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

[rr1213]

What are the major differences?

As this thread has illustrated, you asked a question that is actually somewhat difficult to answer properly. I think that the main reason for this is that there are so many varieties of Anglicans in general, and Episcopalians in particular, which therefore makes comparisons with the Catholic Church problematic (i.e., which type of Episcopalian are you using as a point of reference…“liberal revisionist”, “evangelical conservative”, “latitudinarian”, “high church”, “low church”, “Anglo-Catholic”, “Anglo-Papist”, “Prayer Book traditionalist”, “liturgical Protestant”, etc.) What binds these disparate groups together (to the extent that they are so bound) is the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer (which, since there are various editions of the BCP, can also serve as areas of disagreement). There is little commonality in the way of theology outside of the basic creeds and a rejection of Papal authority. Of course, there are lots of different flavors of Catholics as well, but in the end we have a Magisterium which provides substantial unity of doctrine whether or not individual Catholics are faithful to those teachings.

 

[Contarini]

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?

Some Anglicans do believe this. But at the very least we ought not to hold the “somebody else’s church” part. We believe that there is only one Church. Admittedly, we do not officially recognize that Rome has any particular role in leading that Church. However, many of us do acknowledge Roman primacy–we just have problems with how it has been exercised in the past millennium or so. Indeed, if you look at the ARCIC document "The Gift of Authority," particularly sections 45-48 and 60-62, you may be surprised at how much the Anglican dialogue partners are willing to grant. Unfortunately (in my opinion), the conclusions of this dialogue are not authoritative at this point.

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.

With all due respect, you might do better to try to understand why we find it an issue rather than telling us what should be an issue.

It’s an issue because we believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and we seek for the unity of that Church.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Some Anglicans do believe this. But at the very least we ought not to hold the “somebody else’s church” part. We believe that there is only one Church. Admittedly, we do not officially recognize that Rome has any particular role in leading that Church. However, many of us do acknowledge Roman primacy–we just have problems with how it has been exercised in the past millennium or so. Indeed, if you look at the ARCIC document "The Gift of Authority," particularly sections 45-48 and 60-62, you may be surprised at how much the Anglican dialogue partners are willing to grant. Unfortunately (in my opinion), the conclusions of this dialogue are not authoritative at this point.

With all due respect, you might do better to try to understand why we find it an issue rather than telling us what should be an issue.

It’s an issue because we believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and we seek for the unity of that Church.

Edwin

I agree with Edwin.

GKC

 

[manualman]

I wasn’t telling you what you should believe Edwin, I was simply trying to put myself in an Anglican viewpoint to understand why an Anglican would care about the DT/PNCC issue. Active listening so to speak.

It’s just that its hard to comprehend a mode of thinking that one is not used to. No offense intended.

It kind of sounds like you are saying that your vision of Anglicanism includes the branch theory in that you see yourselves as still a part of the catholic church and therefore the pope is still relevant to an extent, just not when you disagree with him. It may be because of what I’m used to, but I’m having a hard time seeing the value of an authority who can be ignored when those under his authority decide they have good reason to do so. The problem with allowing reason to trump authority is that humans are awfully good at rationalization…

 

[Contarini]

I wasn’t telling you what you should believe Edwin, I was simply trying to put myself in an Anglican viewpoint to understand why an Anglican would care about the DT/PNCC issue. Active listening so to speak.

It’s just that its hard to comprehend a mode of thinking that one is not used to. No offense intended.

It kind of sounds like you are saying that your vision of Anglicanism includes the branch theory in that you see yourselves as still a part of the catholic church and therefore the pope is still relevant to an extent, just not when you disagree with him.

Yes, though I shy clear of the phrase “branch theory.” It implies on the one hand that non-episcopal communities are not part of the Church, and on the other that each “branch” is fully and equally Catholic. I would say rather that we all share in Catholicity to different degrees–all baptized, Trinitarian Christians are in some sense part of the Church, and yet all of us suffer by being divided from each other. Some share in more aspects of the Church than others. I do not actually think that this is radically different from the view of the Church held by your Communion since Vatican II.

It may be because of what I’m used to, but I’m having a hard time seeing the value of an authority who can be ignored when those under his authority decide they have good reason to do so…

Can you see a difference between ignoring an authority and respectfully disagreeing?

For instance, I disagree with the Pope on women’s ordination. But as long as the Pope takes the position he does, I consider the matter to be up for dispute. And if I had had the views I have now, and had had any influence in the Episcopal Church in the late 70s (in fact I was a child in England, and not an Anglican child at that. . . . ), I would have opposed women’s ordination pending the convening of a truly Ecumenical Council.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Yes, though I shy clear of the phrase “branch theory.” It implies on the one hand that non-episcopal communities are not part of the Church, and on the other that each “branch” is fully and equally Catholic. I would say rather that we all share in Catholicity to different degrees–all baptized, Trinitarian Christians are in some sense part of the Church, and yet all of us suffer by being divided from each other. Some share in more aspects of the Church than others. I do not actually think that this is radically different from the view of the Church held by your Communion since Vatican II.

Can you see a difference between ignoring an authority and respectfully disagreeing?

For instance, I disagree with the Pope on women’s ordination. But as long as the Pope takes the position he does, I consider the matter to be up for dispute. And if I had had the views I have now, and had had any influence in the Episcopal Church in the late 70s (in fact I was a child in England, and not an Anglican child at that. . . . ), I would have opposed women’s ordination pending the convening of a truly Ecumenical Council.

Edwin

I agree with Edwin.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Is “I agree with Edwin” your new signature?

I agree with Edwin.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Is “I agree with Edwin” your new signature?

I agree with gurney.

GKC

 

[manualman]

Can you see a difference between ignoring an authority and respectfully disagreeing?

Thanks. I always appreciate your well articulated responses.

Can I see I difference? I suppose. One is a civilized and respectful refusal to comply while the other is dismissive and/or apathetic. But in either case, authority is no longer the right word if compliance is optional at the discretion and judgement of the constituents.

 

[Contarini]

Thanks. I always appreciate your well articulated responses.

Can I see I difference? I suppose. One is a civilized and respectful refusal to comply while the other is dismissive and/or apathetic. But in either case, authority is no longer the right word if compliance is optional at the discretion and judgement of the constituents.

But in temporal affairs this isn’t true at all. There are all kinds of authorities that do not have to be obeyed in an absolute, blind, unquestioning fashion. In fact, in most human affairs we would consider an absolute authority to be highly unhealthy and disordered.

Of course, it may be that the Church is different. But Jesus’ words about church leaders not exercising authority in the same way the Gentiles do seem, if anything, to point in the opposite direction.

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But with if I agree with the Catholic Church? Then you agree with me so therefore you’re now Catholic by default!

I agree with gurney.

GKC

 

[GKC]

But with if I agree with the Catholic Church? Then you agree with me so therefore you’re now Catholic by default!

I agree with gurney, in part.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

LOL…

This reminds me of the “I, Mudd” episode of Star Trek when Kirk asks Chekov what his assessment is of the situation. Chekov says, “I think we’re in a lot of trouble, sir.”

Kirk asks McCoy, “What do you think Bones?”
McCoy: “The Ensign is right. We ARE in a lot of trouble.”
Kirk: “Spock? And please don’t tell me we’re in a lot of trouble!”
Spock: “We are…”

I agree with gurney, in part.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Greg27]

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

I think this is a good point. I think one of the things a Roman Catholic would find most frustrating about Anglicanism is there is such a diverse range of views and an apparent lack of clear, certain church teaching on various matters. I am sure some people find more comfort and security in their being absolute certainty in all things, which is why some Anglicans have become fundamentalists or have left to join Roman Catholicism. But as I have remarked elsewhere, I don’t think solutions to difficult questions, especially in the moral sphere, can be imposed by decree by the leader of the church or by a Bishop. I intensely dislike the idea that a church leader thinks he can make a vicarious decision for me on something like contraceptive use, so I think for me the main obstacle for unity with Rome would be the infallibility the Pope claims for himself on moral matters, even though on many other things I agree with the teachings of the Catholic church.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The morality aside, it’s mostly about pride, common sense, and history. The Orthodox aren’t going to budge on the infallibility issue. Primacy yes. Coryphaeus, yes. First among equals, yes. Infallible? No. Universal jurisdiction? No way. One-man council? Nope. The Orthodox are far more consistent with history and they don’t buy for one second the Vatican I reconstruction of the papacy.

And the Anglicans are just in pure implosion mode. They’re scattering like a bunch of gang-bangers in a drug sting. Running to and fro in all directions like deer in the headlights. Like the X-Files film, “I want to believe!” is their motto. Anglicans are so tired of too much incoherence that some, as you pointed out, are longing for Rome. They want all their decisions made for them, their thinking laid out, their ducks in a row. They just want order. And I can’t blame them. Anglicanism is a killer when it comes to order. They just want consistency for once. But at what cost? As I’ve said before, the overtures to Anglicans and the coetibus stuff has an endgame of total absorption IMO.

I think this is a good point. I think one of the things a Roman Catholic would find most frustrating about Anglicanism is there is such a diverse range of views and an apparent lack of clear, certain church teaching on various matters. I am sure some people find more comfort and security in their being absolute certainty in all things, which is why some Anglicans have become fundamentalists or have left to join Roman Catholicism. But as I have remarked elsewhere, I don’t think solutions to difficult questions, especially in the moral sphere, can be imposed by decree by the leader of the church or by a Bishop. I intensely dislike the idea that a church leader thinks he can make a vicarious decision for me on something like contraceptive use, so I think for me the main obstacle for unity with Rome would be the infallibility the Pope claims for himself on moral matters, even though on many other things I agree with the teachings of the Catholic church.

 

[GKC]

I think this is a good point. I think one of the things a Roman Catholic would find most frustrating about Anglicanism is there is such a diverse range of views and an apparent lack of clear, certain church teaching on various matters. I am sure some people find more comfort and security in their being absolute certainty in all things, which is why some Anglicans have become fundamentalists or have left to join Roman Catholicism. But as I have remarked elsewhere, I don’t think solutions to difficult questions, especially in the moral sphere, can be imposed by decree by the leader of the church or by a Bishop. I intensely dislike the idea that a church leader thinks he can make a vicarious decision for me on something like contraceptive use, so I think for me the main obstacle for unity with Rome would be the infallibility the Pope claims for himself on moral matters, even though on many other things I agree with the teachings of the Catholic church.

I think it’s an essential point, one I make with mind-numbing frequency (I got a couple of others like that). But I would welcome a more structured doctrinal position in Anglicanism, with defined points upon which the definition of “Anglican” could be grounded, and that more in line with the tenets of traditional Christianity. I recognize and point out, endlessly, the variations of flavors of Anglicanism, but I do not celebrate it. The elasticity of the concept “Anglican” is near infinite. The boundaries of the term “Christian” are narrower.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

That elasticity is so deeply entrenched in each diocese and parish church that I think it’s possibly too late in the game to get such definition and a more confessional, focused Anglicanism. The idea of being half Catholic, half Protestant permeates just as some dioceses and parishes feel 100% evangelical or like in your case 100% catholic, anglo-catholic. How would one get all these diverse groups to agree on anything is beyond me.

But paradoxically, and this might sound weird, sometimes the opposing tensions are something I like. Honestly, I have a place in my heart for Luther. He’s my favorite Reformer. I appreciate his outrage against indulgences, a desire to clean things up and throw out the nonsense. At my parish when we read the JI Packer book “Knowing God,” I was reluctant at first and I definitely displayed an attitude. My rector loves Packer. I found myself agreeing with Packer off and on in the book. I was angry about his iconoclastic view of images and pictures and art but after a while found myself liking his rationale behind it. He felt it led to an immature spirituality based on the infantile minds we have trying to conjur up the physical images of the infinite and the saintly. He felt it leads to a dependence on image and forms and eventually a childish view of attachment, a need to focus on them to stay grounded. His ideas about faith, prayer, devotion and salvation intrigued me. I have also read John Stott, another evangelical, and found myself at first angry about his anti-auricular confession views but again appreciated his rationale. It was phenomenally sound. And yet I love cracking open the Vernon Staley stuff and reading that old time catholic anglo-catholic chap and his views, so high church. I like reading the tracts for the times as well once in a while. And I can appreciate what Hooker was trying to accomplish by NOT yielding too far to either extreme.

By nature I’m not a person of extremes. And it’s hard to be the way I am in this modern world. Right now we live in a world of extremes. Democrats are extreme liberals with secular fanaticism, Republicans are extreme anti-gov’t types with a hatred for unions and the public sector that is nuts, Catholics and Orthodox are extremely driven to liturgy and worship and IMO not enough on the Gospels and the Scriptures, Calvinists are obsessed with Scripture and the NT church polity and the Word at the expense of history, the councils, ecclesiology, and sacraments, etc. The world is full of extremism whether it’s Islam or atheism, you name it. Anglicanism seems, oddly enough, to fit my personality of being in the middle, which I am politically, socially, and religiously. Go figure…

I think it’s an essential point, one I make with mind-numbing frequency (I got a couple of others like that). But I would welcome a more structured doctrinal position in Anglicanism, with defined points upon which the definition of “Anglican” could be grounded, and that more in line with the tenets of traditional Christianity. I recognize and point out, endlessly, the variations of flavors of Anglicanism, but I do not celebrate it. The elasticity of the concept “Anglican” is near infinite. The boundaries of the term “Christian” are narrower.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

I think this is a good point. I think one of the things a Roman Catholic would find most frustrating about Anglicanism is there is such a diverse range of views and an apparent lack of clear, certain church teaching on various matters. I am sure some people find more comfort and security in their being absolute certainty in all things, which is why some Anglicans have become fundamentalists or have left to join Roman Catholicism.

1. There are other and better reasons to become a Roman Catholic; and
2. The kind of “security” offered by Roman Catholicism is very different than the form offered by fundamentalism.

But as I have remarked elsewhere, I don’t think solutions to difficult questions, especially in the moral sphere, can be imposed by decree by the leader of the church or by a Bishop. I intensely dislike the idea that a church leader thinks he can make a vicarious decision for me on something like contraceptive use, so I think for me the main obstacle for unity with Rome would be the infallibility the Pope claims for himself on moral matters, even though on many other things I agree with the teachings of the Catholic church.

Well, you can dislike it all you wish. I don’t always like it either. But Christianity really isn’t just about what we like. It seems to me that this is actually one of the strongest arguments in favor of the RCC. The Popes aren’t getting up in the morning and making moral pronouncements based on their personal whims. They are reaffirming traditional Christian moral teaching. This is exactly what they are there for.

Now I can agree that the RCC’s overly legal approach has disastrous effects on the pastoral implementation of the teaching. But on the matter of principle, I don’t think we have much ground to stand on. I say this as someone who thinks that when it comes to women’s ordination, the theological arguments generally cited against it make little or not sense. (I find the arguments against contraception more intrinsically convincing, though they still have their problems.) But on both issues, we have the Pope and the tradition on the same side, and frankly that doesn’t leave us much choice if we want to be orthodox Christians in any sense.

In short, if you want to go up against the Pope on something, you’d best have a continuous tradition to support you. Otherwise you don’t have a leg to stand on.

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think the poster is right to some degree that the 100% moral certitude feeling and the sense of totally being guided by a rigid discipline is appealing to many.

I also wonder, in the tone of your last statement, why you don’t become Catholic? If you view the papacy as having such deep. profound, and sound apostolic rationale and significance behind it, shoot, I think you should go back to RCIA and stick with it all the way this time. Your intellectual duty is to join the CC if you feel that way. You seem to greatly view the pope as a staunch and solid defender of apostolic truths and morality, even when you personally have issues with it, and you respect him to know better than you do which is a sign of great spiritual maturity and conviction for you. Catholicism has the widespread catholicity you have mentioned you are looking for, access-wise. It also has the concept of one bishop you like as well as moral clarity and the rigidity that is the opposite of Anglicanism, which drives you nuts.

I say this in all honesty, why don’t you convert to CC? Your family, job, community cannot play backseat to the truth. If you feel it’s the truth, as this post seems to reflect, Jesus tells us that we are to put Him above our wives, kids, jobs, power, influence, everything. Why not convert?

1. There are other and better reasons to become a Roman Catholic; and
2. The kind of “security” offered by Roman Catholicism is very different than the form offered by fundamentalism.

Well, you can dislike it all you wish. I don’t always like it either. But Christianity really isn’t just about what we like. It seems to me that this is actually one of the strongest arguments in favor of the RCC. The Popes aren’t getting up in the morning and making moral pronouncements based on their personal whims. They are reaffirming traditional Christian moral teaching. This is exactly what they are there for.

Now I can agree that the RCC’s overly legal approach has disastrous effects on the pastoral implementation of the teaching. But on the matter of principle, I don’t think we have much ground to stand on. I say this as someone who thinks that when it comes to women’s ordination, the theological arguments generally cited against it make little or not sense. (I find the arguments against contraception more intrinsically convincing, though they still have their problems.) But on both issues, we have the Pope and the tradition on the same side, and frankly that doesn’t leave us much choice if we want to be orthodox Christians in any sense.

In short, if you want to go up against the Pope on something, you’d best have a continuous tradition to support you. Otherwise you don’t have a leg to stand on.

Edwin

 

[KathleenGee]

Have to pipe in…when it comes to women being ordained as men…well, we have a different constitution than men…Benedict speaks about this in ‘The Ratzinger Report’…My women’s group studied this back in '95.

Woman is the protected gender. We have 8 times the capacity to grieve than men.

I raised all of my 4 kids the same…I loved and coddled all of them, rocked them…the toddler girls fell down, go boom, and cry. The boy babies fell down, mumbled, and then wobbled up, and did it again…

‘Woman is the protected gender’…imagine a man enslaved with original sin, coming into a church where knows they have some women priests…he goes in but not to confess…and would these types even listen to a woman…?? My husband is finally starting to listen to me after 32 years.