The Anglican Church (Church of England)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dave

Guest
I keep hearing that the Anglican church is pretty much the same as the Catholic church (although obviously not in communion with Rome). But, how close is it really? Does it teach the doctrine of purgatory? Intercession of saints? The sacrament of reconciliation? Or is it just another protestant church that kind of looks like a Catholic church because of their liturgy?

Just curious…
 
40.png
Dave:
I keep hearing that the Anglican church is pretty much the same as the Catholic church (although obviously not in communion with Rome). But, how close is it really? Does it teach the doctrine of purgatory? Intercession of saints? The sacrament of reconciliation? Or is it just another protestant church that kind of looks like a Catholic church because of their liturgy?

Just curious…
Click to expand...
The Anglican Church teaches all those doctrines–and none of them.

The problem is that the Church of England and its associated churches (in this country, the Episcopal Church) are theological hodgepodges.

If you belong to the “high church” party in the Anglican Church, you believe as a traditional Catholic believes: seven efficacious sacraments, purgatory, the apostolic succession, the intercession of saints.

If you belong to the “low church” party, you believe much like the Baptists: in none of those things.

If you belong to the “broad church” party (which is to say the liberal party), you believe in many of those things but empty them of their meaning.

Of course, even the “high church” Anglicans do not have a valid priesthood, which means that in the Anglican Church you will not find, for instance, a valid Eucharist.
 
Karl’s assessment of the theology of the Anglican communion is correct. It is pretty much all over the map.

However, the assertion that Anglican orders are invalid is based on the document Apostolica Curae (AC), promulgated in the late 19th century, and answered by the bishops of the Church of England shortly thereafter. The key is whether AC is infallible or not. I believe Cardinal Ratzinger asserted as much recently, but I also believe that there is some debate on that point.

Rather than rehash the whole debate, I’ll point you to some documents so that you can read them yourself.
 
As well as what Mr Keating mentioned dont forgot the Branch Theory, some still follow this. This means that the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican Churches make up The Church, Body of Christ. Whether or not the majority of Anglicans follow this or not I dont know, the Queen doesnt exactly do her job as head of their church.
 
40.png
MorphRC:
As well as what Mr Keating mentioned dont forgot the Branch Theory, some still follow this. This means that the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican Churches make up The Church, Body of Christ. Whether or not the majority of Anglicans follow this or not I dont know, the Queen doesnt exactly do her job as head of their church.
Click to expand...
that may very well be what keating, brilliant mind that he is, teaches, but it is not what the church teaches. the church teaches that the orthodox churches are in communion but seperated, but not the anglicans. thus, an orthodox catholic could take communion during mass but an anglican could not. also, roman catholics are permitted to take communion at eastern orthodox masses, but not at anglican.
 
The Anglican church doesnt know what it teaches! They say this, but then say this, then theres a split, yet there in communion, but not in communion, Mass is valid to certain types, others disregard it, Anglicanism is as organized as protestantism is.
 
40.png
promethius:
that may very well be what keating, brilliant mind that he is, teaches, but it is not what the church teaches.
Click to expand...
In reference to what you are inferring that Karl is teaching (the “branch” theory); I don’t think that is what he said at all. In fact, his note doesn’t really address whether the Anglican Church is in schism or is protestant. He merely discusses what they believe.

Having just converted from the Episcopal Church, I can say that his description is pretty much dead on. As a matter of fact, it was this “everything and nothing” set of doctrine that got me searching for some solid teaching 5 years ago. Thankfully I stumbled onto Ave Maria Radio out of Ann Arbor, Michigan. The programming there (including Catholic Answers :D, Al Kresta and Scott Hahn) are what led me to the Catholic Church.

To be honest, I think it is painfully obvious that the Anglican Communion (esp. the Episcopal Church in the USA) doesn’t have valid ordinations. It has been infallibly taught that women cannot be ordained as priests (Women and the Priesthood) and the Anglican Church does so. And last year they ordained an openly homosexual man as a bishop. Without a valid priesthood, their claim to apostolic succession was broken long ago and any chance for the other sacraments to be valid are gone.

Incidentally, the specific facts of women and actively homosexual men being ordained were NOT why I left the Episcopal Church; they are symptomatic of it. The reason I converted was that the Catholic Church had and still has the full deposit of the faith and has not changed or compromised it, while all other churches and or communities that are not in communion with Rome have changed and/or compromised the faith.

God bless,

Ken
 
What a pleasure it was for me to meet the Rt. Rev. Graham Leonard, former Bishop of London, who is now an ordinary Catholic priest in the city he once served as bishop.

He was recently given the honorary title of “monsignor,” but he can never be a Catholic bishop because he’s married.

Of his Catholicism, he says: I should have done it [become a Catholic] years ago.

He was 46 years an Anglican priest. 30 years an Anglican bishop. Became a Catholic April, 1994.

Deo gratias!
 
To briefly show you how far away from the Catholic Church the Anglicans are, a fairly recent poll of their clergy indicated that about a third of them do not believe in the Resurrection of Jesus!!!
 
The Church of England is schismatic with protestant influence. Henry VIII broke from the church and established himself as the head so he could divorce Katherine of Argon and marry his mistress. Thus was the beginning of the “high church”. However, as time rolled on, it became schismatic in doctrine within itself, as all of the non-Catholic denominations have done. John Wesley led the first break-away with the establishment of his Method. I defer to Mr. Keating for a description of the other aspects of this collective of conflicting beliefs.
 
I agree with Karl and kenmraz - both are correct in their assessment of the Anglican Church
I am a convert from Anglicanism - Easter vigil 2003.
I was baptized Anglican - Married an Anglican girl - who by the way did not convert with me. A touchy subject She believes I was hit to hard on the head or something.
I love the Anglican liturgy (especially the music)
My reason for converting is much the same as kenmraz.
It is beyond me why high anclicans don’t jus come home.
 
I’m a convert from the Episcopal Church, and - no kidding! - when a new person came to the church, we used to tell him, “You can believe whatever you want, just come to our church”(!) The sad thing is that it took so long for me to see the fallacy in this statement; sadder still that so many others still can’t see the fallacy.

Apologia - I believe John Wesley wasn’t the first breakaway from Anglicanism, but his Methodism is one of the largest.

Pax,

Dean
 
Carl said:
To briefly show you how far away from the Catholic Church the Anglicans are, a fairly recent poll of their clergy indicated that about a third of them do not believe in the Resurrection of Jesus!!!
Click to expand...
er…has anyone polled the Roman Catholic clergy to see what percentage of *them *believe in the resurrection of Jesus?
 
I attended what would probably be classified as a high Anglican church.

As far as I know, they did not believe in purgatory, but reconciliation was available if one chose to do it, and praying to the saints was allowed, but much less emphasis was put on it. The Episcopal Church does recognise the saints.

The most beautiful church services I have gone to, outside of Orthodox services, have been high church Anglican services.
 
Katholikos said:
What a pleasure it was for me to meet the Rt. Rev. Graham Leonard, former Bishop of London, who is now an ordinary Catholic priest in the city he once served as bishop.

He was recently given the honorary title of “monsignor,” but he can never be a Catholic bishop because he’s married.

Of his Catholicism, he says: I should have done it [become a Catholic] years ago.

He was 46 years an Anglican priest. 30 years an Anglican bishop. Became a Catholic April, 1994.

Deo gratias!
Click to expand...
And he was ordained sub conditione, which shows that there are at least minute cracks in Apostolicae Curae.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
Karl_Keating said:
The Anglican Church teaches all those doctrines–and none of them.

The problem is that the Church of England and its associated churches (in this country, the Episcopal Church) are theological hodgepodges.

If you belong to the “high church” party in the Anglican Church, you believe as a traditional Catholic believes: seven efficacious sacraments, purgatory, the apostolic succession, the intercession of saints.

If you belong to the “low church” party, you believe much like the Baptists: in none of those things.

If you belong to the “broad church” party (which is to say the liberal party), you believe in many of those things but empty them of their meaning.

Of course, even the “high church” Anglicans do not have a valid priesthood, which means that in the Anglican Church you will not find, for instance, a valid Eucharist.
Click to expand...
As an Anglo-Catholic, not in communion with Canterbury, I can agree generally with everything said here. Down to the last paragraph.

Anglicans are like that. But certainly a RC should concur with the final statement (issues of the co-consecration of Anglican bishops by OC/PNCC bishops aside).

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
GKC said:
As an Anglo-Catholic, not in communion with Canterbury, I can agree generally with everything said here. Down to the last paragraph.

Anglicans are like that. But certainly a RC should concur with the final statement (issues of the co-consecration of Anglican bishops by OC/PNCC bishops aside).

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but how can you be Anglo-Catholic and not be in communion with Canterbury, are you a member of Primate John Hepworth Church?
 
Chellow said:
I’m sorry but how can you be Anglo-Catholic and not be in communion with Canterbury, are you a member of Primate John Hepworth Church?
Click to expand...
No, but I am the same sort of thing; a traditional Anglican, in what is known generically as the Anglican Continuum (a Continuing Anglican). Such are also the members of the Traditional Anglican Communion (which is represented in the US by the Anglican Church in America) under Archbishop Hepworth, as Primate.

Archbishop Hepworth’s group does not exhaust the concept of Anglican Not in Communion With Canterbury.

GKC

*posterus traditus Anglicanus *
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top