What's the differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IrishHill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gurneyhalleck1 said:
What about the co-consecrations that reinfused apostolic succession into Anglican bishops known as the Dutch Touch and Polish Pat? Many of these bishops received apostolic succession AND have the anglo-catholic understanding that Roman Catholics and Orthodox bishops have about the priestly sacerdotal, sacrificial ministry of the the priesthood. What would you say to that? They are valid by your criteria.
Click to expand...
You must have quit reading before my paragraph number three. AC came out before any of those issues arose and Rome has conspicuously and steadfastly pretended not to notice the issue ever since. Anglicans make an interesting and compelling argument, but I don’t remotely pretend to be qualified to judge its merits. For me, it’s a moot point as to whether the “Dutch Touch” reattaches the severed branch and upgrades the status of affected Anglican dioceses from separated christian ecclesial communities to schismatic churches. I’m not personally interested in joining either kind. I don’t say that to be smug, it’s just the outcome of the catholic principles involved. But I can sure understand why it is a HUGE issue to those whose beliefs are essentially catholic minus all that papal authority stuff. And SINCE you’ve discarded all that papal interpretive authority stuff I can also understand why you would be satisfied that the logic of the “Dutch Touch” argument removes any lingering doubt about the legitimacy of Anglican apostolic succession. (Though I don’t envy y’all the necessity of investigating your bishop for validity every time you move to a new location!)
 
Having experienced life in the Catholic and Anglican churches, I can list a few:
  1. Anglicans do not believe in the primacy, infallibility or inerracy of the Pope in matters of faith or morals. Anglicans do respect the Pope though (mostly) and recognise the importance he has as the leader of the Roman Catholic Church.
  2. Anglicans do not have a centralised authority like the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith that ‘lays down the law’ on questions of faith or ethics.
  3. Anglicans have a wider range of liturgical ‘styles’ of worship, from the ‘High’ to ‘Low’ Church.
  4. Anglicans allow women to become ordained deacons, priests and bishops, unlike the CC.
  5. Anglicans do not owe unquestioning obedience or assent to what the leaders of the church say on matters of faith and morals.
  6. Anglicans can remarry following a divorce, provided certain conditions are met.
  7. Anglicans can use artificial contraception in good conscience. The offical Roman Catholic view is you cannot.
  8. Anglicans can use IVF and other technology to assist reproduction. The CDF in the RCC has decreed Catholics cannot use these methods in good conscience, even for a good end (to have children).
  9. Anglicans permit members of other non-Anglican churches, provided they are validly baptised and in good standing, to take the Eucharist. The Catholic church only allows Roman Catholics in good standing, Orthodox and in exceptional circumstances, Protestants, to take part in the Eucharist.
  10. The Anglican church holds two sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist, to be the main and most important of the sacraments. Anglicans also have a range of views on the sacraments and whether there are just two, or the seven the Catholic and Orthodox churches add to the list (confirmation, penance, marriage, anointing the sick, and ordination). Some hold these are also sacraments, while to others they are just sacramental rites or rituals, but do not confer the graces that baptism and eucharist do. This contrasts with the Roman Catholic view that there seven sacraments, and all are of equal power and value.
  11. Anglicans believe they have valid sacraments and apostolic succession. The Roman Catholic church holds that the Anglican and Episcopal churches are not true ‘churches’ because they lack valid orders and hence no true sacraments (except baptism). Anglicans do however believe in the validity of Roman Catholic orders and sacraments.
  12. Anglicans use a different form of liturgy from the RCC, based on the Book of Common Prayer. Catholics use the Roman Missal authorised and approved by the relevant authority.
  13. While Anglican churches may be in communion with each other, they are decentralised in terms of leadership and largely autonomous. The Archbishop of Canterbury has no power for example, to make a decree at will that Anglican churches in Australia could not ordain women under pain of excommunication. Likewise, the Archbishop of Canterbury does not appoint and remove Bishops at will. This is in contrast with the Pope, who due to his universal jurisdiction over the church, can do exactly these sorts of things in any Roman Catholic diocese anywhere in the world, no matter how distant or remote from the Vatican.
  14. The Roman Catholic church exercises much tighter control over the views expressed by theologians, bishops, priests, and laypeople than exists in the Anglican church. Quite a number of times Roman Catholic theologians have been dismissed from teaching posts or excommunicated if they don’t tow the official line on some issue. Laypeople have also been disciplined, especially through threats by Bishops in the US and elsewhere that Catholic laypeople who do not obey or assent to the church’s teaching on matters like abortion will be excluded from the sacraments or excommunicated. The Anglican church on the other hand, does not exercise such discipline over its flock, leaving people much freer to form and express their own views on various matters (a real advantage of the Anglican communion over the RCC in my view).
There are lots of other differences as well, in terms of doctrine, spirituality, liturgy, etc. Despite sharing many things, the Anglican/Episcopal church is quite different from the Roman Catholic Church in many ways. I would sum up the differences as ‘centralised control’ vs ‘dispersed autonomy’ in terms of church structure and leadership.
 
manualman said:
You must have quit reading before my paragraph number three. AC came out before any of those issues arose and Rome has conspicuously and steadfastly pretended not to notice the issue ever since. Anglicans make an interesting and compelling argument, but I don’t remotely pretend to be qualified to judge its merits. For me, it’s a moot point as to whether the “Dutch Touch” reattaches the severed branch and upgrades the status of affected Anglican dioceses from separated christian ecclesial communities to schismatic churches. I’m not personally interested in joining either kind. I don’t say that to be smug, it’s just the outcome of the catholic principles involved. But I can sure understand why it is a HUGE issue to those whose beliefs are essentially catholic minus all that papal authority stuff. And SINCE you’ve discarded all that papal interpretive authority stuff I can also understand why you would be satisfied that the logic of the “Dutch Touch” argument removes any lingering doubt about the legitimacy of Anglican apostolic succession. (Though I don’t envy y’all the necessity of investigating your bishop for validity every time you move to a new location!)
Click to expand...
As an Anglican moderately well informed in the area, I don’t think you’ll find many Anglo-Catholics (those most likely to be aware of, or engaged on, the subject" who are greatly agitated about* Apostolicae Curae*. Those who are are/were are either on the other side of the River, or putting on water wings. Those who aren’t are either not concerned, or, if well read in the subject matter (so to speak), not convinced. And if one relies upon the logic of the OC/PNCC lines, one can find episcopal lineage fairly easily. If one rejects the logic of AC, it isn’t necessary.

GKC
 
Or a third option…one can accept the logic of the OC/PNCC lines AND reject the logic of AC 😛
GKC said:
As an Anglican moderately well informed in the area, I don’t think you’ll find many Anglo-Catholics (those most likely to be aware of, or engaged on, the subject" who are greatly agitated about* Apostolicae Curae*. Those who are are/were are either on the other side of the River, or putting on water wings. Those who aren’t are either not concerned, or, if well read in the subject matter (so to speak), not convinced. And if one relies upon the logic of the OC/PNCC lines, one can find episcopal lineage fairly easily. If one rejects the logic of AC, it isn’t necessary.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
Greg27 said:
Having experienced life in the Catholic and Anglican churches, I can list a few:
  1. Anglicans do not believe in the primacy, infallibility or inerracy of the Pope in matters of faith or morals. Anglicans do respect the Pope though (mostly) and recognise the importance he has as the leader of the Roman Catholic Church.
  2. Anglicans do not have a centralised authority like the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith that ‘lays down the law’ on questions of faith or ethics.
  3. Anglicans have a wider range of liturgical ‘styles’ of worship, from the ‘High’ to ‘Low’ Church.
  4. Anglicans allow women to become ordained deacons, priests and bishops, unlike the CC.
  5. Anglicans do not owe unquestioning obedience or assent to what the leaders of the church say on matters of faith and morals.
  6. Anglicans can remarry following a divorce, provided certain conditions are met.
  7. Anglicans can use artificial contraception in good conscience. The offical Roman Catholic view is you cannot.
  8. Anglicans can use IVF and other technology to assist reproduction. The CDF in the RCC has decreed Catholics cannot use these methods in good conscience, even for a good end (to have children).
  9. Anglicans permit members of other non-Anglican churches, provided they are validly baptised and in good standing, to take the Eucharist. The Catholic church only allows Roman Catholics in good standing, Orthodox and in exceptional circumstances, Protestants, to take part in the Eucharist.
  10. The Anglican church holds two sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist, to be the main and most important of the sacraments. Anglicans also have a range of views on the sacraments and whether there are just two, or the seven the Catholic and Orthodox churches add to the list (confirmation, penance, marriage, anointing the sick, and ordination). Some hold these are also sacraments, while to others they are just sacramental rites or rituals, but do not confer the graces that baptism and eucharist do. This contrasts with the Roman Catholic view that there seven sacraments, and all are of equal power and value.
  11. Anglicans believe they have valid sacraments and apostolic succession. The Roman Catholic church holds that the Anglican and Episcopal churches are not true ‘churches’ because they lack valid orders and hence no true sacraments (except baptism). Anglicans do however believe in the validity of Roman Catholic orders and sacraments.
  12. Anglicans use a different form of liturgy from the RCC, based on the Book of Common Prayer. Catholics use the Roman Missal authorised and approved by the relevant authority.
  13. While Anglican churches may be in communion with each other, they are decentralised in terms of leadership and largely autonomous. The Archbishop of Canterbury has no power for example, to make a decree at will that Anglican churches in Australia could not ordain women under pain of excommunication. Likewise, the Archbishop of Canterbury does not appoint and remove Bishops at will. This is in contrast with the Pope, who due to his universal jurisdiction over the church, can do exactly these sorts of things in any Roman Catholic diocese anywhere in the world, no matter how distant or remote from the Vatican.
  14. The Roman Catholic church exercises much tighter control over the views expressed by theologians, bishops, priests, and laypeople than exists in the Anglican church. Quite a number of times Roman Catholic theologians have been dismissed from teaching posts or excommunicated if they don’t tow the official line on some issue. Laypeople have also been disciplined, especially through threats by Bishops in the US and elsewhere that Catholic laypeople who do not obey or assent to the church’s teaching on matters like abortion will be excluded from the sacraments or excommunicated. The Anglican church on the other hand, does not exercise such discipline over its flock, leaving people much freer to form and express their own views on various matters (a real advantage of the Anglican communion over the RCC in my view).
There are lots of other differences as well, in terms of doctrine, spirituality, liturgy, etc. Despite sharing many things, the Anglican/Episcopal church is quite different from the Roman Catholic Church in many ways. I would sum up the differences as ‘centralised control’ vs ‘dispersed autonomy’ in terms of church structure and leadership.
Click to expand...
Not all these things are true of all Anglicans, though some are. The only thing one can say, generally, about Anglicans, and not run the risk of stumping a toe, is that it is difficult to generalize about Anglicans.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus
 
=gurneyhalleck1;6992120]Hi Pat,
Click to expand...
No bitterness here at all so no worries there. I’m simply tired of broad overgeneralizations made about Anglicans. My experience is that most folks in here don’t know much about Anglicans. Catholics often are more hostile to their Anglican brothers in here than anyone else.
Click to expand...
Henry VIII doesn’t need ordination. He was and never claimed to be a bishop of the Church. He was the political head of it. Anglicans occasionally point to Constantine and the Constantine lead the Church in a political way while the Bishops led in the religious aspect. Constantine called councils and participated in them but it was the bishops that had to decide about heresies, morality, etc. Henry never claimed to be a bishop.
Click to expand...
If you want to disagree with Anglican orders, you’d be better off following the Catholic criticism of Matthew Parker as per Apostolicae Curae. I happen to not agree with the conclusion but you will.
Click to expand...
So keep in mind the sacraments WEREN’T SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW HENRY. They were supposed to follow through the archbishop of Canterbury, York, and the other bishops/powers that be in England. Great pains were taken to consecrate Parker in apostolic succession carefully.
Click to expand...
Anglicans IMO have a valid apostolic line AND licit mass as well. Go read or Google the “Dutch Touch” or “Polish Pat” and Anglican history of consecration.
Click to expand...
I’m not bitter. Blessings to you as well, Pat.
Click to expand...
In Christ,
Gurney
Click to expand...
Hi,

Thanks so much for the imput. Were just going to disagree on the validily of the Sacraments. Why would notables such as John Henry Newman bother to become Catholic, if he understood the Sacramnets to have been valid in his church.

And I will look up the articles you sugested.

Love and prayers friend,

Pat
 
GKC said:
As an Anglican moderately well informed in the area, I don’t think you’ll find many Anglo-Catholics (those most likely to be aware of, or engaged on, the subject" who are greatly agitated about* Apostolicae Curae*. Those who are are/were are either on the other side of the River, or putting on water wings. Those who aren’t are either not concerned, or, if well read in the subject matter (so to speak), not convinced. And if one relies upon the logic of the OC/PNCC lines, one can find episcopal lineage fairly easily. If one rejects the logic of AC, it isn’t necessary.

GKC
Click to expand...
I can understand that. From the Anglican point of view, why WOULD you care what AC says? It’s just the opinion of a dead old guy in funny clothes that used to lead somebody else’s church, right? 😉

That’s why I’m puzzled at why Anglicans bring up the DT/PNCC topic so often. It should be a non-issue in their world. From the catholic perspective it is ALSO likely to again become moot as an increasing number of worldwide Anglican bishops are ordained by women Anglican bishops who by catholic definition, aren’t bishops at all. So from the catholic side, it seems likely that even if certain Anglican communities have upgraded from separated ecclesial communities to schismatic churches, the upgrade may only be transitory and temporary until the bishop takes over (who may well also be invalidly ordained due to the woman bishop issue). Rome most likely feels the situation is too temporary and too likely to confuse the public to spend the energy and effort to rule on.
 
Well I’m not going to put all my eggs in the basket of Newman either. He’s one man. C.S. Lewis, a brilliant and very Christian man, made the deliberate decision NOT to become Catholic. Yet I wouldn’t place my focus on him either. I have to decide these things. 😛
PJM said:
Hi,

Thanks so much for the imput. Were just going to disagree on the validily of the Sacraments. Why would notables such as John Henry Newman bother to become Catholic, if he understood the Sacramnets to have been valid in his church.

And I will look up the articles you sugested.

Love and prayers friend,

Pat
Click to expand...
 
manualman said:
CREW, as in the enormous number of CS Forester novels I’ve read over and over.

Not Crue as in the (alleged) music I never did get interested in. 😛
Click to expand...
Forester, Lambdin, O’Brian, Parkinson, Pope, Woodman, Kent, Hardy, and others I can’t recall, but read. A splendid crew.

GKC
 
As opposed to a motley one!

But what about Pusey and Staley and the boys that stayed Anglican? ;)🙂
GKC said:
Forester, Lambdin, O’Brian, Parkinson, Pope, Woodman, Kent, Hardy, and others I can’t recall, but read. A splendid crew.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
manualman said:
I can understand that. From the Anglican point of view, why WOULD you care what AC says? It’s just the opinion of a dead old guy in funny clothes that used to lead somebody else’s church, right? 😉

That’s why I’m puzzled at why Anglicans bring up the DT/PNCC topic so often. It should be a non-issue in their world. From the catholic perspective it is ALSO likely to again become moot as an increasing number of worldwide Anglican bishops are ordained by women Anglican bishops who by catholic definition, aren’t bishops at all. So from the catholic side, it seems likely that even if certain Anglican communities have upgraded from separated ecclesial communities to schismatic churches, the upgrade may only be transitory and temporary until the bishop takes over (who may well also be invalidly ordained due to the woman bishop issue). Rome most likely feels the situation is too temporary and too likely to confuse the public to spend the energy and effort to rule on.
Click to expand...
If you’re speaking of Leo, not so much, no. It was the work of the commission, filtered through the Cardinals’ meeting with Leo, 16 July 1896, written by Merry del Val, with some assistance, signed by His Holiness, to the satisfaction of Cardinal Vaughan, eminence grise.

Laying hands on hairspray does tend to make AC a prematurely prescient pronouncement, for those folks who do that sort of thing. For the rest of us, who retain the succession, the form, the intent and the matter, not so much.

I can’t speak for all Anglicans who bring up stuff up on it. For me, it’s a hobby. Sort of like Chesterton, Lewis, Henry’s Great matter, things like that.

GKC
 
GKC said:
If you’re speaking of Leo, not so much, no. It was the work of the commission, filtered through the Cardinals’ meeting with Leo, 16 July 1896, written by Merry del Val, with some assistance, signed by His Holiness, to the satisfaction of Cardinal Vaughan, eminence grise.

Laying hands on hairspray does tend to make AC a prematurely prescient pronouncement, for those folks who do that sort of thing. For the rest of us, who retain the succession, the form, the intent and the matter, not so much.

I can’t speak for all Anglicans who bring up stuff up on it. For me, it’s a hobby. Sort of like Chesterton, Lewis, Henry’s Great matter, things like that.

GKC
Click to expand...
It got more interesting after TAC approached Rome. And it got even more interesting after the ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS was published.
 
Contarini said:
But it’s not a doctrinal difference. No Anglican thinks that Spong’s opinions are official Anglican teaching. I agree with you that the tolerance of such opinions in a bishop (even a retired one) is outrageous and a serious flaw in Anglicanism. But the bottom line for us, doctrinally, is the Nicene Creed. Anything not in keeping with that is not orthodox by Anglican standards.

Edwin
Click to expand...
I must conclude from that analysis that there is no necessity to be “orthodox,” in the context of the term as used above, to be an Anglican, and that therefore the concept of “orthodox” is, in an Anglican context, a vacuous one. If one need not adhere to it, in what sense is it a doctrine?

And on an historical note, John Shelby Spong was not retired when he published his “theses,” and attended Lambeth as an invited bishop.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Gerry_Hunter said:
I must conclude from that analysis that there is no necessity to be “orthodox,” in the context of the term as used above, to be an Anglican, and that therefore the concept of “orthodox” is, in an Anglican context, a vacuous one. If one need not adhere to it, in what sense is it a doctrine?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “necessity”? Do you really want to commit yourself to the proposition that any view not disciplined is legitimate?

Are you prepared to admit that if any non-excommunicated Catholic holds a non-orthodox doctrine, then orthodoxy is meaningless in Catholicism?

I don’t dispute that we are much laxer in our discipline than you, and of course that our doctrinal boundaries are wider than yours. But in both our Communions–in any church–there is going to be some gap between the official teaching and the beliefs held by some members. That’s just the way things are.
And on an historical note, John Shelby Spong was not retired when he published his “theses,” and attended Lambeth as an invited bishop.
Click to expand...
You’re right. I thought he retired earlier than that, but I was wrong. My apologies. He retired three years after issuing the “theses.” I’m not sure when in 1998 he issued them, so I think you’re pushing in making an issue of Lambeth. Although, of course, this wasn’t the first time he’d expressed unorthodox views–arguably this was the point at which he crossed the line from heresy into apostasy:o

But again, your position that “orthodoxy is meaningless” if discipline isn’t maintained is simply not tenable. Just as you ask people to look at the Catechism to see what Catholics believe, so we ask people to look at the 1979 BCP to see what Episcopalians believe.

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top