Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

Very quickly - how does the part played by the temporal ruler invalidate the Articles ? How are the Articles any worse off than the Catholic creeds? If Constantine & his successors can count as “godly princes” & “nursing fathers” to the Church - how are the Reformation-era rulers (on all sides) any different ? Does the logic that rejects the Articles not also reject the imperially-sponsored creeds, such as that of Nicea I ?​

 

[GKC]

You are confusing Anglicans or Anglo-Catholics with Episcopalians which is a U.S. denomination. I was Anglo-Catholic until a year ago when I became disillusioned that we would never be accepted into the RC faith so I became Catholic, a decision I’ve never regretted --Im happier and more fullfilled now and have a lasting, enduring relationship with the father, son and holy spirit. BUT that doesn’t stop me from always respecting and loving my Anglican brothers and sisters.

Episcopalians are Anglicans, the official representatives of the official Anglican Communion, in America, the official Anglican Communion being those Anglicans in communion with Canterbury.

Anglican is the generic term, Episcopalian (in this instance) the specific.

Anglo-Catholics are a flavor of Anglican, and may be found in all parts of Anglicanism. They may be contrasted with Anglo=Papalists (rare birds) or with Anglicans who are more reformed in their doctrine. One amy be an Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian, or an Anglo-Catholic Anglican, member of the Church of England.

This by no means exhausts the Anglican taxonomy.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[GKC]

Very quickly - how does the part played by the temporal ruler invalidate the Articles ? How are the Articles any worse off than the Catholic creeds? If Constantine & his successors can count as “godly princes” & “nursing fathers” to the Church - how are the Reformation-era rulers (on all sides) any different ? Does the logic that rejects the Articles not also reject the imperially-sponsored creeds, such as that of Nicea I ?​

Even more quickly.

1. I don’t see that it does. They do so, or do not do so, on their theological merits.
2. To the extent that they affirm the Creeds (I assume you mean the Creeds in the common sense), they are neither better nor worse. To the extent that they do not, tant pis. To the extent that they affirm the beliefs of the undivided Church, ditto.
3. The logic rejects the articles (selectively) not on their origin, but on their content.

GKC

 

[Madaglan]

Please site a source for this.

Luther, Martin, “A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians.” Martin Luther: Selections from his Writings. Ed. John Dillenberger, 1962, pp. 115-116.

Luther here quite clearly states that the power to justify belongs to faith alone, and not to charity, and that faith justifies a person without and before charity.

 

[Madaglan]

Here’s what Luther had to say:

“7. We hold, and unquestionably it is true, that it is faith which justifies and cleanses. Rom 1, 17; 10, 10; Acts 15, 9. But if it justifies and purifies, love must be present. The Spirit cannot but impart love together with faith. In fact, where true faith is, the Holy Spirit dwells; and where the Holy Spirit is, there must be love and every excellence.”

orlutheran.com/html/mlse1co13.html

He also wrote that faith is a “busy, active, mighty thing.”

books.google.com/books?id=w37BGZ6V7nkC&pg=PA448&lpg=PA448&dq=luther+faith+busy+active+thing&source=bl&ots=FjMuAaDs4_&sig=p0OtbUYv9ghy_6sKSliivjU-7CY&hl=en&ei=udOmSeWvDonOMuvMuLsC&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

IMHO the whole debate should have never been labeled “faith vs. works” because Lutherans teach that faith and works of love are indeed inseparable. The debate is more appropriately characterized as a debate about the role of the human will in the process of forming faith - Catholic theology emphasizes the role of free will, whereas Lutheran theology emphasizes our will is bound to sin and that our faith is a gift of the Spirit.

Continuing a few sentences after the selection you quote, we read:

“Even the sophists have not attributed justification to love, nor is this possible, for love is an effect, or fruit, of the Spirit, who is received through faith.”

I think you are on the right track though with the will. Luther considered the Bondage of the Will his finest work, and it’s not going far to suggest that the core of many Luther’s ideas on salvation are found within. The Catholic (and Orthodox) understanding of cooperation with God (i.e. synergy) is quite different from Lutheran theology. In the discussions I’ve had with some Lutherans, they describe the views as “Monergy v. Synergy.”

 

[Madaglan]

I don’t see the connection between those two paragraphs. The faith that justifies is a faith that works through love. But in Luther’s view faith does not need love in order to be formed or perfected. Love is the means through which faith expresses itself, not something that perfects or completes or “vivifies” faith.

I can’t see that the Articles take a stand on that issue. Myself, I’m not sure it’s the right way of framing the question. I would say with Luther that the faith given by God always comes along with love, but I would also say that faith grows and diminishes according to whether we act out of love.

Edwin

Yes, Luther rejected the teaching concerning love that forms/perfects faith

In my reading of Luther, however, he also seems to take it a step further by saying that faith alone justifies–good works and Christian love following this justification and in expression of faith.

 

[josie_L]

Actually the question is “why isn’t it”? Anything is speculation until you give evidence for it. Evidence would be government records citing him as a recusant or something like that. All the evidence people find from his plays proves at most that he was somewhat more sympathetic to Catholicism than other folks of his day, and given what good drama Catholic “props” provide even that is somewhat speculative.

I’m not sure why Joseph Pearce’s former anti-Catholicism is relevant, except as evidence against his credibility. Someone who has once held wild and silly views of one sort, but has now abandoned them, is likely to hold wild and silly views of some other sort by way of reaction. This is of course not reason to dismiss what Mr. Pearce says. However, I have not been impressed by what I’ve read of his work (mostly his book on C. S. Lewis). He has an axe to grind and doesn’t look fairly at the material. (His interpretation of Lewis’s Anglicanism, for instance, shows a very poor understanding of Anglicanism and basically interprets Anglicanism in whatever directly will support his thesis about Lewis).

Entertaining does not always mean sold scholarship. I wish it did–I have nothing against entertainment! But when dealing with history I’ll take scholarship over entertainment if I have to choose.

Edwin

So basically what you are saying is that you haven’t read the book.

 

[anglocat]

I am not Roman Catholic, but I am Catholic. I am an Anglican from South Africa. We are not much theologians here, we just try to keep the faith simple. Anglicans and Romans have a wonderful relationship this side to the point whereby Protestants cannot distinguish between the two. Every time we have to explain the difference. did I mention tha my parish hosts a combined service with RC every pentecost? What about combined Rosary prayer groups?

Going back to the question. Just as much as one carries their parents’ name so does the Anglican Church. My limited knowledge tells me that the English church was birthed by the RCC, so common sense tells me that actually it is not even enough to say I am Catholic, I can even say I am Roman Catholic.

My question: Did the RCC disown me? If so, it is it time it leaves me alone so that I can carry on with my heresy.

Regarding gay priests; it happens for the same reason that some RC piests molest innocent children (sinful nature of the human soul). it needs to also be understood that what happened at the gay church is not a doctrine of the Anglican church; just like molesting innocent kids is not.

I really love the RC church and yes I do believe in papal authority. My reality right now is that; at this point in time, the flock is all over the place, but that does not make anyone a lesser part of the flock. God wills, one day the flock will be in one pen praising and worshipping God in unity.

For now, I will continue to be part of the Anglican church. it is not a virtue in the Anglican church to seperate oneself due to theological differences. if people did grasp this a long time ago, protestantism would not have happened.

 

[Black_Dog]

I am in the process of converting to Catholicism from the C of E… They are NOT the same!

 

[anglocat]

I am well aware that RC and the Anglican church are not the same denomination, but don’t they both descend from the apostles? So, how did the Anglican church loose its Apostolic heritage?

considering the scandals in the RCC, I guess I can make a judgement that they also do not hold to the teaching of the apostles.

We need to understand that this is HISTORY, nobody knows the intention of those who perpetrated this division. Just like we do not know the intentions of those who decided that Anglican orders are invalid (yes, popes do have intentions too!). There are Anglicans like me who respect the RCC and actually yearn for union, i am just not going to do that without the rest of my diocese. I will follow the lead of my Bishop on this one. As one who is “catholic” in faith i believe in obeying the authority of those in power in the church.

 

[GKC]

I am well aware that RC and the Anglican church are not the same denomination, but don’t they both descend from the apostles? So, how did the Anglican church loose its Apostolic heritage?

considering the scandals in the RCC, I guess I can make a judgement that they also do not hold to the teaching of the apostles.

We need to understand that this is HISTORY, nobody knows the intention of those who perpetrated this division. Just like we do not know the intentions of those who decided that Anglican orders are invalid (yes, popes do have intentions too!). There are Anglicans like me who respect the RCC and actually yearn for union, i am just not going to do that without the rest of my diocese. I will follow the lead of my Bishop on this one. As one who is “catholic” in faith i believe in obeying the authority of those in power in the church.

According to the RCC, Anglicanism lost apostolic succession in the 16th century,through the use of an invalid form, in consecrating bishops (the Edwardine Ordinal) and from an invalid intent, shown by using that form. This judgment was rendered in Apostolicae Curae, over Leo XIII’s signature, in 1896.

The use of the term “intent” has a special meaning within the sacramental action (as does, for example, the use of the word “matter”). Apostolicae Curae states that the intent (which must be to do what the Church does, to be sacramentally valid) was defective, as shown by the use of a form which itself is not necessarily defective, but was judged so, given how, when and by whom it was constructed. Hence, it did not confer the sacrament of Holy Orders, and Anglican apostolic succession was broken. It is technically complicated.

There is no doubt that Popes have intentions, as do others, but that’s not how the word is used here.

I’m Anglican; the sad story of the history, politics and personalities associated with Apostolicae Curae is a hobby of mine, and I don’t accept it’s validity (so to speak). But it is binding on RCs, who follow authority, too…

GKC

 

[Black_Dog]

I always understood that the Church of England came about as a result of Henry V111 wishing to divorce his wife and marry his mistress to try to ensure a male succession to the throne.

Everyone was required to pledge an oath recognising the authority of the Monarchy as opposed to the Pope. Those who refused were executed…Thomas More and most of the Bishops, thus ending Apostolic succession and beginning centuries of persecution of those who sought to maintain the True Faith.

Even without that historical background, my own personal experience of the modern C of E is of a church trying to be all things to all men and instead floundering and lurching about from one crisis to another. It is true that some sections of the C of E do have a deeply traditional service of worship which many Catholics would recognise and feel familiar with but without a claim to Apostolic succession and validly ordained ministers it is only a service of worship and not a Catholic Mass. There are other sectors of the C of E to which religion seems more of an embarrassment rather than a reason for existence. IMHO

 

[GKC]

I always understood that the Church of England came about as a result of Henry V111 wishing to divorce his wife and marry his mistress to try to ensure a male succession to the throne.

Everyone was required to pledge an oath recognising the authority of the Monarchy as opposed to the Pope. Those who refused were executed…Thomas More and most of the Bishops, thus ending Apostolic succession and beginning centuries of persecution of those who sought to maintain the True Faith.

Even without that historical background, my own personal experience of the modern C of E is of a church trying to be all things to all men and instead floundering and lurching about from one crisis to another. It is true that some sections of the C of E do have a deeply traditional service of worship which many Catholics would recognise and feel familiar with but without a claim to Apostolic succession and validly ordained ministers it is only a service of worship and not a Catholic Mass. There are other sectors of the C of E to which religion seems more of an embarrassment rather than a reason for existence. IMHO

Your history is not quite accurate, it was a decree of nullity, not a divorce, that Henry was after, a very common circumstance in those days. But basically, you are on the right track,as far as that part goes. However, the reason why the RCC declared its judgment that the Anglicans had lost apostolic succession was given in Apostolicae Curae, in 1896, and related solely to the issue of form and intent, and the Edwardine Ordinal. The fact that Henry split the CoE from the RCC would not affect apostolic succcession, as shown in the cases of the PNCC and Old Catholics, not to mention the Orthodox. Such instances result, in the RCC view, in valid, but illicit orders, not the loss of succession.

GKC

 

[tomarin]

Even without that historical background, my own personal experience of the modern C of E is of a church trying to be all things to all men and instead floundering and lurching about from one crisis to another.

Isn’t this because the doctrinal mushiness of Anglicanism/Episcopalianism is a historical artifact of the compromises that had to be made to accomodate the protestant reforming faction and the high church faction of the C of E? If so, then it isn’t just modern Anglicanism that has this attribute, it’s always been true.

I read an article on First Things that said that while the C of E used to be referred to (with tongue in cheek) as “The Republican Party at prayer,” it might be more accurate to refer to it today as “Planned Parenthood at prayer”. That’s a snarky thing to say, but isn’t it true by and large?

 

[Contarini]

So basically what you are saying is that you haven’t read the book.

Indeed. And the book may be quite wonderful. However, the point at issue is not the quality of the book per se but the claim that Shakespeare was a Catholic. On a discussion forum I expect someone maintaining this view to give me an actual argument. Instead of this, I was presented with the Magical Name of Joseph Pearce to overawe my irreverent skepticism, and I gave my reasons for not being overawed.

If Pearce makes good arguments, then they are reproducible on this forum. I’m not going to read every single book out there in the chance that it may have good arguments.

Furthermore, I have read a review of the book in *First Things *by an actual scholar, and I have read Pearce’s truculent and arrogant response.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Yes, Luther rejected the teaching concerning love that forms/perfects faith

In my reading of Luther, however, he also seems to take it a step further by saying that faith alone justifies–good works and Christian love following this justification and in expression of faith.

Agreed. But it remains true that the faith that justifies is always a faith that works through love, even though it’s not the love or the works that justify. I do not put the importance on this distinction that Luther did–I find it an unnecessary one. But this is in fact what Luther taught, and I’m not sure it’s some kind of awful heresy either.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Isn’t this because the doctrinal mushiness of Anglicanism/Episcopalianism is a historical artifact of the compromises that had to be made to accomodate the protestant reforming faction and the high church faction of the C of E? If so, then it isn’t just modern Anglicanism that has this attribute, it’s always been true.

I read an article on First Things that said that while the C of E used to be referred to (with tongue in cheek) as “The Republican Party at prayer,” it might be more accurate to refer to it today as “Planned Parenthood at prayer”. That’s a snarky thing to say, but isn’t it true by and large?

That was the Episcopal Church that was referred to as kneeling Republicans, not the CoE.

Anglicanism has been a mish-mash since the Elizabethan Compromise, it’s true. But it was once under an umbrella of “mere Christianity”, a case not so today.

GKC

 

[Black_Dog]

I’ve just read a very interesting document about the Edwardine Ordinal:
thefreelibrary.com/The+Edwardine+Ordinal+&+Anglican+ordinations-a0154756273

 

[tomarin]

That was the Episcopal Church that was referred to as kneeling Republicans, not the CoE.

My apologies. I meant the Episcopalians.

Anglicanism has been a mish-mash since the Elizabethan Compromise, it’s true. But it was once under an umbrella of “mere Christianity”, a case not so today.

When did it cease to be an umbrella of “mere Christianity”?

 

[GKC]

My apologies. I meant the Episcopalians.

When did it cease to be an umbrella of “mere Christianity”?

Somewhere around the mid to late 60s.

At 1136 in the morning, IIRC.

GKC