Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic?

[GKC]

The Church was unified (same theology was being preached) at this point in time and since the bishop of Rome was head of that Church (beginning with Peter), it makes sense to see how roman christianity was exported to the British Isles. This I believe is what Longenecker is refering to in his article (remember, he is a catholic convert and a priest).

As I said, if what you have found satisfies you, as to the scholarship, and objectivity, that is all you need, personally. I’ve been reading history (and collecting it, and other things ) for around 50 years, and I collect a range of positions on subjects I am interested in. I read, on Apostolicae Curae, for example, not only Hughes and Dix who are supportive of the Anglican position, but Clark and Messenger, who are not. Makes for a lot of books around. In my case, roughly 20,000 volumes, on hand.

I had hoped to begin building the library addition to the house by now, but there seems to be something going on with the economy, getting in my way. Some day.

GKC

 

[josie_L]

As I said, if what you have found satisfies you, as to the scholarship, and objectivity, that is all you need, personally. I’ve been reading history (and collecting it, and other things ) for around 50 years, and I collect a range of positions on subjects I am interested in. I read, on Apostolicae Curae, for example, not only Hughes and Dix who are supportive of the Anglican position, but Clark and Messenger, who are not. Makes for a lot of books around. In my case, roughly 20,000 volumes, on hand.

I had hoped to begin building the library addition to the house by now, but there seems to be something going on with the economy, getting in my way. Some day.

GKC

You have 20 000 volumes, wow, would you be getting one of those ladders for your library?

P.S. If I had 20 000 of anything I wanted it would be books, or better yet a mixture of books and movies, and I would throw in some Cds too.

 

[GKC]

You have 20 000 volumes, wow, would you be getting one of those ladders for your library?

P.S. If I had 20 000 of anything I wanted it would be books, or better yet a mixture of books and movies, and I would throw in some Cds too.

We have just started the idea of designing it, and my wife would dearly love to use a ladder system. I doubt I will do it.

20,000 is a best estimate. I’ve been at this since around 1956 (grammar school) or so, actively collecting, and worked 11 years in the book retail world, rare, collectible as well as new. That helped. I average, I guess, 10 books a month added, maybe more. One more today. And I’ve discarded around 1000 or so, in the last 2 years.

I doubt that the library, as large as I’m planning it, will hold all the collection.

And the collection also includes vinyl records, 2000+ (you may have heard of those), dvds, cds, and casette tapes. And about 4000 old radio shows, too.

Keeps me off the streets.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Is that so? Well you are probably right! Perhaps I should have run it by you previously! I shall know better next time.

But till then, maybe you could explain what Diarmid McCulloch the Historian meant in his book on the European Reformation when he said tha, ,“there were no Roman Catholics in Europe in 1500, with the sole exception of the Kingdom of Bohemia where there were churches loyal to the pope operating under an establishment which traces its origins to the Hussite Movement. The Roman Church recast itself at the long running Council of Trent.”

Article from the Faith & Worship, No 58 ed, of the Prayer Book Society.Written by Bishop Chartres of London.
Also you could elucidate on TP Baultrees ideas when he said, “Such writers as Field and others in our Church have always written of the Council of Trent as the great agent in severing the papal communion formerly and specifically from that which was Catholic and stamping it Papal and Roman.” In the notes to my edition it tells me that,"The term Roman in the Articles refers specific teachings of the Council of Trent.

Now there are many more Anglican Catholic and Protestant voices to be quoted in the same cause if you are interested! If so, just say!
LFD

I wouldn’t take what Diarmid McCulloch says as gospel or very seriously. He is himself a practicing homosexual, liberal Anglican deacon with his own slant on history and he’s no fan of Catholicism from the books of his that I have read.

 

[GKC]

I wouldn’t take what Diarmid McCulloch says as gospel or very seriously. He is himself a practicing homosexual, liberal Anglican deacon with his own slant on history and he’s no fan of Catholicism from the books of his that I have read.

I think he’s abandoned Anglicanism. But an ad hominem approach is not refutation. His work is taken seriously, in the field. I don’t buy all of it either. And certainly, he doesn’t say what he was made to say, here. Unless I missed something.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The original title of the thread, Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic, is pretty simple to answer. I can say that I felt Catholic for quite a while as an Anglican and I think they have some fundamentals in their faith that are indeed Catholic. Some Anglo-Catholic parishes are more faithful to the liturgy than RCC parishes. I felt that in my old parish church the liturgy was ancient, classy, and dignified in its presentation. When I returned to the RCC it was a let-down liturgy-wise with crying babies, a poorly-written English translation, koom-bay-ah guitars and just an overall watered-down feel.

The Anglican Church blew it in several respects (although, as GKC has correctly pointed out, many breakoff, more traditional groups don’t fit this profile):

Female priests
Wishy-washy teachings on the Eucharist
Extreme lack of authority (especially to excommunicate)
The absence of the Blessed Virgin
Throwing out the baby with the bath water
Weak international voice

Female priests, which anyone who is truly Catholic knows is an utter absurdity and a social innovation, destroyed Anglicanism’s chances of truly be reconciled by the orthodox and healing wounds with Roman Catholicism. The Orthodox, for quite a while, were considering accepting Anglican orders. Some actually did, and, from what I’ve read (GKC would know more about this than me of course), some Orthodox were considering intercommunion. But the silliness of female priestesses destroyed those chances.

The Eucharist is a confusing phenomenon in Anglicanism. The range of views from pneumatic presence to symbol-only to transubstantiation to Calvinism, heck, shreds credibility.

The lack of authority let in the gates of hell in many respects. Shelby Spong, who I think is the DEVIL INCARNATE, should never have been able to be an usher let alone a BISHOP! The man denied Christ’s divinity and taught garbage that is so preposterous that I can’t even begin…In the RCC he would have been defrocked in a New York minute!

While I know GKC’s Church is not like this, I must say an obvious absense of the Blessed Mother is another weak point I saw as an Anglican. Taking the BVM out of the equation of salvation history and minimizing her role in our salvation and path to Christ is sad

They threw out the baby with the bath water. The liturgy is lovely and the BOCP is beautifully-written, a true treasure of English literature to be sure. But casting away holy water, saintly devotion, and things like Adoration, really left a void.

Finally, I hated the fact that I NEVER saw an Anglican voice against abortion and other major social EVILS. In the fight against the horrors of abortion it has been the Catholic Church as the loudest voice crying out. Evangelical groups have, too, but the Anglicans are a group I’ve never heard in this fight. And at my old parish, they NEVER spoke about the right to life, NEVER. And by Anglican standards, my old parish was “conservative.”

Conservatism in Catholicism and conservatism in Anglicanism are wholly different in my own personal experience and in talking to Anglican clergy and bishops.

I ultimately felt that the Episcopal Church to which I belonged (now Anglican, broken off from the liberal Episcopagan, I mean, Episcopalian, Church) was not really Catholic. It was a refugee camp for people that hated the Catholic Church and other more demanding Evangelical groups. People that wanted women priests, people who were divorced and wanted it legitimized, people that disagreed with the Pope or idea of the papacy, etc.

I must say, however, that my old priests were awesome. They were so pastoral and caring. They were more dependable, caring, and better priests than my Catholic priests have been for sure. But the theology was just not something I could stomach.

Saepius Officio, the Anglican response to Apostolicae Curae, is well-written, I must say, and he makes compelling arguments against the Catholic charge of defective orders and nullity, etc. The Anglican-Catholic argument is a fascinating one. Six years ago, when I was at my old Anglican parish, if it had been as catholic as GKC’s parish, I’m sure I would have stayed put. But mine certainly wasn’t. And the global weaknesses of Anglicanism trouble me. I feel that Roman Catholicism’s cohesiveness, historical beauty, and its decisive, credible, logical truths are just too compelling to ignore in favor of even the best Anglicanism. That’s just my opinion though.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Bishop John-David Schofield, the very conservative, traditionalist bishop here in the Diocese of San Joaquin, was the bishop that led the entire diocese OUT of the liberal Episcopal Church. He’s a great man and a fabulous speaker. The man is just full of wisdom and truly loves the Lord. It was men like him that made it hard for me to leave, even though I eventually did.

He said recently in the Diocesean Newletter this about the Episcopal Church from which he broke off:

**"“Their (Episcopal Church) claim is that the gospel they preach demands changed lives, while the liberal version is “come as you are, stay as you are,” a gospel of
inclusion makes it only marginally set apart from the GONG SHOW with a liturgy
but with decidedly less humor.” /B]

My friends and I read that and about busted a gut. That man is witty!**

 

[GKC]

The original title of the thread, Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic, is pretty simple to answer. I can say that I felt Catholic for quite a while as an Anglican and I think they have some fundamentals in their faith that are indeed Catholic. Some Anglo-Catholic parishes are more faithful to the liturgy than RCC parishes. I felt that in my old parish church the liturgy was ancient, classy, and dignified in its presentation. When I returned to the RCC it was a let-down liturgy-wise with crying babies, a poorly-written English translation, koom-bay-ah guitars and just an overall watered-down feel.

The Anglican Church blew it in several respects (although, as GKC has correctly pointed out, many breakoff, more traditional groups don’t fit this profile):

Female priests
Wishy-washy teachings on the Eucharist
Extreme lack of authority (especially to excommunicate)
The absence of the Blessed Virgin
Throwing out the baby with the bath water
Weak international voice

Female priests, which anyone who is truly Catholic knows is an utter absurdity and a social innovation, destroyed Anglicanism’s chances of truly be reconciled by the orthodox and healing wounds with Roman Catholicism. The Orthodox, for quite a while, were considering accepting Anglican orders. Some actually did, and, from what I’ve read (GKC would know more about this than me of course), some Orthodox were considering intercommunion. But the silliness of female priestesses destroyed those chances.

The Eucharist is a confusing phenomenon in Anglicanism. The range of views from pneumatic presence to symbol-only to transubstantiation to Calvinism, heck, shreds credibility.

The lack of authority let in the gates of hell in many respects. Shelby Spong, who I think is the DEVIL INCARNATE, should never have been able to be an usher let alone a BISHOP! The man denied Christ’s divinity and taught garbage that is so preposterous that I can’t even begin…In the RCC he would have been defrocked in a New York minute!

While I know GKC’s Church is not like this, I must say an obvious absense of the Blessed Mother is another weak point I saw as an Anglican. Taking the BVM out of the equation of salvation history and minimizing her role in our salvation and path to Christ is sad

They threw out the baby with the bath water. The liturgy is lovely and the BOCP is beautifully-written, a true treasure of English literature to be sure. But casting away holy water, saintly devotion, and things like Adoration, really left a void.

Finally, I hated the fact that I NEVER saw an Anglican voice against abortion and other major social EVILS. In the fight against the horrors of abortion it has been the Catholic Church as the loudest voice crying out. Evangelical groups have, too, but the Anglicans are a group I’ve never heard in this fight. And at my old parish, they NEVER spoke about the right to life, NEVER. And by Anglican standards, my old parish was “conservative.”

Conservatism in Catholicism and conservatism in Anglicanism are wholly different in my own personal experience and in talking to Anglican clergy and bishops.

I ultimately felt that the Episcopal Church to which I belonged (now Anglican, broken off from the liberal Episcopagan, I mean, Episcopalian, Church) was not really Catholic. It was a refugee camp for people that hated the Catholic Church and other more demanding Evangelical groups. People that wanted women priests, people who were divorced and wanted it legitimized, people that disagreed with the Pope or idea of the papacy, etc.

I must say, however, that my old priests were awesome. They were so pastoral and caring. They were more dependable, caring, and better priests than my Catholic priests have been for sure. But the theology was just not something I could stomach.

Saepius Officio, the Anglican response to Apostolicae Curae, is well-written, I must say, and he makes compelling arguments against the Catholic charge of defective orders and nullity, etc. The Anglican-Catholic argument is a fascinating one. Six years ago, when I was at my old Anglican parish, if it had been as catholic as GKC’s parish, I’m sure I would have stayed put. But mine certainly wasn’t. And the global weaknesses of Anglicanism trouble me. I feel that Roman Catholicism’s cohesiveness, historical beauty, and its decisive, credible, logical truths are just too compelling to ignore in favor of even the best Anglicanism. That’s just my opinion though.

You’re kind, to make folks like me the exception; Anglicans who do have Adoration, the Angelus, fonts, or Mary shrines, or such, and who have been very active indeed, in shutting down abortion clinics). Generally, I agree with your observations about the state of official Anglicanism.

Just a comment or so.

AFAIK, the Orthodox never really were close to accepting Anglican orders, though, back in the 30s, there was some correspondence between Anglicanism and four Orthodox Primates that seem to suggest that. But what was really happening was a sort of polite Orthodox put down of both Roman and Anglican orders, as outside the One Church (which isn’t you, us, or both together). The Orthodox view Roman (and Anglican, the best of us, that is) as possessing orders that are “empty” (as opposed to valid or invalid. That is, incapable of confecting sacraments which convey grace, because outside the One Church, but could be made to do so, within the One Church. Or so I understand it. But one thing the issue of females in sacerdotal garments did effect was any chance of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission to really do any of the things Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey set it up to do, in terms of meaningful work.

I appreciate your words about Saepius Officio, which has good points, but also one logical problem (which I won’t address).

As always,

Pax, frater.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Bishop John-David Schofield, the very conservative, traditionalist bishop here in the Diocese of San Joaquin, was the bishop that led the entire diocese OUT of the liberal Episcopal Church. He’s a great man and a fabulous speaker. The man is just full of wisdom and truly loves the Lord. It was men like him that made it hard for me to leave, even though I eventually did.

He said recently in the Diocesean Newletter this about the Episcopal Church from which he broke off:

**"“Their (Episcopal Church) claim is that the gospel they preach demands changed lives, while the liberal version is “come as you are, stay as you are,” a gospel of
inclusion makes it only marginally set apart from the GONG SHOW with a liturgy
but with decidedly less humor.” /B]

My friends and I read that and about busted a gut. That man is witty!**

And that, with +Iker, makes 4 entire dioceses departed, in this exercise.

GKC

 

[josie_L]

We have just started the idea of designing it, and my wife would dearly love to use a ladder system. I doubt I will do it.

20,000 is a best estimate. I’ve been at this since around 1956 (grammar school) or so, actively collecting, and worked 11 years in the book retail world, rare, collectible as well as new. That helped. I average, I guess, 10 books a month added, maybe more. One more today. And I’ve discarded around 1000 or so, in the last 2 years.

I doubt that the library, as large as I’m planning it, will hold all the collection.

And the collection also includes vinyl records, 2000+ (you may have heard of those), dvds, cds, and casette tapes. And about 4000 old radio shows, too.

Keeps me off the streets.

GKC

 

[luckyfredsdad]

I wouldn’t take what Diarmid McCulloch says as gospel or very seriously. He is himself a practicing homosexual, liberal Anglican deacon with his own slant on history and he’s no fan of Catholicism from the books of his that I have read.

Regarding Diarmid McCulloch.

I am not a member of the Anglican Communion, who I do not believe are either Catholic or Anglican. They are to my mind Latitudinarians or Neo Anglicans. Certainly not traditional ones. But to criticise a man for his sexual bent and then suggest that he is a stranger to the truth because he holds different beliefs, shows a lack of something when it originates from a Christian! Just because a man is no believer in Catholicism makes neither a rogue or vagabond.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic?

Could it be because they were made Members of Christ and Children of God, that is members of the Catholic Church at their baptism and confirmed in this by their Bishop at a later age?

That they hold to the Catholic Faith,i.e.
The revelation of Christ once made to the saints.
Which is recorded in scripture
and completed, explained and interpreted by the Holy Fathers of the Seven Councils and the Consensus of the Greek fathers of the early centuries.

This along with a full belief and practice of the Apostolic Succession of both Catholic orders and doctrine, gives a good start to Anglicans.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow
I’d be a lot more willing to receive your remarks had your website not been Catholic (aligned with Rome) in nature. Is it at all possible that the term was not meant to be rude but as the site also admits to separate Anglicans as Catholics from the Church of Rome, also Catholic. The later seems much more likely and the reasoning makes superb sense as well.

Not at all. I assume that it was as you say, Anglicans who did, but that indeed was a long time ago, and it does perfectly serve to differentiate between those who follow the Pope and those who adhered to the same basic theology and practice yet did not. While I’m sure there was rancor inititally, there is no need for it any more, and I certainly don’t think Anglicans as a group use the term to demean Roman Catholics at all today. It is a means of being precise.

We are not discussing issues regarding wording about popes. I have used no such language and would not. I continue to point out that it was the Roman Church that taught me to use the appelation Roman Catholic lest I confuse my listener as to any other Catholic branch.

It was just part of the full article, No implication of what you said, However, it does address what another previous poster wrote.

Okay

You have been deprived of nothing. You apparently are peeved that others use the appelation and you feel it belongs only to you. I have found this same syndrome about the apostles creed and nicene creed as well, and probably about any number of ritualistic practices that many of us share in common.

You assume too much.

I’m most glad to hear that.

I think you are merely trying to create this issue as payback, but as I said, I don’t object as long as you realize that Catholic includes all orthodox and apostolic churches, and that is more than just the Roman one.

I’m not sure what you mean by payback? Do I or the Catholic Church have something to pay you or the Anglicans back for?

I think I confused you with another poster. My apologies. I got an awful response from another poster on another thread by the way who claimed that NO catholic would object to Roman Catholic, and that it was absurd that I would suggest that. I sent him here to read your concerns. He was rather taken aback!

I am not at all in disagreement that the Church of Rome has received its unfair share of insults. Like Jews, they have born a good deal of ridicule in our nation’s past. Ironically those that argue for more prayer in school and so forth, forget that it was the Church of Rome who received the benefits of separation of church and state.

No such separation exists in the US, But that is an interesting point in regards to the Church of England and Anglicanism.

I don’t know what you mean by “no such separation exists.” The non-establishment clause has resulted in a clear demarcation between the state and religion as you must know. In part that is the result of the vicious behavior of some in our early years. Madison, a very very strong religionist did nearly a 180 coming to the conclusion that the government must be strictly out of the religion business having seen first hand the abysmal treatment given to Baptists and Roman Catholics and Jews, Quakers and others at the hands of the Pilgrims and Anglicans of his day. That clause was meant to protect the miniority churches of the day, and continue to do so today.
Before that in some states they could not hold office, own property, and were even ridden out of state and sometimes hanged. Washington had to prevent his troops at Valley Forge from hanging the pope in effigy, an event that was held every year.

COLOR=“green”]Not that I doubt it happened but, Cites? If it did happen, what was the reason for the harsh prejudice? Were they members of some other church? Perhaps one from England? Just Curious.

Of course they were Anglicans and Pilgrims, neither of which had much use for each other. But the table was already getting quite broad. Adams was a Unitarian, Jefferson and Franklin were deists, I believe Madison was a Anglican, but I’m not sure. The fact that all faiths were allowed at the Continental and Constitutional Congresses is amazing in and of itself.

Is this better?

Indeed it is, I thank you so much!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I wouldn’t take what Diarmid McCulloch says as gospel or very seriously. He is himself a practicing homosexual, liberal Anglican deacon with his own slant on history and he’s no fan of Catholicism from the books of his that I have read.

While I can see why his Anglicanism would be of concern, his sexual orientation would seem to be of no interest to anyone but himself as regards this issue.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

The Church was unified (same theology was being preached) at this point in time and since the bishop of Rome was head of that Church (beginning with Peter), it makes sense to see how roman christianity was exported to the British Isles. This I believe is what Longenecker is refering to in his article (remember, he is a catholic convert and a priest).

 

[luckyfredsdad]

The Church was unified (same theology was being preached) at this point in time and since the bishop of Rome was head of that Church (beginning with Peter), it makes sense to see how roman christianity was exported to the British Isles. This I believe is what Longenecker is refering to in his article (remember, he is a catholic convert and a priest).

**That the Church was unified, we can agree, and it was through a common belief and through membership of Christ, which is again through our common baptism. Rome was simply one of the member Churches. Their is nothing in scripture or tradition that makes the Pope Head of the (Catholic) Churrch.

He was given headship of the suburbicarian churches, at first throughout all Italy and the islands then his following was reduced by the Church to build a patriarchate for Ravenna. He was primate of the West, by the Church and given responsibilities to ,‘arrange,’ ajudication between bishops discontented with the decisions of their own patriarch. But at no time can I find that they were ,‘head of that church’, At least if ,‘that church,’ refers to the Catholic Church! Neither did he sit in judgment at any of the accepted Ecumenical Councils

The papacy and its court, did put themselves at the head of a large section of the Catholic Church when a coup detat was arranges and successfully carried out at the Council of Trent on behalf of the papacy. This made a schism in the Catholic Church and reduced most of northern Catholicism in to a sect, a Catholic one, but never the less a sect!**

 

[Peter_J]

While I’m sure there was rancor inititally, there is no need for it any more, and I certainly don’t think Anglicans as a group use the term to demean Roman Catholics at all today. It is a means of being precise.

Well put. The only thing I would add is that I think the same could be said for the terms “Lutheran”, “Methodist”, and “Anabaptist”.

 

[GKC]

**That the Church was unified, we can agree, and it was through a common belief and through membership of Christ, which is again through our common baptism. Rome was simply one of the member Churches. Their is nothing in scripture or tradition that makes the Pope Head of the (Catholic) Churrch.

He was given headship of the suburbicarian churches, at first throughout all Italy and the islands then his following was reduced by the Church to build a patriarchate for Ravenna. He was primate of the West, by the Church and given responsibilities to ,‘arrange,’ ajudication between bishops discontented with the decisions of their own patriarch. But at no time can I find that they were ,‘head of that church’, At least if ,‘that church,’ refers to the Catholic Church! Neither did he sit in judgment at any of the accepted Ecumenical Councils

The papacy and its court, did put themselves at the head of a large section of the Catholic Church when a coup detat was arranges and successfully carried out at the Council of Trent on behalf of the papacy. This made a schism in the Catholic Church and reduced most of northern Catholicism in to a sect, a Catholic one, but never the less a sect!**

You keep saying that. Why?

GKC

 

[luckyfredsdad]

You keep saying that. Why?

GKC

Read it up for yourself!

The Conciliar Movement, The Council of Trent and the English Responses, see if you can work it out?

Mind you, your understanding will have to go a bit further than it did with McCulloch’s comments.

 

[GKC]

Read it up for yourself!

The Conciliar Movement, The Council of Trent and the English Responses, see if you can work it out?

Mind you, your understanding will have to go a bit further than it did with McCulloch’s comments.

But I know the conciliar movement. And I know Trent.

And you haven’t demonstrated a thing relative to MacCulloch. (Why do you omit the “a”, BTW?) Find that quote, or paraphrase you gave, in his REFORMATION for me. It’s 792 pages, as you know. Which one(s)? Mind, your answer will actually have to include a number(s).

GKC