Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic?

[GKC]

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.

Pretty accurate post, this.

Save that many Anglo-Catholics use the upper case “C”. As in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[grampben]

Anglicans believe in sola fide. I don’t see how that can be understood as Catholic.

Many even in the catholic church believe sola fide to be correct, but only when described in a certain way. ie real faith incorporates works.

 

[Madaglan]

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.

It was the Roman legate Humbert who delivered the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople, at a time when the Pope was dead. The Eastern Churches accepted a Primacy of Rome, but one in accordance with the Ecumenical Councils, not the one that the Bishop of Rome believed was owed him.

The Eastern Orthodox number over 200 million. The Eastern Catholics number more in the range of the 12 million you provide.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Let’s just say here on CAF many of her members have put me off.

very small thinking her members put you off,thats very sad

 

[grampben]

very small thinking her members put you off,thats very sad

It’s not the only reason.

What’s sad is that there is sectarian ridicule on a christian board.
It should be civil discussion and more often than not it descends into hatred.

hatred is evil.

 

[Bill_Pick]

It’s not the only reason.

What’s sad is that there is sectarian ridicule on a christian board.
It should be civil discussion and more often than not it descends into hatred.

hatred is evil.

Will you please tell me who you are talking about or the post you are talking about

 

[IowaJay]

Anglicans believe in sola fide. I don’t see how that can be understood as Catholic.

From Pope Benedict XVI:

“For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love.”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

From the 39 Articles:

“XII. Of Good Works.
Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.”

anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

 

[LUISV]

It was the Roman legate Humbert who delivered the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople, at a time when the Pope was dead. The Eastern Churches accepted a Primacy of Rome, but one in accordance with the Ecumenical Councils, not the one that the Bishop of Rome believed was owed him.

The Eastern Orthodox number over 200 million. The Eastern Catholics number more in the range of the 12 million you provide.

Politics. Never fails that the root cause is political. To be faithful to history the excommunication went both ways. It was mutual and has now been seen like so many acts of men to have been a silly thing. Excommunication was the easy solution for disagreements hense the rapid split among the early Church.
Anglican/Episcopalian catholics are liturgical Roman Rite catholics in a very real sense. If there was a united Anglican church the restablishment apostolic succession would have been easy and universal. Even if union with Rome was never achieved it would by right be autocephalous and valid like the Old Catholic Church.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

As to Anglican Orders, it should be observed that since the time of Cranmer, the presence of deacons, priests, and bishops has been maintained. In the Prayerbook, carefull distinction is made as to the proper roles of the three orders. There was never any thought of abandoning the three orders that continue from apostolic times.

It should be noted that Paul VI gave Arthur Michael Ramsey (Archbishop of Canterburry then) his episcopal ring, and that John Paul II gave the then ABC a pectoral cross that was also given to cardinals and some other bishops. When asked about the meaning of this, Cardinal O’connor of Westminster said it meant “more than nothing”.

 

[GKC]

As to Anglican Orders, it should be observed that since the time of Cranmer, the presence of deacons, priests, and bishops has been maintained. In the Prayerbook, carefull distinction is made as to the proper roles of the three orders. There was never any thought of abandoning the three orders that continue from apostolic times.

It should be noted that Paul VI gave Arthur Michael Ramsey (Archbishop of Canterburry then) his episcopal ring, and that John Paul II gave the then ABC a pectoral cross that was also given to cardinals and some other bishops. When asked about the meaning of this, Cardinal O’connor of Westminster said it meant “more than nothing”.

The question that Apostolicae Curae raised, however, was whether the clergy so mentioned are to be considered as intended to be the same clergy as was found in the Church, prior. The answer, given the particular form in the Edwardine Ordinal, was that it was specifically devised not to do what the Church did (facere quod facit Eccelsia), that is, to ordain a sacerdotal or sacrificing priesthood. The form in the Ordinal makes no mention of this authority, which the RCC maintains is the essence of Orders.

The issue is complicated, and I don’t agree with the conclusion, but it needs to be recognized.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[IowaJay]

I’ve always liked what the Eastern Orthodox have to say about these issues - “We know where the church is, but we do not know where it is not.”

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

The American Episcopal Church is varied. Some consider themselves Protestants and some Anglo-Catholics. I know both. Since you have met some Anglican women priests, I might suggest that you should ask them why they consider themselves catholic. We are all catholic of course, as members of the universal church, but I think you think they mean Catholic in the big C sense. Only they can answer your correctly. The rest of our would be speculating.

Our priest in charge (we are searching for a new Rector) is a woman. I have never asked her whether she considers herself Anglo Catholic or not. I don’t think most anyone on this side really cares much.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

why are they allowing gay people to become priests?

If I may respond. There is first of all no “they” in Anglicanism. We do not have centralized authority, and churches decide these things for themselves in some sense.

Some Anglican churches do not approve of gay ordination, and some do. As I understand it, the Archbishop of Canterbury is a very very scholarly man. He has done some exhaustive research, and has determined that there is no biblical prohibition. He has not tried to enforce this against any church however, and has urged that everyone take a breathe. Of course many disagree with his conclusion and his request.

Those Anglican churches who have allowed gay ordination do so because they are convinced, as many are that there is no biblical prohibition. I certainly have come to that conclusion.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Depends on which Anglican you ask, and what you mean by authority. Anglicans do not (with a very few exceptions) believe the Pope possesses universal ordinary authority. But most certainly recognize he is the Patriarch of the West (even if that title isn’t being used right now). In my parish, at Mass, when we pray for all faithful bishops, we mention Benedict by name.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

And in mine, we do not.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think you should read up on anglicanism then learn about the current state of affairs before attacking Archbishop Williamson.
As AOC, he’s not the liberal he was in his previous writings. He didn’t even invite Bishop Robinson to Lambeth.

You are right, but Robinson went and reported on his time there on his blog. It was lovingly written. He is a dear man.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

I would say that you cannot be Roman catholic and deny the doctrines of the faith. Had you asked these priests were they Roman Catholic, they would have told you no.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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?

Where do you get your information? Especially the parts about what is diluted and dubious? A citation please?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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

GKC

Dang, I could have swore that was a woman who crossed me with ashes today! Glory Be, I’m needing glasses!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

I guess my question is always, why are some RCC so obsessed with this? Why are you infuriated? That others profess and believe many of the things you do? You would rather they didnt? I’m used to children being overly possessive of their “things” but first it was creeds, now, its what names are used? I just don’t get it.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

Oh be assured, we call ourselves Episcopalians and Anglicans. We usually don’t call ourselves Catholics, we merely state that we are part of the Holy catholic and apostolic Church. Sorry we are giving you a bad name as you see it. Wouldn’t want that! And vice versa no doubt. We have no priestesses and that is uncharitable and unkind. You are casting aspersions on other Christians and that I object to.