicans do not subscribe to sola scriptura. What you might find them subscribing to, in regards to faith, varies, but could include the first four Ecumenical Councils, or maybe the first seven, the major Creeds, and the occasional ruling from Rome.

Generally speaking, it is extremely difficult to make generalizations about Anglicans.

GKC

 

[nsper7]

thirdn6,

Not to derail the thread, but Anglicans do not subscribe to sola scriptura. What you might find them subscribing to, in regards to faith, varies, but could include the first four Ecumenical Councils, or maybe the first seven, the major Creeds, and the occasional ruling from Rome.

Generally speaking, it is extremely difficult to make generalizations about Anglicans.

GKC

In terms of Scripture, there are multiple views. More evangelical/‘low’ Church Anglicans might be Sola Scripturaists (albeit normative, not regulative) and they’d probably vew the Creeds, Ecumenical Councils, etc. as almost systematic interpretations of Scripture, but definitely not on par with it at all. Anglo-Catholics might take the typical Roman Catholic view of Scripture and Sacred Tradition (big ‘T’) as being equal in authority. Many take the three-legged-stool approach (Scripture, Tradition and human reason…all pretty much equal). Others, like my Chaplain, take the tri-cycle approach: Scripture=big wheel, Tradition and human reason=two little wheels. Thus, Scripture is of supreme authority, but Tradition and reason are also authoritative, albeit to a lesser degree, as well (the old Prima Scriptura).

 

[GKC]

In terms of Scripture, there are multiple views. More evangelical/‘low’ Church Anglicans might be Sola Scripturaists (albeit normative, not regulative) and they’d probably vew the Creeds, Ecumenical Councils, etc. as almost systematic interpretations of Scripture, but definitely not on par with it at all. Anglo-Catholics might take the typical Roman Catholic view of Scripture and Sacred Tradition (big ‘T’) as being equal in authority. Many take the three-legged-stool approach (Scripture, Tradition and human reason…all pretty much equal). Others, like my Chaplain, take the tri-cycle approach: Scripture=big wheel, Tradition and human reason=two little wheels. Thus, Scripture is of supreme authority, but Tradition and reason are also authoritative, albeit to a lesser degree, as well (the old Prima Scriptura).

As noted, it is difficult to make an accurate generalization about Anglicanism.

GKC

 

[thecoach]

The Vatican said last night that the time has come for the Anglican Church to choose between Protestantism and the ancient sacramental Churches of Rome and Orthodoxy.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, told the Catholic Herald that the Anglican Communion must “clarify its identity” and stop hovering between the Catholic and Protestant traditions.

He said: “Ultimately, it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong? Does it belong more to the Churches of the first millennium – Catholic and Orthodox – or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century?

Full articles:

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/may2008/rometellsanglicanstodecide.htm

catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000273.shtml

And the Vatican has the right to dictate to Anglicans because?

 

[Lepanto]

And the Vatican has the right to dictate to Anglicans because?

I see nobody dictating anything. Hard questions are not dictating.

And besides, the Anglicans used to be Catholic.

 

[thecoach]

“The Vatican said last night that the time has come for the Anglican Church to choose between Protestantism and the ancient sacramental Churches of Rome and Orthodoxy.”

That sounds like a question to you? Hmm, seems like dictating to me.

 

[Lilyflower]

As far as I am concerned ‘when Rome has spoken the case is closed’. But I DO have worries about the timing of this request. At a time when relations between Rome and Canterbury are at a low ebb, I just wonder if this is going to further the distance between them and if this issue could have been put on the back-burner until such times as relations improve.

In my experience however, some High Anglican Churches are more catholic than Catholic

Good idea, bad timing.

Just my thoughts.

Blessings

 

[Lepanto]

At a time when relations between Rome and Canterbury are at a low ebb, I just wonder if this is going to further the distance between them and if this issue could have been put on the back-burner until such times as relations improve.

The reason that they are at such a low ebb is because the Anglican Communion has been rapidly and assuredly distancing itself further and further from doctrinal orthodoxy.

Within recent decades, the Anglicans have approved abortion, contraception, female priests, openly homosexual clergy, same-sex “marriage”, have called into question the perpetual virginity of Mary, etc…talk about driving huge wedges!

How much further can the Anglican Communion drift into heresy and sin before it’s not even recognizably Christian? The ecumenical efforts of the past 50 years have proved largely to be failures. Cardinal Kasper is finally calling the Anglicans to wake up before it’s too late for any hope of reunification.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

And besides, the Anglicans used to be Catholic.

This relates to what I was writing earlier–Lepanto, as an Anglican, I have always been Catholic, but as a Catholic, I have never been Roman. I’m sure you’re bound to disagree. But, well, there it is.

thirdn6:

The teachings and doctrines of the Church is not to be mistaken or judged as errors or sins which are to be attributed to its human individual erring members. The conduct and abuses of some members do not make the teachings and doctrines false.

This statement and others in your post got me thinking of something, and perhaps you could clarify. When you speak of the Church, to what are you referring? For the sake of the discussion, let me state what I believe it to be:

1–The community of believers (sinners and saints both) making up the broken body of Christ. (The Church)
and
2–A metaphor for or symbol of the new creation in Christ which describes for us the contours of the reality of our future relationship with Our Lord: that is, that we are “destined” to be the Bride of Christ. (Ecclesia)

In other words, my understanding is that Ecclesia is metaphorical/symbolic in that she represents the reality of the perfection of creation into which we (the Church!) are living by the grace of the Spirit–she is exemplified most perfectly in the Blessed Virgin: Child, Spouse, Mother.

When you write that the Church is not in need of reform or is perfect, I’m assuming that you’re speaking of the figure of Ecclesia, not, for instance, the Roman hierarchy (which is quite possibly imperfect and in need of reform)–and I’m in complete agreement. But it often seems to me that, rather than posit a real relationship between the Church as community and Ecclesia as ideal (that relationship being the Spirit), the Roman tendency is to confuse the two entirely (the hierarchy can do no wrong!), only to separate them out when it is convenient (in the case of scandal, for instance). Wouldn’t it be better not to confuse them in the first place? Wouldn’t it be better to recognize that the Church as community is bigger than Rome, and that the Spirit is guiding it into all truth, into the reality of Ecclesia? And wouldn’t that obviate the need of many Romans to deny that many Christians are part of the Church or are necessarily unclean for not being Roman?

I don’t expect answers to these questions. Just a few thoughts.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!