To Anglicans/Episcopalians

[Atreyu]

What would it take for the Anglican Communion to come back into communion with the Roman Catholic Church? I intend this question to be answered by Anglicans; I want to know what problems you see need to be overcome. Also, do you think we should strive towards coming back into communion?

From the Catholic point of view, fundamentally I would say that you have to acknowledge the primacy of the bishop of Rome to come back into communion. If you can acknowledge this one thing, then every other difference in doctrine can be overcome.

 

[mercygate]

Atreyu:

What would it take for the Anglican Communion to come back into communion with the Roman Catholic Church? I intend this question to be answered by Anglicans; I want to know what problems you see need to be overcome. Also, do you think we should strive towards coming back into communion?

From the Catholic point of view, fundamentally I would say that you have to acknowledge the primacy of the bishop of Rome to come back into communion. If you can acknowledge this one thing, then every other difference in doctrine can be overcome.

I was an Anglican for 40 years: Full-blown Anglo-Catholic with all the bells, smells, sacraments and even not practicing contraception. But most Anglicans are not so theologically katholick. Even among the Anglo-Catholics, who have all the catholic trimmings and much of the theology, there are many who have a deep-seated anti-Romanism. Very deep.

I personally believe that outreach is a good thing. Dialogue is a good thing. But that there will not be communion. The back of that was broken by the ordination of women.

“Communion” will be on a one-by-one basis. There are full congregations that have come over; in the US they may choose to come in under the Pastoral Provision and worship according to the Vatican approved Anglican Use.

Rome has made extraordinary outreach and accommodation to incoming Anglicans – who are generally accustomed to a pretty sophisticated style of worship and suffer a catastrophic culture shock when they come to Rome.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Perhaps this is out of sync with the thread. Could we have some discussion of the historical reality? Was it a mass movement of the English people or something driven by Henry VIII and his nobles/ecclesiastical authorities? Please do not hand me the Wycliff argument. Translations of the Bible existed in Old English.

 

[rjs1]

brotherhrolf:

Perhaps this is out of sync with the thread. Could we have some discussion of the historical reality? Was it a mass movement of the English people or something driven by Henry VIII and his nobles/ecclesiastical authorities? Please do not hand me the Wycliff argument. Translations of the Bible existed in Old English.

It was driven by a totally autocratic king whom most people were terrified of disobeying, because the penalty was a hideous death. By making himself the head of the church in England Henry made objection to the new religion the same as treason and the penalty for treason was hanging, drawing, quartering. Only the courageous few had the courage to oppose this. Many suffered torture and death for doing so. The majority however gave in. The powerful landowners and nobility sided with Henry because they were given the confiscated Church lands and buildings.
The whole event was a sordid, sorry time in British history.

When you investigate the real spiritual health of Britain BEFORE Henry, it is a far more glorious story than the Protestant rewriters of history would have us believe. The monastries were the hospitals, universities, schools and social welfare agents of society. Henry’s cynical destruction of them on flimsy pretexts caused incredible suffering to the ordinary people which historians have not yet been really honest about.

I could say much more but I suggest you start reading the historical, political background to why Henry did what he did and take time to consider the number of his own friends and colleagues he had executed, simply because they would not agree that he was now head of the Church, after 1500 years, instead of the Pope.

A close look at Henry VIII shows a despotic, lustful, vicious man - not the sort I would have thought to be able to proclaim himself the head of the church!

 

[pgoings]

As someone who was raised from birth as an Anglo-Catholic, I would say that there are two main issues for me personally:

1. A purely human fear of losing the relationships which I have with my friends at church. They are closer to me and my wife than our own families. Even if we all converted simultaneously we’d end up in separate parishes which is difficult to accept. (Note that we are fully aware of the existence of the Anglican Use, but it requires you to have a priest who is converting with you.)
2. Fear of the “catastrophic culture shock” which** mercygate** mentions above.

Doctrinally and morally there are no issues at all.

Any suggestions?

Paul Goings

 

[mercygate]

pgoings:

As someone who was raised from birth as an Anglo-Catholic, I would say that there are two main issues for me personally:

1. A purely human fear of losing the relationships which I have with my friends at church. They are closer to me and my wife than our own families. Even if we all converted simultaneously we’d end up in separate parishes which is difficult to accept. (Note that we are fully aware of the existence of the Anglican Use, but it requires you to have a priest who is converting with you.)
2. Fear of the “catastrophic culture shock” which** mercygate** mentions above.

Doctrinally and morally there are no issues at all.

Any suggestions?

Paul Goings

Yup. Realize that in order to be grafted into the Body of Christ on his terms you may have to suffer those losses.

If you want God on his own terms, you just have to stand what goes on on Sunday mornings. It is a very powerful form of penance.

 

[GKC]

Atreyu:

What would it take for the Anglican Communion to come back into communion with the Roman Catholic Church? I intend this question to be answered by Anglicans; I want to know what problems you see need to be overcome. Also, do you think we should strive towards coming back into communion?

From the Catholic point of view, fundamentally I would say that you have to acknowledge the primacy of the bishop of Rome to come back into communion. If you can acknowledge this one thing, then every other difference in doctrine can be overcome.

Many Anglians do acknowledge the primacy of the bishop of Rome. It’s the issue of supremacy that throws up a barrier.

GKC

 

[Atreyu]

GKC:

Many Anglians do acknowledge the primacy of the bishop of Rome. It’s the issue of supremacy that throws up a barrier.

GKC

Care to elaborate?

 

[GKC]

Atreyu:

Care to elaborate?

Anglo-Catholics, and some other species of the genus, have no problem ackowledging the Pope as primate of the western Church, primus inter pares. In my parish, it is common when we pray for all Godly and orthdox bishops, to include Benedict by name, and that because we do so recognise him. But we don’t acknowledge his supremacy, as possessing universal ordinary authority over the Church. One of the things which makes us Anglo-Catholics, not Roman Catholics.

GKC

 

[flameburns623]

Atreyu:

What would it take for the Anglican Communion to come back into communion with the Roman Catholic Church? I intend this question to be answered by Anglicans; I want to know what problems you see need to be overcome. Also, do you think we should strive towards coming back into communion?

From the Catholic point of view, fundamentally I would say that you have to acknowledge the primacy of the bishop of Rome to come back into communion. If you can acknowledge this one thing, then every other difference in doctrine can be overcome.

I actually don’t think I would want the Anglican Churches to come into full communion with the RCC. I’d much rather the RCC set aside the primacy of the Papacy, among other things, and come into full communion with us.

 

[mercygate]

flameburns623:

I actually don’t think I would want the Anglican Churches to come into full communion with the RCC. I’d much rather the RCC set aside the primacy of the Papacy, among other things, and come into full communion with us.

For those who may not appreciate the subtleties of Anglican humor, I am sure flameburns623 is joking. Right, flame?

 

[buzzcut]

flameburns623:

I’d much rather the RCC set aside the primacy of the Papacy, among other things, and come into full communion with us.

It’s like the apocryphal headline in a London newspaper . . .

Fog in Channel

Continent Isolated

 

[flameburns623]

mercygate:

For those who may not appreciate the subtleties of Anglican humor, I am sure flameburns623 is joking. Right, flame?

:angel1:

 

[JOHNYJ]

The Episcopal church USA use to be called the Republican party at prayer. One might say its now an example of how far the mighty have fallen.Since the 1970’s when the Episcopal church adopted very liberal ideas it has lost over a million members.At the present time the Episcopal church USA has been suspended from active membership ,in the world wide Anglican communion .For its latest aberation making an active homosexual a bishop.
It is wise to note that Episcopalians/Anglicans are just another protestant sect .

 

[mercygate]

JOHNYJ:

The Episcopal church USA use to be called the Republican party at prayer.

We used to call ourselves “The Church of England in the Colonies.”

 

[brotherhrolf]

rjs1:

It was driven by a totally autocratic king whom most people were terrified of disobeying, because the penalty was a hideous death. By making himself the head of the church in England Henry made objection to the new religion the same as treason and the penalty for treason was hanging, drawing, quartering. Only the courageous few had the courage to oppose this. Many suffered torture and death for doing so. The majority however gave in. The powerful landowners and nobility sided with Henry because they were given the confiscated Church lands and buildings.
The whole event was a sordid, sorry time in British history.

When you investigate the real spiritual health of Britain BEFORE Henry, it is a far more glorious story than the Protestant rewriters of history would have us believe. The monastries were the hospitals, universities, schools and social welfare agents of society. Henry’s cynical destruction of them on flimsy pretexts caused incredible suffering to the ordinary people which historians have not yet been really honest about.

I could say much more but I suggest you start reading the historical, political background to why Henry did what he did and take time to consider the number of his own friends and colleagues he had executed, simply because they would not agree that he was now head of the Church, after 1500 years, instead of the Pope.

A close look at Henry VIII shows a despotic, lustful, vicious man - not the sort I would have thought to be able to proclaim himself the head of the church!

Indeed. Exactly what I was getting at. I am a descendant of English Catholics and know the great Catholic faith of the English people before Henry VIII. St. Dunstan has been my patron saint for many a year. It was politics not religion which split the English church from HMC.

 

[GKC]

“It was politics not religion which split the English church from HMC.”

It was that indeed. Including the politics relative to Charles V, and the decision on Hank’s quest for a decree of nullity.

GKC

 

[brotherhrolf]

“It was politics not religion which split the English church from HMC.”

It was that indeed. Including the politics relative to Charles V, and the decision on Hank’s quest for a decree of nullity.

GKC

Ah the Papacy and the nobilty. One has to wonder how JPII would have handled the situation. A Catholic England? Would that have affected Scotland? Such an age! So many questions.

 

[GKC]

brotherhrolf:

Ah the Papacy and the nobilty. One has to wonder how JPII would have handled the situation. A Catholic England? Would that have affected Scotland? Such an age! So many questions.

Better than Clement , I’ll warrant.

And maybe Scotland, sure. It was as Magaret of Scotland that Henry’s sister got the 2 decrees of nullity that she sought, about that time, on far flimsier grounds.

History is fascinating.

GKC

 

[rjs1]

GKC:

Better than Clement , I’ll warrant.

And maybe Scotland, sure. It was as Magaret of Scotland that Henry’s sister got the 2 decrees of nullity that she sought, about that time, on far flimsier grounds.

History is fascinating.

GKC

Perhaps I am “old fashioned”, perhaps I am naive, or perhaps it is my orthodox Catholic faith but I believe God guided the Pope to make exactly the right decision regarding Henry’s request for nulity. The more you study Catherine of Aragon’s life and letters the more you realise what a magnificent woman of faith she was. To have granted the nulity, to have declared her a “non wife” and her daughter illigitimate, would have been a crime against humanity. The cynics who keep arguing that Clement acted merely out of political fear are, as usual, leaving God completely out of the picture.

Anne Boleyn was a young, immature, scheming girl, used by powerful, ambitious and despotic relatives to gain a power base at the top of the kingdom. Conjecturing on some supposed ideal had the Pope decided for annulment flies in the face of the subsequent reality. Once Henry replaced Catherine with Anne that did not end his longings or his ruthlessness to which four more wives give witness. Historians now recognise that Henry’s last wife, Catherine Parr, as well as surviving a very “close call” with Henry, later continued to come under increasing danger, and had he lived much longer she too may have ended on the block.