Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic?

[Matariel]

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.

There are several different groups:

The conservative, traditional Anglicans in communion with Canterbury. These outnumber the liberal ones, but the liberal ones have more influence, being primarily Western. Due to the re-ordination in the 1930’s with Old Catholic lines, they have valid apostolic succession for the most part. They are mainly in less Western areas, and reject women’s “ordination” and reject the acceptance of gay culture as acceptable in Christian life.

The conservative Anglicans who, unfortunately, allow women priests. They have diluted apostolic succession.

The liberal Anglicans/Episcopalians, also in communion with Canterbury. They have highly diluted apostolic succession, which is even more dubious due to there new heretical views on the Sacraments, probably invalidating them altogether. They push for womens’ and non-celibate gays’ ordination.

Continuing Anglicans, who have maintained traditional understanding and valid apostolic succession.

Continuing Anglicans, who, unfortunately, have either rejected apostolic succession, or have lost or diluted it (mainly with women priestesses and bishops).

Which group are you referring to?

 

[wimom3]

There are several different groups:

The conservative, traditional Anglicans in communion with Canterbury. These outnumber the liberal ones, but the liberal ones have more influence, being primarily Western. Due to the re-ordination in the 1930’s with Old Catholic lines, they have valid apostolic succession for the most part. They are mainly in less Western areas, and reject women’s “ordination” and reject the acceptance of gay culture as acceptable in Christian life.

The conservative Anglicans who, unfortunately, allow women priests. They have diluted apostolic succession.
The liberal, Anglicans/Episcopalians, also in communion with Canterbury. They have highly diluted apostolic succession, which is even more dubious due to there new heretical views on the Sacraments, probably invalidating them altogether. They push for womens’ and non-celibate gays’ ordination.

Continuing Anglicans, who have maintained traditional understanding and valid apostolic succession.

Continuing Anglicans, who, unfortunately, have either rejected apostolic succession, or have lost or diluted it (mainly with women priestesses and bishops).

Which group are you referring to?

ALL of them. None of them are in line with Catholicism.

 

[GKC]

No they do not believe in the Authority of the Pope. Although they were at one time almost allowed back into the Church, except they decided to allow women to be ordained “Priests”. Then the Vatican drew the line. That is why I say they are NOT Catholic. You can’t be Catholic and deny the doctrines of the faith. That is why I am so frustrated when I hear from a woman “priest” that they are Anglican, but they believe they are actually Catholic. Catholicism is not a la carte, either you are or you are not- Anglicans are NOT. Until they bring themselves into communion with the Church, they sadly never will be.

There are no women priests. Though you can find women in sacerdotal garments.

GKC

 

[Matariel]

ALL of them. None of them are in line with Catholicism.

The traditional, Continuing Anglicans are in the same position as Old Catholics and Jansenist Catholics. They have rejected Rome and the Holy Chair of St. Peter, but they are close to the Church, almost as close as the Orthodox, who also consider themselve Catholic.

However much they accept in common with the Catholic Church, is however much percentage “Catholic” they are.

The Anglicanism I came from, the** Anglican Catholic Church**, has valid apostolic succession and a traditional understanding of all matters of faith. Only one disagreement they had, acceptance of the Pope as Infallible (they acknowledged his primacy though). They were good, honest people, and were indistinguishable from Catholics apart from there rejection of Papal Infalliblity.

 

[GKC]

No they do not believe in the Authority of the Pope. Although they were at one time almost allowed back into the Church, except they decided to allow women to be ordained “Priests”. Then the Vatican drew the line. That is why I say they are NOT Catholic. You can’t be Catholic and deny the doctrines of the faith. That is why I am so frustrated when I hear from a woman “priest” that they are Anglican, but they believe they are actually Catholic. Catholicism is not a la carte, either you are or you are not- Anglicans are NOT. Until they bring themselves into communion with the Church, they sadly never will be.

When, and in what sense, and who, were once almost allowed back into the Church?

GKC

 

[Matariel]

No they do not believe in the Authority of the Pope. Although they were at one time almost allowed back into the Church, except they decided to allow women to be ordained “Priests”. Then the Vatican drew the line. That is why I say they are NOT Catholic. You can’t be Catholic and deny the doctrines of the faith. That is why I am so frustrated when I hear from a woman “priest” that they are Anglican, but they believe they are actually Catholic. Catholicism is not a la carte, either you are or you are not- Anglicans are NOT. Until they bring themselves into communion with the Church, they sadly never will be.

You must not conflate the various Anglican groups. Most groups do not ordain “priestesses” or actively gay priests. Most are theologically orthodox, apart from their rejection of papal infallibility. Most are wonderful Christians, like GKC.

I agree with you, but you’re being a bit stand-offish, and I think you conflate the good Anglicans with the heretical ones.

 

[GKC]

There are several different groups:

The conservative, traditional Anglicans in communion with Canterbury. These outnumber the liberal ones, but the liberal ones have more influence, being primarily Western. Due to the re-ordination in the 1930’s with Old Catholic lines, they have valid apostolic succession for the most part. They are mainly in less Western areas, and reject women’s “ordination” and reject the acceptance of gay culture as acceptable in Christian life.

The conservative Anglicans who, unfortunately, allow women priests. They have diluted apostolic succession.

The liberal Anglicans/Episcopalians, also in communion with Canterbury. They have highly diluted apostolic succession, which is even more dubious due to there new heretical views on the Sacraments, probably invalidating them altogether. They push for womens’ and non-celibate gays’ ordination.

Continuing Anglicans, who have maintained traditional understanding and valid apostolic succession.

Continuing Anglicans, who, unfortunately, have either rejected apostolic succession, or have lost or diluted it (mainly with women priestesses and bishops).

Which group are you referring to?

Which Continuing Anglicans have females in vestments?

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[GKC]

You must not conflate the various Anglican groups. Most groups do not ordain “priestesses” or actively gay priests. Most are theologically orthodox, apart from their rejection of papal infallibility. Most are wonderful Christians, like GKC.

I agree with you, but you’re being a bit stand-offish, and I think you conflate the good Anglicans with the heretical ones.

I thank you for the kind words. But, for my part, I don’t get too ruffled when an RC tells me I am not Catholic. It is expected.

Anglicans don’t believe that RCs consider them Catholic. But some of them believe that of themselves, and their Church. And I never try to make a RC think like an Anglican, though sometimes I try to explain what an Anglican thinks.

Again, thank you.

GKC

 

[Matariel]

Which Continuing Anglicans have females in vestments?

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

Well, I’m not exactly sure, but my church, the Anglican Catholic Church, held dialogues with several other groups. I remember they had a disagreement over another group over the fact that the other group was considering.

The overwhelming majority of Continuing Anglicans have valid apostolic succession and have maintained that only men can be ordained, which is the stance the Church has always had.

 

[GKC]

Well, I’m not exactly sure, but my church, the Anglican Catholic Church, held dialogues with several other groups. I remember they had a disagreement over another group over the fact that the other group was considering.

The overwhelming majority of Continuing Anglicans have valid apostolic succession and have maintained that only men can be ordained, which is the stance the Church has always had.

I asked because I didn’t know any, though the fractured nature of the Continuum makes it impossible to know all.

And, again, while I greatly appreciate your charitable position, I realize that the RCC has made no comment on the Apostolic succession of any Anglican, including with consideration of the Dutch Touch, beyond what was said and implied in *Apostolicae Curae.
Of course, I have my own opinions on the matter.

GKC

 

[Matariel]

And, again, while I greatly appreciate your charitable position, I realize that the RCC has made no comment on the Apostolic succession of any Anglican, including with consideration of the Dutch Touch, beyond what was said and implied in Apostolicae Curae.

The thing is, *Apostolicæ Curæ *was before the Dutch Touch, so there was no way that could be considered within it. However, if the Anglican Continuüm was ever dealt specifically with a document by the Vatican, I’m sure there would be a recognition of the changed situation, as well as acknowledgement of some Continuing Anglican groups having recieved valid lines of succession from Old/Independent Catholics.

 

[GKC]

The thing is, *Apostolicæ Curæ *was before the Dutch Touch, so there was no way that could be considered within it. However, if the Anglican Continuüm was ever dealt specifically with a document by the Vatican, I’m sure there would be a recognition of their Holy Orders, and the changed situation.

Matariel

That would be most interesting.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Is the question about them - or about Anglicans generally ?​

On the assumption, which may be quite unjustified, that Anglicans generally are meant:

Because they are ?

You’re entitled to your opinion, of course.

“Catholic” & “belonging to the Papal Church” are not synonyms.

“the Papal Church”? Not very ecumenical of you. We prefer to be called “the Catholic Church”, “the Roman Catholic Church”, or “the Roman Catholic Communion”.

Consider: we Catholics call the Church of England “the Church of England” (not e.g. “the Henritic religious organization” or whatever); so I don’t really see why you want to call us “the Papal Church” rather than 1 of the 3 names I just mentioned.

The Mariology of the C of E has avoided the hyperinflation of the BVM so noticeable among Papal Christians

I’ll grant you that the C of E is generally pretty good on Mariology, but there’s a lot of other issues on which their record is far less admirable.

 

[Peter_J]

There are no women priests. Though you can find women in sacerdotal garments.

GKC

Touché.

 

[Peter_J]

I’ll grant you that the C of E is generally pretty good on Mariology …

P.S. Have you read Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ, a document from ARCIC? It’s very good.

P.P.S. Note that ARCIC stands for “Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission”. Nothing about “the Papal Church”.

 

[Contarini]

I can’t and won’t respond to what the Anglicans of today believe. I am of English ancestry and I would suggest to you that you read about St. Thomas More and the English martyrs. Our Anglican brethren were not Protestants in the sense of their continental cousins.

Substantiate this by specific comparisons.

The people of England followed their King or Queen.

And people on the continent didn’t?

History is both bloody and nasty. English history during and after Henry VIII was not about so much about religion so much as it was about politics…a vast difference between what was happening on the Continent.

If you think that the Continental Reformation was not intensely political, then you can’t know much about it. It is the separation of religion and politics in the modern world that is unusual (and never as complete as modern people like to think).

Edwardian and Elizabethan Anglicans (Henry was a different ballgame) unquestionably thought they were Protestants. Only in the seventeenth century did the idea develop that “Anglicanism” was a third way (as over against continental Protestantism as a whole), and even then the number of Anglicans who would have had any qualms about calling themselves Protestants was pretty small. It was the Oxford Movement of the 19th century that created this myth of “Anglicanism” as something radically different from “Protestantism.”

The English were the most Catholic of the Catholics before the protestant reformation

I’m not sure what that means. How does one define this?

and, of the protestants, they retained catholicism (note small c).

I note it, but I don’t know what you mean by it. It can mean almost anything. Are you saying that other Protestants were not catholic? By what standard?

Shakespeare was Catholic.

Maybe. This is highly debated among Shakespeare scholars. He arguably had Catholic sympathies. I know of no solid evidence (only wild speculation) that he was a recusant or ever attended an illegal Mass.

Many Anglicans are far more orthodox Roman Catholics than far too many of our local RC parishes.

Well, that’s *one *of the reasons I dropped out of RCIA in 1999 and went back to the Episcopal Church (which I had joined just the year before).

Edwin

 

[wimom3]

For over 25 years a steady and painstaking international theological dialogue has been undertaken by the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC). We affirm the signs of progress provided in the statements of ARCIC I on the Eucharist and on the understanding of ministry and ordination, which have received an authoritative response from both partners of the dialogue. ARCIC II has produced further statements on salvation and the Church, the understanding of the Church as communion, and on the kind of life and fidelity to Christ we seek to share. These statements deserve to be more widely known. They require analysis, reflection and response. At present the International Commission is seeking to further the convergence on authority in the Church. Without agreement in this area we shall not reach the full visible unity to which we are both committed. The obstacle to reconciliation caused by the ordination of women as priests and bishops in some provinces of the Anglican Communion has also become increasingly evident, creating a new situation. In view of this, it may be opportune at this stage in our journey to consult further about how the relationship between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church is to progress. At the same time, we encourage ARCIC to continue and deepen our theological dialogue, not only over issues connected with our present difficulties but also in all areas where full agreement has still to be reached.

Link: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1996/december/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19961205_dichiarazione-comune_en.html

ALMOST back- but yet not quite. Since someone asked.

 

[wimom3]

If you are NOT in communion with the Church and the Church does not consider you Catholic YOU ARE NOT. Period. You can think you are, you can want to be but your not. THAT is what infuriates me. I do not care how much more orthodox you are or are not. Otherwise we will just call Lutherans Catholic, after all they are “close”. Their history is “Catholic” to. However they broke away, just as the Anglicans did. According to The Vatican Anglicans have no standing in the Catholic Church- so why bother to pretend they do? It’s like a dog barking to get back in. ANNOYING.

 

[GKC]

If you are NOT in communion with the Church and the Church does not consider you Catholic YOU ARE NOT. Period. You can think you are, you can want to be but your not. THAT is what infuriates me. I do not care how much more orthodox you are or are not. Otherwise we will just call Lutherans Catholic, after all they are “close”. Their history is “Catholic” to. However they broke away, just as the Anglicans did. According to The Vatican Anglicans have no standing in the Catholic Church- so why bother to pretend they do? It’s like a dog barking to get back in. ANNOYING.

Fine by me. As I often say, what the RCC requires, RCs should affirm.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[grampben]

If you are NOT in communion with the Church and the Church does not consider you Catholic YOU ARE NOT. Period. You can think you are, you can want to be but your not. THAT is what infuriates me. I do not care how much more orthodox you are or are not. Otherwise we will just call Lutherans Catholic, after all they are “close”. Their history is “Catholic” to. However they broke away, just as the Anglicans did. According to The Vatican Anglicans have no standing in the Catholic Church- so why bother to pretend they do? It’s like a dog barking to get back in. ANNOYING.

Glad to see we have moved on since the 16th century