Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wimom3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
grampben said:
Glad to see we have moved on since the 16th century :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
LOL The 16th Century has nothing to do with it. What is history is HISTORY. What is the present- is. The future however is wide open. I HOPE the Anglicans can become in communion with the Church. I want them to, as much as a LOT of other Catholics do. However that would take a lot of concessions on the Anglicans part, and RECENT history is proving they are unwilling to make them. Until then I WANT the Anglicans to STOP making Catholics look bad. The whole women priests, homosexual sin acceptance, and ignoring Papal authority really confuses non Catholics when presented by an Anglican calling themselves Catholic. It is misleading, and a lie. If you had any idea what ONE woman who is an Anglican “Priestess” has done to confuse others about Catholicism maybe you would understand.
 
wimom3 said:
LOL The 16th Century has nothing to do with it. What is history is HISTORY. What is the present- is. The future however is wide open. I HOPE the Anglicans can become in communion with the Church. I want them to, as much as a LOT of other Catholics do. However that would take a lot of concessions on the Anglicans part, and RECENT history is proving they are unwilling to make them. Until then I WANT the Anglicans to STOP making Catholics look bad. The whole women priests, homosexual sin acceptance, and ignoring Papal authority really confuses non Catholics when presented by an Anglican calling themselves Catholic. It is misleading, and a lie. If you had any idea what ONE woman who is an Anglican “Priestess” has done to confuse others about Catholicism maybe you would understand.
Click to expand...
I’d like some Anglicans to stop making other Anglicans look bad, myself.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
josie_L said:
Contarini;4857258:
I

I may have to start a thread, but why is the idea of Shakespeare being Catholic wild speculation. There is a man by the name of Joseph Pearce (once an avowed anti-catholic) who has written a very good book called “The Quest for Shakespeare”. He uses many instances in Shakespeare’s life to come to the conclusion that he was undoubtedly Catholic. EWTN will also be airing a show based on this book. It should be entertaining.
Click to expand...
Joseph Pearce has written a number of very good books; I own most of them, including his book on Shakespeare. In the areas of most of his books I am well read enough to know when he is on track, which is usually (not always). With Shakespeare, I’m not. But folks within the official Shakespeare community don’t seem much impressed by his book. Me, I’m neutral. Wouldn’t surprise me, either way.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
wimom3 said:
LOL The 16th Century has nothing to do with it. What is history is HISTORY. What is the present- is. The future however is wide open. I HOPE the Anglicans can become in communion with the Church. I want them to, as much as a LOT of other Catholics do. However that would take a lot of concessions on the Anglicans part, and RECENT history is proving they are unwilling to make them. Until then I WANT the Anglicans to STOP making Catholics look bad. The whole women priests, homosexual sin acceptance, and ignoring Papal authority really confuses non Catholics when presented by an Anglican calling themselves Catholic. It is misleading, and a lie. If you had any idea what ONE woman who is an Anglican “Priestess” has done to confuse others about Catholicism maybe you would understand.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course I’m the one ignorant about anglicanism.
 
As a moderately high church Episcopalian, let me first answer the question of why Anglicans consider themselves catholic. Please note the lower-case “c”. First of all, we consider ourselves part of the “holy catholic church”, or “one holy and apostolic church” since those words have been part of our creeds since the time of Thomas Cranmer. We believe there is one holy catholic church, and I am certain that you would not question orthodox churches who call themselves “catholic”. Secondly, as for me and many Anglicans, we consider ourselves catholic in that we believe in seven sacraments as means of grace, we believe in the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, and we believe in one united Christendom as ultimately one church.

I, for one, recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as primer inter pares. It’s just that I would prefer to see a bit more inter pares and a little less primer.

I find purgatory one of the easiest doctrines to accept.

There are some Anglicans who are called Anglo Papist. They are usually in England and are in the Church of England. They believe everything the Roman Catholic Church teaches with the sole exception of the teaching on the invalidity of Anglican orders.
 
Anglicans believe in sola fide. I don’t see how that can be understood as Catholic.
 
Usbek_de_Perse said:
As a moderately high church Episcopalian, let me first answer the question of why Anglicans consider themselves catholic. Please note the lower-case “c”. First of all, we consider ourselves part of the “holy catholic church”, or “one holy and apostolic church” since those words have been part of our creeds since the time of Thomas Cranmer. We believe there is one holy catholic church, and I am certain that you would not question orthodox churches who call themselves “catholic”. Secondly, as for me and many Anglicans, we consider ourselves catholic in that we believe in seven sacraments as means of grace, we believe in the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, and we believe in one united Christendom as ultimately one church.

I, for one, recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as primer inter pares. It’s just that I would prefer to see a bit more inter pares and a little less primer.

I find purgatory one of the easiest doctrines to accept.

There are some Anglicans who are called Anglo Papist. They are usually in England and are in the Church of England. They believe everything the Roman Catholic Church teaches with the sole exception of the teaching on the invalidity of Anglican orders.
Click to expand...
Do Anglo-Catholics accept the Thirty Nine Articles?
 
Usbek_de_Perse said:
As a moderately high church Episcopalian, let me first answer the question of why Anglicans consider themselves catholic. Please note the lower-case “c”. First of all, we consider ourselves part of the “holy catholic church”, or “one holy and apostolic church” since those words have been part of our creeds since the time of Thomas Cranmer. We believe there is one holy catholic church, and I am certain that you would not question orthodox churches who call themselves “catholic”. Secondly, as for me and many Anglicans, we consider ourselves catholic in that we believe in seven sacraments as means of grace, we believe in the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, and we believe in one united Christendom as ultimately one church.

I, for one, recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as primer inter pares. It’s just that I would prefer to see a bit more inter pares and a little less primer.

I find purgatory one of the easiest doctrines to accept.

There are some Anglicans who are called Anglo Papist. They are usually in England and are in the Church of England. They believe everything the Roman Catholic Church teaches with the sole exception of the teaching on the invalidity of Anglican orders.
Click to expand...
HI and thank you for a very good post, here is what I found :
The “split” between the Eastern Churches, and the Western (Roman) Church had a long history (which you may be interested in pursuing in the History Books of the Catholic Church). The actual “split” came in 1054, when the Patriarchate of Constantinople split from the Church of Rome. The main issue that led to the split was the refusal of the Eastern Church to accept the PRIMACY OF THE POPE OF ROME, THE SUCCESSOR OF ST. PETER. The Eastern Churches are Cathlic Churches, whose members number about 12,000.000 throughout the world: originally they were the patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Today the five principal rites are the Byzantine, Anexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, and Chaldean. As Vatican II, in the Decree on Eastern Churches says: “The Catholic Church values highly the institutions of the Eastern Churches, their liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and their ordering of Christian life. For in these churches, which are distinguished by their venerable antiquity, there is clearly evident the tradition which has come from the apostles through the Fathers and which is part of the divinely revealed, undivided heritage of the Universal Church.” (# 1). Both stem from the foundation of the Church byJesusChrist. There are some who still do not recognize the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. (this is what is meant by saying they are in schism) The Roman Catholic Church s considered to be fully the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
 
grampben said:
Usually no, but some do, especially those who concentrate more on traditional anglicanism.
Click to expand...
Anglo-Catholics affirm some of the Articles. Any Trinitarian Christian would do the same. But the Articles are not binding on any Anglican, save, in at technical, Erastian sense, on ordinands of the Church of England.

GKC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top