Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic?

[tomarin]

Somewhere around the mid to late 60s.

At 1136 in the morning, IIRC.

GKC

Good one.

 

[GKC]

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

That is an excellent summary of the RC position, and better at the history than most I have seen. It has weak spots, which one could argue with, but that is beside the point. And it would profit by reference to (then Jesuit Fr.) Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, not just his EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE, but it’s a good summary.

I usually recommend, for the best overall exposition of the RC position, Clark’s above mentioned ANGLICAN ORDERS. And for the best presentation of an Anglican position, Fr J. J. Hughes’ two books, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID, (for the history) and STEWARDS OF THE LORD, for the theology. Hughes, who was a RC priest when he wrote these books, is an interesting character, being the first known former Anglican priest to be ordained a RC priest sub conditione

GKC

 

[Black_Dog]

I’ve learnt a lot from reading this thread.

I will miss the CoE, It is quintessentially English, undemanding, full for the most part of well meaning people and will always bring to mind Sunday morning services in a beautiful old church in a village setting.
But for me that is no longer enough…

Here it became known as “The English middle classes at prayer”

 

[GKC]

I’ve learnt a lot from reading this thread.

I will miss the CoE, It is quintessentially English, undemanding, full for the most part of well meaning people and will always bring to mind Sunday morning services in a beautiful old church in a village setting.
But for me that is no longer enough…

Here it became known as “The English middle classes at prayer”

I’m glad it still has a constituency, there.

GKC

 

[Black_Dog]

No, but you have to go back to their history. It was never about religion…it was always about politics. Their history is so complex…I am a student of English history. I can easily see how Anglicans think they are Catholic…they are. Within my lifetime, God wills, we will welcome them back.

They arent and if you follow up on the links about the Edwardine Ordinal you will see why they are not Catholic. And as for welcoming them back…there are enormous hurdles to overcome.

 

[GKC]

They arent and if you follow up on the links about the Edwardine Ordinal you will see why they are not Catholic. And as for welcoming them back…there are enormous hurdles to overcome.

He would see why the RCC said they didn’t possess valid orders. Much of the relevant history would not be given. See the books I listed.

GKC

 

[josie_L]

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

My mention of the book was meant to induce curiousity, and nothing more (in other words if you were interested in knowing what this author had to say about Shakespeare being Catholic you were more than welcome to do so), and did you really expect me to write a summary of the book for you?

P.S. when you gave your reason for not being overawed, it had nothing to do with the book I had suggested.

My only expectation was that you would be open-minded enough to read the book.

 

[Peter_J]

Believe it or not - but I was trying to avoid being offensive to RCs or Anglicans IOW, trying to be ecumenical.​

The trouble with just about every expression is that each one

• has associations - or
• implies granting what others might not grant - or
• is pejorative
  So:
• Romanist is out - it’s pejorative
• Catholic is out, because the Catholicity of one or both bodies is the issue under discussion
• “Communion” has associations: it might imply that either or both of the bodies is not a Church
• “See of Rome” is ambiguous: it can refer to the diocese in Italy, or to the authority which governs the Church which is subject to the Roman Pontiff
  I plumped for “Papal Church” as meaning:
• Church - the communion of persons subject to to Roman See is certainly that
• Church subject to the Pope (of Rome) - the Church aforementioned is that also
• the body that is not the C of E nor in communion with it nor in any way related to it at present.
  There is also the issue of what it means for a Church to be Catholic or catholic: what is “Catholicity” ? There is a lot more to it than quoting this or that Father or whoever it may be.

The difficulty is think of a Church of which that last remark could not be made…​

Hi GofG,

I’m glad to hear that you meant no offense by “the Papal Church”.

And I can understand why you wouldn’t want to say “the Catholic Church” without qualifier – and far be it from me to try to trick you into saying something that you don’t really believe. :getholy:

Nevertheless, I still think that at least one of the other 2 choices I gave (to wit, “the Roman Catholic Church” and “the Roman Catholic Communion”) ought to be acceptable to you.

And as far as people objecting to the word “Communion” being in there … come on now, that’s a ridiculous objection. The RCC is most certainly is a communion of 23 sui iuris Churches (the Latin Church and the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches).

 

[Peter_J]

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

I have to agree with BILL PICK on this one. I see very little resemblence between CAF and the worldwide Roman Catholic Church. Why would you let the former influence your decision regarding the latter?

I have to say that it was members here who definitely helped me out the of the RCC too. A re-reading of Timothy and his instructions on teaching is definitely in order for us all!

Same question.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi GofG,

I’m glad to hear that you meant no offense by “the Papal Church”.

And I can understand why you wouldn’t want to say “the Catholic Church” without qualifier – and far be it from me to try to trick you into saying something that you don’t really believe. :getholy:

Nevertheless, I still think that at least one of the other 2 choices I gave (to wit, “the Roman Catholic Church” and “the Roman Catholic Communion”) ought to be acceptable to you.

And as far as people objecting to the word “Communion” being in there … come on now, that’s a ridiculous objection. The RCC is most certainly is a communion of 23 sui iuris Churches (the Latin Church and the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches).

As far as I am concerned, “Papal Communion” fits the bill nicely.

No offense intended.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I have to agree with BILL PICK on this one. I see very little resemblence between CAF and the worldwide Roman Catholic Church. Why would you let the former influence your decision regarding the latter?

Same question.

As for me, I can say that no one hear caused me to leave the RC faith. I agree fully that people here do not in any way represent the vast majority of catholics I know and have known over the years. My reasons for leaving have been stated elsewhere but include, serious differences with doctrinal matters, an inability to accept the Church’s handling of the priest scandal, and finally a determination that I wanted to be involved in church ministries to a greater degree. People here did help by their anomosity and starting and pursing threads that actually asked us to leave the church, me to focus on why I was remaining, and I finally determined that the hypocrisy was too great to remain.

I know many very liberal RC’s who remain and feel it their duty to protest on work to reform the Church. I decided I couldn’t take on that role. I wanted ministry too much to be a back bencher. Since my marriage was not sacramental I could be denied Eucharist if it came up.

So people functioned here only to focus me and force me to think deeply on a subject, --leaving–that I had been avoiding. I thank them very much for that actually, though I’m sure their intent is not to drive people away. Yet their hard attitudes do in fact cause that to happen. I cannot imagine how they are received by some who come to inquire and read these posts. If liberal elements feel there is no place for them, then obviously they will turn and look elsewhere.

I suspect, given what I have read about why this site was started, that this may not be what was intended, but they have obviously become a home to some very ultra conservative and unhappy people who apparently don’t like much of what is happening in their church, American or the world for that matter. I continue to be astounded that Christians can take some of the positions taken here, but it’s been a real eye-opener and has certainly had an impact on what I blog about and so forth. Interesting to me is that I have been contacted by a number of RC members who have seen fit to comment on my blog from time to time, mostly objecting that they are not at all like this, and perhaps alerting them that there is a very vocal group that is determined to erradicate all voices of moderation or liberalism in the RC.

It is not my fight as I said, and I wish you all well. We in the TEC have our own issues to contend with, and I am busy enough with that!

 

[Peter_J]

As for me, I can say that no one hear caused me to leave the RC faith. I agree fully that people here do not in any way represent the vast majority of catholics I know and have known over the years. My reasons for leaving have been stated elsewhere but include, serious differences with doctrinal matters, an inability to accept the Church’s handling of the priest scandal, and finally a determination that I wanted to be involved in church ministries to a greater degree. People here did help by their anomosity and starting and pursing threads that actually asked us to leave the church, me to focus on why I was remaining, and I finally determined that the hypocrisy was too great to remain.

I know many very liberal RC’s who remain and feel it their duty to protest on work to reform the Church. I decided I couldn’t take on that role. I wanted ministry too much to be a back bencher. Since my marriage was not sacramental I could be denied Eucharist if it came up.

So people functioned here only to focus me and force me to think deeply on a subject, --leaving–that I had been avoiding. I thank them very much for that actually, though I’m sure their intent is not to drive people away. Yet their hard attitudes do in fact cause that to happen. I cannot imagine how they are received by some who come to inquire and read these posts. If liberal elements feel there is no place for them, then obviously they will turn and look elsewhere.

Well, if discussions on the internet helped you to clarify what you believe and what you want, that’s all fine and dandy. But it also seems to me like you once carried around the idea that the RCC doesn’t contain any rude, nasty, etc. people; then when you finally met even a small number of rude, nasty Catholics, it was like your own private “scandal”.

I’m just saying.

I suspect, given what I have read about why this site was started, that this may not be what was intended, but they have obviously become a home to some very ultra conservative and unhappy people who apparently don’t like much of what is happening in their church, American or the world for that matter.

Well, I don’t know what you heard about “why this site was started”; but I’d like to propose to you a theory of my own. You’ve undoubtedly noticed that the list of forums of this website contains one titled “Traditional Catholicism”. What you may not have noticed is that it’s the largest traditionalist Catholic forum on the whole internet. (I’m going by total number of posts: the “Traditional Catholicism” forum on CAF has 160,317 posts. The “Fish Eaters” forum is a close second with 143,591 posts.)

Hence, I don’t think it’s at all surprising that there’s a certain amount of “spill over” onto other CAF forums, such as this one.

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.”

 

[ICA04]

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. The people of England followed their King or Queen. 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.

The English were the most Catholic of the Catholics before the protestant reformation and, of the protestants, they retained catholicism (note small c). Shakespeare was Catholic.

I’m Irish too. God knows what we Irish suffered at the hands of the English.

Anglicans think that they are catholic because they are catholic. Many Anglicans are far more orthodox Roman Catholics than far too many of our local RC parishes.

I would welcome my Anglican brothers and sisters home.

The Anglicans that I know are very confident that they are home and would likely wish for you to come home as well.

 

[JohnVIII]

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.

Anglicans hold to what is called a “branch theory”. They say that Catholicism has come down to us is at least three branches, namely: Orthodox, Anglican, and Roman Catholic. They make a distinction between “internal” and “external” schisms. This is how they wish to claim that they are “Catholic”.

 

[grampben]

Anglicans hold to what is called a “branch theory”. They say that Catholicism has come down to us is at least three branches, namely: Orthodox, Anglican, and Roman Catholic. They make a distinction between “internal” and “external” schisms. This is how they wish to claim that they are “Catholic”.

Not all anglicans adhere to the branch theory, usually only anglo-catholics.
The theory was developed by the Oxford Movement in the 19th century.

 

[chris_molter]

Not all anglicans adhere to the branch theory, usually only anglo-catholics.
The theory was developed by the Oxford Movement in the 19th century.

Not only that, but most Anglo-Catholics now reject it. (and rightfully so, since neither the Catholics nor the Orthodox were bought into it)

 

[GKC]

Not only that, but most Anglo-Catholics now reject it. (and rightfully so, since neither the Catholics nor the Orthodox were bought into it)

I neither reject or affirm it. I dither.

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus
*

 

[chris_molter]

I neither reject or affirm it. I dither.

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus
*

now THAT’S Classical Anglicanism at it’s Anglicanest!

 

[GKC]

now THAT’S Classical Anglicanism at it’s Anglicanest!

Only the pure quill; that’s me.

GKC

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Well, if discussions on the internet helped you to clarify what you believe and what you want, that’s all fine and dandy. But it also seems to me like you once carried around the idea that the RCC doesn’t contain any rude, nasty, etc. people; then when you finally met even a small number of rude, nasty Catholics, it was like your own private “scandal”.

I’m just saying.

I don’t know if I’m understanding you correctly Peter. I started on “christian” forums, and found them quite distasteful since I seemed to encounter mostly fundamentalists unchurched folks who thought Catholicism was demonized. When I located CAF, I expected perhaps naively, a whole different caliber of discussion. I was shocked to say the least to discover what I consider but another brand of fundamentalism, something frankly I had not known existed. If you term that scandalous, perhaps that is how I thought of it.

Well, I don’t know what you heard about “why this site was started”; but I’d like to propose to you a theory of my own. You’ve undoubtedly noticed that the list of forums of this website contains one titled “Traditional Catholicism”. What you may not have noticed is that it’s the largest traditionalist Catholic forum on the whole internet. (I’m going by total number of posts: the “Traditional Catholicism” forum on CAF has 160,317 posts. The “Fish Eaters” forum is a close second with 143,591 posts.)

Hence, I don’t think it’s at all surprising that there’s a certain amount of “spill over” onto other CAF forums, such as this one

.
I had heard that a priest had been quite upset to find flyers in his church parking lot decrying the catholic faith and determined to start a website to set the record straight. I think things here are way over the top, but perhaps he is of that persuasion I don’t know, and frankly don’t know who is in charge around here now.

I will admit that the only “traditionalists” I had ever heard of were those that either in defiance or by special permission were allowed to continue with Latin masses. I was seriously warned off attending them by both clergy and religious alike, such groups being considered “pre-VaticanII” in orientation. Oddly, the RCC I had as a child most contact with was one that went “traditionalist”. I consider someone like Mother Angelica and ETWN to be “pre Vatican II” as well. Perhaps I am ill informed.

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.