Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic?

[emeraldcoast]

the liberal Episcopagan, I mean, Episcopalian

I have read over the responses to this topic a couple times since it was first posted. We have had discussions on the proper title of an Anglican female priest, the Catholic Church and now this choice of words. Most of us probably went to church today or last night and we were reminded of the Season of Lent. I am sure that we were all reminded that Lent is a time to grow in God’s love and become more faithful disciples of Jesus Christ our Lord. Needless to say, we are tested. “Episcopagan” tested me, big time!

I was reminded of my pastor’s words…

“God stands ready to forgive, heal and save us out of pure love. We have to get honest about the harsh reality of the human condition (yours and mine included). God has the solution, but we need to see the role we play as part of the problem. From here we need to realize that we will not be able to help ourselves, others or the world on our own. We need to surrender ourselves to God’s love. If we can lay our sins, brokenness and burdens down at the foot of the cross and commit to trusting God as much as we can at that time, you and I can find a new light and a new life.
If we can die to an old way of life, you and I can be reborn to a new resurrected life in, through and with Christ. May God grant us a holy and fruitful Lent.”

Peace!
Your sister in Christ!

 

[ICA04]

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.

Boy, you are some kind of work aren’t you.

 

[ICA04]

liberal Episcopagan, I mean, Episcopalian, Church

That’s like saying Catholischism is really just a hologram of the authority Jesus gave to St. Peter.

 

[josie_L]

**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!

I beg to differ, scripture as well as tradition, support my statement. If you wish to start a new thread, by all means I will be more than happy to reply.

 

[GKC]

I beg to differ, scripture as well as tradition, support my statement. If you wish to start a new thread, by all means I will be more than happy to reply.

Be sure and ask what the difference is between suburbicarian churches and the suburbicarian dioceses. And what urbis they were sub to. And, heck, other stuff, too.

GKC

 

[josie_L]

Be sure and ask what the difference is between suburbicarian churches and the suburbicarian dioceses. And what urbis they were sub to. And, heck, other stuff, too.

GKC

Oh, I didn’t even bother to read the whole post, but yah, I will thoroughly “inquire” into the matter. How are you?

 

[GKC]

Oh, I didn’t even bother to read the whole post, but yah, I will thoroughly “inquire” into the matter. How are you?

I’m about to disappear into the morass of taxes. Tomorrow is a worrisome day.
Either I get the info I need, or I and several other people will merge into a rotating furball.

GKC

 

[josie_L]

I’m about to disappear into the morass of taxes. Tomorrow is a worrisome day.
Either I get the info I need, or I and several other people will merge into a rotating furball.

GKC

“Into a rotating furball”, now that’s something I’ve never heard or seen before, make sure you get that on video.

 

[josie_L]

I’m about to disappear into the morass of taxes. Tomorrow is a worrisome day.
Either I get the info I need, or I and several other people will merge into a rotating furball.

GKC

Jim, since my last post was lacking in sympathy, I only wish to convey that all go’s well tomorrow. Hang in there.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Oh, I didn’t even bother to read the whole post, but yah, I will thoroughly “inquire” into the matter. How are you?

Instead of playing games with Anglo Catholics, why not find out who payed the wages of the Suburbicarian Bishops to enable them to attend the Council of Trent?
The hired help, as they do say!

 

[GKC]

Instead of playing games with Anglo Catholics, why not find out who payed the wages of the Suburbicarian Bishops to enable them to attend the Council of Trent?
The hired help, as they do say!

How many of them?

And what page of MacCullough?

GKC

 

[anglocat]

I might have mentioned earlier that I am no theologian. Somebody pleeeaaaase help me to understand the following things.

1. When did the RC bishop begin to have primacy over the other bishops? Who determined that? Was this decision taken when the church was still truly ONE? If not, i would take it with a pinch of salt.Do not get me wrong, i think it would be a good idea for the church to be united under one authority, be it a pope/partriach or a synod.
2. I assume that the only TRUE catholic church was the undivided church, so how is the RCC catholic. for crying out loud, the name says it all. does this imply that the other churches lost their catholicity?
3. What is catholicity anyway?
4. Was the name RCC known before 1054?

The way I see it is that the RCC is like a parent who lost a child and is not getting over it. How else do you explain thier acceptance of the other churches/ while ignoring the modern protestant movements, and their obsessoins with the Anglican church?

 

[Contarini]

I might have mentioned earlier that I am no theologian. Somebody pleeeaaaase help me to understand the following things.

1. When did the RC bishop begin to have primacy over the other bishops?

Peter had primacy among (I would not say “over”) the apostles, and the bishop of Rome seems always to have been accepted as Peter’s successor. The degree of importance given to this fact increased gradually, and naturally you generally find the bishops of Rome and their theological allies in any given controversy emphasizing it more than others.

1. I assume that the only TRUE catholic church was the undivided church, so how is the RCC catholic. for crying out loud, the name says it all.

No, it doesn’t. “Catholic” has never simply meant “universal.” That is Protestant propaganda. It was first used by St. Ignatius in a context that clearly contrasts the “Catholic Church” with heretical and schismatic groups.

1. What is catholicity anyway?

The fullness of the Faith, as possessed by the Body of Christ existing throughout time and space.

1. Was the name RCC known before 1054?

You seem altogether too hung up on this term, which many RCs don’t even like.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Peter had primacy among (I would not say “over”) the apostles, and the bishop of Rome seems always to have been accepted as Peter’s successor. The degree of importance given to this fact increased gradually, and naturally you generally find the bishops of Rome and their theological allies in any given controversy emphasizing it more than others.

No, it doesn’t. “Catholic” has never simply meant “universal.” That is Protestant propaganda. It was first used by St. Ignatius in a context that clearly contrasts the “Catholic Church” with heretical and schismatic groups.

The fullness of the Faith, as possessed by the Body of Christ existing throughout time and space.

You seem altogether too hung up on this term, which many RCs don’t even like.

Edwin

You know, I think you might enjoy this thread.

I’d answer the last question “no”.

GKC

 

[luckyfredsdad]

I might have mentioned earlier that I am no theologian. Somebody pleeeaaaase help me to understand the following things.

1. • When did the RC bishop begin to have primacy over the other bishops? Who determined that? Was this decision taken when the church was still truly ONE? If not, i would take it with a pinch of salt.Do not get me wrong, i think it would be a good idea for the church to be united under one authority, be it a pope/partriach or a synod*.

**When we talk about Primacy for the Roman Church, there are several aspects to remember,
one is that Rome had a primacy of position. It was the capital of the empire and this fact alone gave the Roman Church immense prestige. It also gave the Church there access to potential members, educational facilities, wealth ,power . and so on.

Eventually this state of things made the Bishop of Rome virtually the Emperor’s parish priest. It is interesting that when the Church was in ferment, the bishops turned not to Rome for an answer, but to the Emperor. Various Emperors simply passed their religious troubles and problems again, not to Rome, but to the Church and Constantine called the first Ecumenical Council of Nicea! At least two Emperors gave the popes power to use the state police to enforce religious decisions made by the papacy! Later at the Council of Sardica , the Council at the wish of the State, gave the Bishop of Rome power to appoint adjudicators to settle disputes between bishops that couldn’t other wise be agreed
on. The Church through the Ecumenical Councils also gave the Bishop of Rome, (Old Rome,) the title of Patriarch of the West, whilst a later Council took a similar stance with the Bishop of Constantinople, (New Rome, giving him the title of Patriarch of the East.
This was the work of the Church, but, it made the two Patriarchs no more than First amongst equals.

The prestige,power and authority of the Bishop of Rome soared with the publication of several forgeries that claimed to give the Pope immense political power. These were the Donation of Constantine, and the Isadorian Rescripts. They pretended to put the Bishop on an immense pinnacle putting him politically and religiously above the rest of Christendom. He became virtually the owner of virtually all the known world. The City of Rome became his and all the broad lands of Northern Italy. In time he gave the Spaniards the southern part of America, the Norman Kings were given Ireland and the whole family of the German Emperors were practically wiped out because the opposed these ideas. They were not exposed as forgeries till the late 16th, Cent after 800 years of dissemination and powerful exposure.

It has to be noted that these ideas regarding the political power of the papacy were responsible,to a large extent, for the invasion of England by William the cConquerer, The invasion of William of Orange and of course the persecution of the Roman Catholics in 1570. At this time they not only broke away from the ancient church, but were involved in a treasonous plot to overthrow the government of Elizabeth.

Note Well!
For the authority of the Bishop of Rome certain biblical texts are quoted they do not mention the papacy or indeed Rome. There’s no mention of authority to the Bishop of Rome other than that given by the Emperors or the Church. Nothing in Scripture or tradition.

LFD.**

 

[trinitybeliever]

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.

I believe the establishment clause and seperation of church and state are two seperate issues. Mostly because leftists in the US are using the argument to say that faith and morals stemming from Judaeo-Christian tradition are invalid in the debates over public policy. The establishment clause is there to protect the people from the government establishing a state sanctioned religion. The founders were wary of government powers and our founding documents all were meant to protect the “People”.But this is a tangent.

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.

Anti-Catholism is nothing new.

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.

I agree!

Indeed it is, I thank you so much!

 

[GKC]

anglocat;4917421:

I might have mentioned earlier that I am no theologian. Somebody pleeeaaaase help me to understand the following things.

1. • When did the RC bishop begin to have primacy over the other bishops? Who determined that? Was this decision taken when the church was still truly ONE? If not, i would take it with a pinch of salt.Do not get me wrong, i think it would be a good idea for the church to be united under one authority, be it a pope/partriach or a synod*

.

**When we talk about Primacy for the Roman Church, there are several aspects to remember,
one is that Rome had a primacy of position. It was the capital of the empire and this fact alone gave the Roman Church immense prestige. It also gave the Church there access to potential members, educational facilities, wealth ,power . and so on.

Eventually this state of things made the Bishop of Rome virtually the Emperor’s parish priest. It is interesting that when the Church was in ferment, the bishops turned not to Rome for an answer, but to the Emperor. Various Emperors simply passed their religious troubles and problems again, not to Rome, but to the Church and Constantine called the first Ecumenical Council of Nicea! At least two Emperors gave the popes power to use the state police to enforce religious decisions made by the papacy! Later at the Council of Sardica , the Council at the wish of the State, gave the Bishop of Rome power to appoint adjudicators to settle disputes between bishops that couldn’t other wise be agreed
on. The Church through the Ecumenical Councils also gave the Bishop of Rome, (Old Rome,) the title of Patriarch of the West, whilst a later Council took a similar stance with the Bishop of Constantinople, (New Rome, giving him the title of Patriarch of the East.
This was the work of the Church, but, it made the two Patriarchs no more than First amongst equals.

The prestige,power and authority of the Bishop of Rome soared with the publication of several forgeries that claimed to give the Pope immense political power. These were the Donation of Constantine, and the Isadorian Rescripts. They pretended to put the Bishop on an immense pinnacle putting him politically and religiously above the rest of Christendom. He became virtually the owner of virtually all the known world. The City of Rome became his and all the broad lands of Northern Italy. In time he gave the Spaniards the southern part of America, the Norman Kings were given Ireland and the whole family of the German Emperors were practically wiped out because the opposed these ideas. They were not exposed as forgeries till the late 16th, Cent after 800 years of dissemination and powerful exposure.

It has to be noted that these ideas regarding the political power of the papacy were responsible,to a large extent, for the invasion of England by William the cConquerer, The invasion of William of Orange and of course the persecution of the Roman Catholics in 1570. At this time they not only broke away from the ancient church, but were involved in a treasonous plot to overthrow the government of Elizabeth.

LFD.**

The invasion of William of Orange?

And what page in MacCullogh?

Note to Contarini: See?

GKC

 

[Contarini]

**When we talk about Primacy for the Roman Church, there are several aspects to remember,
one is that Rome had a primacy of position. It was the capital of the empire and this fact alone gave the Roman Church immense prestige. It also gave the Church there access to potential members, educational facilities, wealth ,power . and so on.

Eventually this state of things made the Bishop of Rome virtually the Emperor’s parish priest.**

**

That is not true. From at least Diocletian on (therefore before the conversion of Constantine), emperors generally avoided spending time in Rome. Diocletian mostly lived in Nicomedia, I believe. Constantine of course founded Constantinople precisely to avoid Rome. The “Western” emperor during times when there were several emperors (or the single emperor when visiting the West) generally lived in Milan, not Rome. Later on Ravenna became the Western Empire’s capital. In short, at no point during the era of the Christian Empire did the bishop of Rome have the opportunity to be the Emperor’s parish priest. That’s not to deny that the political status of Rome was one of the reasons Rome had primacy (along with the martyrdom of Peter and Paul–though of course the reason Peter and Paul ended up in Rome was that Rome was the capital). But during the time of the Christian Empire the bishops of Constantinople and Milan were the ones with direct access to the Emperor (and sometimes others as well).

It is interesting that when the Church was in ferment, the bishops turned not to Rome for an answer, but to the Emperor.

Too simplistic. Rome did play a role, although it’s true that several of the Councils had no Roman participation, while all of them had imperial participation.

The Church through the Ecumenical Councils also gave the Bishop of Rome, (Old Rome,) the title of Patriarch of the West, whilst a later Council took a similar stance with the Bishop of Constantinople, (New Rome, giving him the title of Patriarch of the East.

Exactly. The primacy of Rome predated the Christian Empire, but with the founding of Constantinople the Emperors had a vested interest in giving Constantinople equality with Rome even though it lacked Rome’s apostolic claims.

You’re right about there being medieval forgeries that increased Rome’s power, but you omit the reformist impulse that drove the expansion of papal power in the 11th century. Ironically, it’s probably from this 11th-century reform movement that the concept of “reformation” largely derives, even though the Protestant Reformation was a reversal of the 11th-century Gregorian Reform, putting power back in the hands of civil rulers where the magisterial Reformers thought it belonged.

It has to be noted that these ideas regarding the political power of the papacy were responsible,to a large extent, for the invasion of England by William the cConquerer,

Too strong. The Pope did sanction William’s invasion, but I’m not sure how much that affected the outcome.

The invasion of William of Orange and of course the persecution of the Roman Catholics in 1570. At this time they not only broke away from the ancient church,

Just how did “Roman Catholics break away from the ancient church”???

but were involved in a treasonous plot to overthrow the government of Elizabeth.

A very few were, yes. It was of course convenient for the Elizabethan government to use this to cement its idolatrous claims, as governments have done throughout history.

For the authority of the Bishop of Rome certain biblical texts are quoted they do not mention the papacy or indeed Rome. There’s no mention of authority to the Bishop of Rome other than that given by the Emperors or the Church. Nothing in Scripture or tradition.

**No, but there are promises to Peter which either apply to the Papacy or really don’t mean much.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

“Just how did “Roman Catholics break away from the ancient church”???”

Ah. The very question.

GKC

 

[josie_L]

Jim and Edwin, my brothers in Christ, thank you for your honesty.