Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic?

[ASimpleSinner]

I have come across a few Anglican women “priests” who have told me they consider themselves Catholic. Now I understand why they are not, but I want to know why they really think they are.

I think rather the simplest answer is that there is some varied understanding between different parties as to how the word “catholic” is defined.

At the root of the willingness (in many cases insistence) of folks who are not a part of what we as Catholics (in full communion with the Pope of Rome, under the jurisdiction and care of a bishop who is the same…) understand to be the visible Catholic Church which is organized in a fashion where it is known who is and is not to be a known member…

(***PRE-EMPTIVE NOTE:***before getting into semantics that could make this thread last for centuries, can we just accept that I am adopting this term for expedience?)

Well these “non-Catholic catholics” would offer that their understanding of the term “catholic” does NOT include aspects of our definition (most commonly, they reject the Papacy as a litmus test or communion therewith as a common denominator needed for use of the term.)

I have known Anglicans, Lutherans, and Reformed who are adamnant that they are “catholic”… Inasmuch as they have different parameters for the definition of the term “catholic” there is the rub.

To use an analogy, it is a rather contentious term like “sensible diet”.

 

[GKC]

GKC, I pray that you and your brethren will one day unite in full communion with the Holy Catholic Church. It seems to me Jesus the Good Shepard is still gathering his flock. The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ. Jesus entrusted Peter with the keys to his Kingdom. Pope Benedict XVI is the rightful successor to Peter.

Just one question, do you believe St. Peter had “universal ordinary authority, or a personal charism of infallibility” on matters of the Faith?

I am only curious. Trying to learn what others outside the Church believe.
Truthfully, I don’t know the answer to that question and I guess I have some homework of my own to do!

:knight2::knight1::knight2::knight1::knight2:

I thank you for your kind wishes. As to the question, no.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I think rather the simplest answer is that there is some varied understanding between different parties as to how the word “catholic” is defined.

At the root of the willingness (in many cases insistence) of folks who are not a part of what we as Catholics (in full communion with the Pope of Rome, under the jurisdiction and care of a bishop who is the same…) understand to be the visible Catholic Church which is organized in a fashion where it is known who is and is not to be a known member…

(***PRE-EMPTIVE NOTE:***before getting into semantics that could make this thread last for centuries, can we just accept that I am adopting this term for expedience?)

Well these “non-Catholic catholics” would offer that their understanding of the term “catholic” does NOT include aspects of our definition (most commonly, they reject the Papacy as a litmus test or communion therewith as a common denominator needed for use of the term.)

I have known Anglicans, Lutherans, and Reformed who are adamnant that they are “catholic”… Inasmuch as they have different parameters for the definition of the term “catholic” there is the rub.

To use an analogy, it is a rather contentious term like “sensible diet”.

I’ll buy that. But I put “C” on the word. Just like you.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Peter J;4883874:

What I do think is unfortunate (to put it nicely) is the kind of tag-team effort between traditionalist-Catholics and Protestant posters that I sometimes see on this forum. E.g. when a traditionalist Catholic says "The real

teaching of the Catholic Church is X" and then a Protestant responds “Thank you for being honest; the Pope and Vatican II tried to trick us into thinking that X isn’t the Catholic position.”

I’ve really not gone to the traditionalist section, so I can’t comment.

I’m talking about when that happens here on the Non-Catholic Religions Forum.

 

[Peter_J]

Welcome! This is the internet, of course, so you’re going to see all kinds of wacky responses and discussions here.

Exactly! I really don’t think that the treatment of Protestants on CAF is much worse than the treatment of Catholics at a typical Protestant discussion forum. In fact, I suspect that it’s a bit better.

And is it really right for Protestant to call for better treatment at CAF, without correspondingly better treatment for Catholics on Protestant forums? (I’m not saying that CAF couldn’t change unilaterally; I’m just don’t think it’s entirely reasonable for Protestants to ask for that unilateral change.)

 

[Contarini]

Exactly! I really don’t think that the treatment of Protestants on CAF is much worse than the treatment of Catholics at a typical Protestant discussion forum. In fact, I suspect that it’s a bit better.

And is it really right for Protestant to call for better treatment at CAF, without correspondingly better treatment for Catholics on Protestant forums? (I’m not saying that CAF couldn’t change unilaterally; I’m just don’t think it’s entirely reasonable for Protestants to ask for that unilateral change.)

What’s unfair in this post is the assumption that Protestants here are somehow responsible for how people who run (mostly fundamentalist) Protestant discussion boards behave. For one thing, as an Episcopalian, I have less in common with the folks at CARM, for instance, than I do with Catholics. But I admit that the Episcopalian discussion board on beliefnet is so toxic that I can’t stand to spend much time there (mostly they get mad at me because I defend Catholicism).

So you won’t find me complaining globally about this board. You will find me complaining about trends and attitudes that I find on this board, but I have no illusions that these attitudes are peculiar to this board or to Catholics. This is a remarkably well-moderated, generally civil forum for Internet discussion.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

What’s unfair in this post is the assumption that Protestants here are somehow responsible for how people who run (mostly fundamentalist) Protestant discussion boards behave. For one thing, as an Episcopalian, I have less in common with the folks at CARM, for instance, than I do with Catholics. But I admit that the Episcopalian discussion board on beliefnet is so toxic that I can’t stand to spend much time there (mostly they get mad at me because I defend Catholicism).

So you won’t find me complaining globally about this board. You will find me complaining about trends and attitudes that I find on this board, but I have no illusions that these attitudes are peculiar to this board or to Catholics. This is a remarkably well-moderated, generally civil forum for Internet discussion.

Edwin

I’ll buy that, too.

GKC

 

[chris_molter]

But I admit that the Episcopalian discussion board on beliefnet is so toxic that I can’t stand to spend much time there (mostly they get mad at me because I defend Catholicism).

Edwin

Funny you should mention that. When I came back into TEC around the time VGR was elected, I was cautiously supportive of him and the ‘movement’ he represented. It was the vile attitudes on that board that wound up pushing me to open up and REALLY THINK (and read) about what the other side had to say… and I finally ended up vigorously opposing the innovations in TEC. Fast forward a few more years and here I am, all Papistical and statue worshipping…

 

[Peter_J]

What’s unfair in this post is the assumption that Protestants here are somehow responsible for how people who run (mostly fundamentalist) Protestant discussion boards behave.

That would be an unfair assumption, but I wasn’t making it.

For one thing, as an Episcopalian, I have less in common with the folks at CARM, for instance, than I do with Catholics. But I admit that the Episcopalian discussion board on beliefnet is so toxic that I can’t stand to spend much time there (mostly they get mad at me because I defend Catholicism).

So you won’t find me complaining globally about this board. You will find me complaining about trends and attitudes that I find on this board, but I have no illusions that these attitudes are peculiar to this board or to Catholics. This is a remarkably well-moderated, generally civil forum for Internet discussion.

Edwin

BTW, I’ve been thinking some more about what I said at the end of my last post. Really, when you come right down to it, I wouldn’t be at all sorry to see better treatment for Protestants on CAF – even if it was unilateral change, i.e. not accompanied by correspondingly better treatment for Catholics on Protestant fora. (And vice versa.)

I guess my larger complaint is that a lot of Protestant posters like to point out that they way they’re treated on CAF isn’t-as-good-as-it-could-be, but few seem interested in being part of the solution. (I’m not trying to turn this thread into another Be-part-of-the-solution discussion, so I’ll just say see also. Sorry if I’m hyphenating-things-too-much.)

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I do not, myself, use the term “priestess” though I agree with the logic behind the use, of those who do. OTOH, to use it in such a way puts one in the company of C. S. Lewis, which, to many Anglicans and RCs, is not a bad place to be.

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus *

Frankly, I don’t see any logic to it, though I am open to be enlightened. It sounds very much to me as a suggestion that women priests are pagan in some sense, and that is distasteful and pejorative. I am aware that CS Lewis is regarded highly here. I enjoy his writings and subsequent movies, but I can’t say that I raise him to the level of some theological superstar as some do here.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Well, they would call themselves Catholic, just not Roman Catholic. They have a sacramental system, though with two sacraments rather than seven. They use the ‘Book of Common Prayer’ as a guide for liturgy and the Mass rather than the Missal, etc.

Their priesthood has been nullified by the Papal Bull of 1896 and much of the reason is over the form of ordination used very early in the 16th century, as will as the Church of England’s rather spotty teaching on the Eucharist.

Lately, much of the fodder for disagreement has been over the ordination of Priestesses and High Priestesses. It all looks very unBiblical to the rest of us. But, not ALL Anglican churchs are in fact so unorthodox. Some are quite Biblical.

I know of no Episcopal church that has priestesses, or high priestesses. Where are these? We have women’s ordination. Is that what you are trying to say to inelegantly? That is of course your right to disagree about, but it in no way should allow you to refer to our clergy in such a rude and unseemly way. Your charity is lacking.

 

[GKC]

Frankly, I don’t see any logic to it, though I am open to be enlightened. It sounds very much to me as a suggestion that women priests are pagan in some sense, and that is distasteful and pejorative. I am aware that CS Lewis is regarded highly here. I enjoy his writings and subsequent movies, but I can’t say that I raise him to the level of some theological superstar as some do here.

Milage varies, of course. Often depends on preconceptions and what one wants to hear, as one reads. what one finds convincing, what integrates with other reading. I find Lewis eminently worth the 45 years I’ve spent collecting, studying and reading him. Like Chesterton, and a lot of others, who speak to my condition.

As I noted, I don’t use the term, since I don’t recognize the concept.

It renders the (appropriate) Anglican jurisdiction protestant, to the degree it is applied, but that does not seem to be a consideration to them. Fair enough. Lots of folks are protestant. What such a mind set has done to the corporate body of Anglicanism is another matter.

GKC

 

[SpiritMeadow]

priestess means “female priest”. I fail to see how this is pejorative?

Calling them “priests” implies they are male, which is certainly an insult to confuse their gender on purpose. To me that would seem distasteful.

I did not use an unkind word. Priestess is a well-known English word that means “female priest”. So I fail to see how this is an unkind word.

That wasn’t my point. I merely pointed out that the Protestant Episcopal Church’s official statements would be considered liberal by any fair-minded human being. I wasn’t arguing whether it was biblically correct or not.

I wasn’t “bashing” anyone. I don’t understand why people play the victim so frequently nowadays.

You are quite wrong I’m afraid. Look at the dictionary. Priest is defined as “a person ordained to the sacerdotal or pastoral office; a member of the clergy or minister”. I nowhere in the definition claims that it is a “male” term. No doubt, in your faith tradition, you do believe that it is a male occupation. However there is rather strong evidence from the earliest of times, that women were engaged in preaching and teaching in the early church. Regardless, it is clear that the word is used by you to show your personal disgust.

Priestess is a word meaning: a woman officiating in sacred rights. It is not reserved for Christianity as the word priest is more commonly thought to through its first placement in the definition. Priestess historically is generally used to refer to pagan practices in which women refer to themselves that way.

Since Anglican and Episcopalian women who are ordained refer to themselves as priests and are invested as such, then the proper word is priest. It is not a gender word, other than in some faith traditions. It is unseemly to not refer to people as they wish to be referred to. We call African Americans that because for some at least it is their preferred reference. That is purely being polite.

I don’t know why people attempt to use words to hurt feelings either.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The first this evening.

It says what the previous post said, that you and those who think like you on the question of female clergy, are protestant.

GKC

I’m sorry, but I burst into outright laughter GKC. I too have no issue with being called Protestant. The label is fairly meaningless since it encompasses such a huge divergence of opinion. Much as does the word Catholicism. But your one sentence told us a world about you.

It seems part of the human condition to need to separate in some sense, slyly or otherwise, oneself apart as some how superior for some one else. We do it with all our bigotries of race, religion, immigration, culture, etc. It’s amazing how we continue to subdivide ourselves into smaller and smaller units of humanity. We are all free to say it seems, “I may be X but at least I’m not Y!!!”

 

[GKC]

I’m sorry, but I burst into outright laughter GKC. I too have no issue with being called Protestant. The label is fairly meaningless since it encompasses such a huge divergence of opinion. Much as does the word Catholicism. But your one sentence told us a world about you.

It seems part of the human condition to need to separate in some sense, slyly or otherwise, oneself apart as some how superior for some one else. We do it with all our bigotries of race, religion, immigration, culture, etc. It’s amazing how we continue to subdivide ourselves into smaller and smaller units of humanity. We are all free to say it seems, “I may be X but at least I’m not Y!!!”

I tell a world about me, regularly. Shyness is not part of my make-up.

The label is meaningful, in that it divides a huge mass of things, from a smaller, more homogenous mass of things.

GKC

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’m talking about when that happens here on the Non-Catholic Religions Forum.

Peter I guess I’ve lost the train of the argument somewhere. I’ve never felt tricked by the RCC in any way. I just came to the conclusion that it’s logic wasn’t as logical as I thought. More specifically, I discovered that it’s logic which I believe is fundamentally internally consistent, is based on some faulty premises. But tricked? No. And I’ve not read any Protestant saying this, but I would find it curious if I did probably.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Exactly! I really don’t think that the treatment of Protestants on CAF is much worse than the treatment of Catholics at a typical Protestant discussion forum. In fact, I suspect that it’s a bit better.

And is it really right for Protestant to call for better treatment at CAF, without correspondingly better treatment for Catholics on Protestant forums? (I’m not saying that CAF couldn’t change unilaterally; I’m just don’t think it’s entirely reasonable for Protestants to ask for that unilateral change.)

I would disagree with the last paragraph on two grounds Peter:

1. I don’t frequent other forums that are Protestant. Why am I responsible to clean them up before getting better (civil) treatment here?
2. Why should this site not want to be run in a manner that is Christian in nature, charitable to all, civil to all? They are not forced into the mud with the pigs so to speak. It would be a choice, and one would hope they would want to take the high road, given the pronouncements here of being the Best and First! Should they not wish to set the example?

 

[GKC]

You are quite wrong I’m afraid. Look at the dictionary. Priest is defined as “a person ordained to the sacerdotal or pastoral office; a member of the clergy or minister”. I nowhere in the definition claims that it is a “male” term. No doubt, in your faith tradition, you do believe that it is a male occupation. However there is rather strong evidence from the earliest of times, that women were engaged in preaching and teaching in the early church. Regardless, it is clear that the word is used by you to show your personal disgust.

Priestess is a word meaning: a woman officiating in sacred rights. It is not reserved for Christianity as the word priest is more commonly thought to through its first placement in the definition. Priestess historically is generally used to refer to pagan practices in which women refer to themselves that way.

Since Anglican and Episcopalian women who are ordained refer to themselves as priests and are invested as such, then the proper word is priest. It is not a gender word, other than in some faith traditions. It is unseemly to not refer to people as they wish to be referred to. We call African Americans that because for some at least it is their preferred reference. That is purely being polite.

I don’t know why people attempt to use words to hurt feelings either.

I am often confronted with RCs who deny the use of the term “priest” to male Anglican clergy, based on the issue of form and intent, as reflected in the judgment in Apostolicae Curae. I don’t agree, but I have no problem with the concept, nor does it hurt my feelings. Similarly, Catholics, myself included, deny the use of the term to those who do not represent the proper, valid matter for the reception of the sacrament. Thus, there are no females who are priests, in the Vincentian sense the undivided Church recognized the sacrament of orders ab initio. There are no female priests, in the sacerdotal sense, though there are certainly female clergy persons in sacerdotal garments.

Neither of us agree with the RCC on the basic issue. But one may as well become used to it. Terminological exactitude is a virtue. I practice it myself a lot.

GKC

 

[Matariel]

What is with all the shrugging?

Because I have no idea why people would get offended by an ordinary, everyday English word which simply means “a female sacerdote”. I fail to see how that is offensive.

Some of us Anglicans are pointing out to you that we find it very offensive for you to call our female priest “priestess”. Please respectfully do not use this term. Thanks!

Why should I avoid an everyday English word which aptly describes a subject we’re talking about?

How on Earth is it offensive?

To me, called a priestess a “priest” is like calling an actress and “actor”. It’s wrong, because it implies they are male when they’re not. So there is no reason for me to stop speaking English as it is normally spoken. I’m sorry, but I’ve no idea what all this fuss is about.

 

[grampben]

Because I have no idea why people would get offended by an ordinary, everyday English word which simply means “a female sacerdote”. I fail to see how that is offensive.

Why should I avoid an everyday English word which aptly describes a subject we’re talking about?

How on Earth is it offensive?

To me, called a priestess a “priest” is like calling an actress and “actor”. It’s wrong, because it implies they are male when they’re not. So there is no reason for me to stop speaking English as it is normally spoken. I’m sorry, but I’ve no idea what all this fuss is about.

The official word is Priest though. Not Priestess.
It is more correct to say Priest.