Anglican Catholic Church

Have you guys heard of this newly formed Church?

The Anglican Catholic Church.

anglicancatholic.org/index.php

Check it out, interesting.

Very intersting but we already have the real thing so what’s the point? They might as well come all the way over and join the RCC.

Gosh, I guess that 26 years old is not ancient by any means, but I would hardly call them “newly formed.” In any case, I am not leaving the Catholic Church for anything, but, being a pround son of the Mound City, I do have to feel a certain warmth for a denomination founded on the “St. Louis Principles.” :wink:

The Anglican Catholic Church is one of the largest of the Anglican groups that left the Episcopal church in the late 70s, primarily over liturgical issues, at that time. More refugees left over the female “ordinations”, and sexually related issues, such as the recent to-do over the bishop up in New Hampshire. Collectively, groups like the Anglican Catholic Church, the Anglican Province of Christ the King, and the Anglican Church in America are referred to as Continuing Anglicans. They’re not in Communion with Canterbury, so are not in the official World WIde Anglican Communion.

Most Continuing Anglican jurisdictions are over on the Anglo-Catholic side of the spectrum.

FYI.

GKC

Continuing Anglican

[quote=GrzeszDeL]Gosh, I guess that 26 years old is not ancient by any means, but I would hardly call them “newly formed.” In any case, I am not leaving the Catholic Church for anything, but, being a pround son of the Mound City, I do have to feel a certain warmth for a denomination founded on the “St. Louis Principles.” :wink:
[/quote]

Plus, they already had their Cardinals in place.

I thought that Anglo-Catholics were simply high Church Anglicans?

Certainly, my local Anglican Church call themselves Catholic.

Well, I must say that I have a deep respect for these people. Wth the Episcopal Church celebrating Pro-Abortion rights through marches, etc. and a Homosexual Bishop, I feel the time of the Episcopal-run Anglican Church in America will be shortly over. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Anglican Communion chooses a new representative body in the U.S. I think this is the best candidate.

[quote=Bryan] It wouldn’t surprise me if the Anglican Communion chooses a new representative body in the U.S. I think this is the best candidate.
[/quote]

Except that they’re not part of the Anglican Communion, whom they considered too liberal.

Fighting Fat,

Anglo-Catholics are those Anglicans who regard themselves as Catholic rather than Protestant (i.e., they’d say that Anglicans are the “third branch” of the Catholic Church along with the Roman communion and the Eastern Orthodox). Since the 1970s, as GKC pointed out, there have been a number of small conservative groups who reject women’s ordination and Prayer Book revision. Many of them are dominated by an Anglo-Catholic point of view, and obviously the “Anglican Catholic Church” is one of these. Other traditional Anglo-Catholics remain in the Episcopal Church. These days, though, the movement has become much looser, so that many local parishes consider themselves Anglo-Catholic or are influenced by Anglo-Catholicism without necessarily being “real” Anglo-Catholics in the view of conservatives (such as GKC). There is a whole movement called “Affirming Catholicism,” for instance, which is liberal on issues such as homosexuality while seeing itself as Anglo-Catholic. Much (though not all) of the Anglo-Catholicism in the Episcopal Church is of this brand.

I hope that was sufficiently confusing . . . .

Edwin

[quote=FightingFat]I thought that Anglo-Catholics were simply high Church Anglicans?

Certainly, my local Anglican Church call themselves Catholic.
[/quote]

If you ignore the range of “orthodox-apostate”, which is increasingly necessary to describe Anglicans these days, esp. in the English speaking world, then historically Anglicans are measured along 2 ranges of beliefs and practices. One is the well known “low church-high church”, which refers to churchmanship, or amount of ritual used. (There is another category, “broad church”, which I will ignore). The other is “reformed/evangelical-Anglo-Catholic”, which addresses doctrine. These 2 ranges are correlated; most evangelicals are toward the low church side, most Anglo-Catholics toward the high church side. But it’s not inevitable.

Anglicans, esp. Anglo-Catholics, affirm they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, along with the RCC, the Orthodox, and some smaller groups like the PNCC and the Old Catholics, with valid orders and sacraments. RCs do not agree (Yes, I know about Apostolicae Curae. Lots about Apostolicae Curae).

So it goes.

Hmm. Just noticed Contarini has posted on this. If, as he says, his was sufficently confusing, this one may be excessively so.

GKC

traditional Anglican, Anglicanus Catholicus

Anglicans are the “third branch” of the Catholic Church along with the Roman communion and the Eastern Orthodox

third branch?? how does anglicanism historically justify this view? everyone knows that henry the 8th was a schismatic but when

"radical Protestantism was introduced during the reign of Edward VI. Thomas Cranmer and Edward Seymour, appointed by Henry VIII to positions of power, upon Henry’s death worked openly to introduce the beliefs of the German Reformers. The holy sacrifice of the Mass was replaced by a vernacular communion service that denied transubstantiation and the eucharistic sacrifice. Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer was written in beautiful English but contained subtle heresy behind its lovely facade."
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109fea5.asp

further, cranmerian reforms were highly iconoclastic. altars were replaced by tables and crucifixes and crosses were removed. crammer altered the words of ordination so that they lost apostolistic succesion.

For three hundred years in the Anglican church there was no pretense at the Mass. There were no prayers for the dead, no requiem Masses, and the sacrament of unction of the sick was missing. Reservation of the sacrament was never practiced, and Anglicans were taught not to seek the intercession of the saints. The communion service was infrequently celebrated, Confession was deemed not to be a sacrament of the gospel and was not encouraged (though the private confession of sins was allowed for), and it fell into general disuse.”

from the book of common prayer:
XXII. Of Purgatory.

The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

further it states:

Those five commonly called Sacraments, …Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God…The Sacraments are not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them.

this is not catholicism or even orthodoxy, it is PROTESTANTISM!!!

Well, I’ve been to mass here and they even include prayers for the pope in their liturgy. The sign on the door says ‘Catholic’ church and they consider themselves in all things Catholic, except for the fact they maintain that they are ‘Church of England’.

I know the Anglo-Catholic position is they feel that those who ‘converted’ because of fear during the reign of Henry feel that they simply maintained the Catholic liturgy under the King. The Priests ordained and then forced to convert still had been ordained with the apostolic authority, so when the Bishops ordained new priests, they felt they were maintaining that position.

I think that is how they justify it anyway!

O. S.,

Remember when I said that there was a range of beliefs historically in Anglicanism? You looking at the evangelical/reformed side there. It was the Oxford Movement and the Ritualist in the 19th century who called the Anglcain world back to its roots. They, reformed and Anglo-Catholic, were all tied together by Elizabeth I, in what is known as the Elizabethan Compromise. The 39 Articles are also a part of that historical process. Incidentally, while many of the Articles are unexceptional (you would have no trouble agreeing with some of them yourself) NONE of the Articles are binding on any Anglican, except technically on priests of the CoE, due to the Erastian nature of that church. Anglicanism is credal, not confessional, and while some Anglicans affirm the Articles, others will cut the them from their 1928 Prayer Books and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter. One of the few good things I can say about the 1979 book ECUSA uses is that the 39 Articles are relegated to a section for historical documents. Which is what they are, politics as theology; how Elizabeth I chose to govern her fractious church.

They get the branch theory by being aware that they have the historic Episcopacy, through Apostolic Succession, with valid orders and sacraments. Nobody agrees with them.

So it goes.

Contarini’s reply likely would differ a little from mine. Contarini is a slightly different sort of Anglican from the undersigned.

Added: F.F.

We occasionally have prayers for the Pope in our Mass, too. As likewise all orthodox Catholic bishops, everywhere.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

[quote=oat soda]third branch?? how does anglicanism historically justify this view? everyone knows that henry the 8th was a schismatic…
[/quote]

further, cranmerian reforms were highly iconoclastic. altars were replaced by tables and crucifixes and crosses were removed. crammer altered the words of ordination so that they lost apostolistic succesion.

[size=1]

from the book of common prayer:
XXII. Of Purgatory.

further it states:

this is not catholicism or even orthodoxy, it is PROTESTANTISM!!![/size]

“Protestant” was the name taken in 1529 by those “Lutherans” who regarded the liberties given to the “Catholic” preachers - but not to “Protestant” preachers - as unfair; who therefore protested. It’s a name with (originally) a very definite meaning, not applicable in the same way to other movements, such as those in England or France.

IOW, although the Articles are “Protestant” in one sense, in another sense that name is not quite accurate. The “annoying” thing about the C of E - “Anglican Church” is a 19th-century name - is that it sees itself as " Catholic & reformed": in continuity with the Church of St. Augustine and his successors, and, enriched and modified by the Protestant Reformation. (One of the great issues in 1530s England was whether the Papacy was of divine origin; and whether its authority was or was not usurped.) So it is Protestant - but not Continental Protestant. It does not even have its own ecclesiology, as Lutheranism and Calvinism and Catholicism do; it’s eclectic, and inclined, not to build theological systems, so much as to find solutions for specific problems.

Because it is a state Church, it has tended to be wary of extremes, whether “Puritan” or “Papist”: besides, an island kingdom is perhaps better able to repress unwanted sorts of religion than a kingdom which is part of a continent; unwelcome foreign intervention favouring the repressed is easier to repel if there are no borders to guard.

The weakness of this approach is fairly obvious: a Church which is governed by the Crown, is vulnerable to being used as a mere instrument of State policy; the claims of Christ can be prostituted, or lost; or they can be used for political purposes. OTOH, the prostitution of the Church is as much a danger under worldly Popes as under worldly rulers.

Presbyterianism, unlike the English Church, was inclined to reject “ungodly” rulers: such as Mary, Queen of Scots; the ruler was in the Church; not over it. James VI of Scotland was constantly being lectured by Presbyterians on his duty to be a “nursing father” to “God’s Kirk”, which was (of course) the Presbyterian; so when he became king of England in 1603, he forgot all that, and thought in terms of his duties to - or rights over - the English Church. (The notion of “Divine Right” or jus divinum is not Protestant in origin, but Catholic; it’s one of a clutch of ideas that have been very influential in shaping how Popes, Emperors, and kings thought of their authority.) In a way, James VI & I is a milder version of Henry VIII.

The basic question seems to be: is the thinking behind Anglicanism in accord with the intentions of Christ for His Church ? Alternatively: is the Papacy of the 16th century the sort of thing Christ intended ? Is Scripture over the Church, so as to correct it; or is it for the Church to interpret it, with all the risks of self-seeking that implies ? How absolute is the authority of the Papacy ? ##

G of G,

There are things there I might discuss and expand on a little, but very little there I would argue with.

GKC

Posteris traditus Anglicanus

[quote=Bryan]Have you guys heard of this newly formed Church?

The Anglican Catholic Church.

anglicancatholic.org/index.php

Check it out, interesting.
[/quote]

I thought you meant Anglican use Catholic (in union with the Holy See) until I went to the link.

[quote=GKC]G of G,

There are things there I might discuss and expand on a little, but very little there I would argue with.

GKC

Posteris traditus Anglicanus
[/quote]

Thanks - 4,000 words does not really allow much room for essays on convoluted things such as history & theology. :slight_smile:

When people convert, they should take on the characteristics of the church they are converting too…not remain as they were and just be “accepted” into the church. I am happy that people are converting, but we already have enough division in the church and don’t need more of it.

[quote=moira]Very intersting but we already have the real thing so what’s the point? They might as well come all the way over and join the RCC.
[/quote]

I agree! This reminds me of something I read in James Cardinal Gibbons excellent book Faith of our Fathers:

So great is the charm attached to the name of Catholic that a portion of the Episcopal body sometimes usurps the title of Catholic, though in their official books they are named Protestant Episcopalians. If they think that they have any just claim to the name of Catholic, why not come out openly and write it on the title-pages of their Bibles and Prayer-Books? Afraid of going so far, they gratify their vanity by privately calling themselves Catholic. But the delusion is so transparent that the attempt must provoke a smile even among themselves. Should a stranger ask them to direct him to the Catholic Church they would instinctively point out to him the Roman Catholic Church.

When I was in my church shopping stage I considered these guys great liturgy, honestly its better than our Norvos Ordo, tradition, reverent worship. etc

But after a while I had to be honest with myself the anglican church is not the true church but this little sect is not only the true anglican church but the true reformed catholic church.
What are the chances of that. These churches have lovely people and pastors. I just hope they come to seek reunion with Rome in many ways they are soo catholic it makes you scratch your head.
Actually we could learn a thing or two from them concerning eucharistic reverence and liturgical forms.
But in the end their schismatic tendencies betray their shortcoming the true church existed 1900 years before they decided to split with the Episcoplains. ANd well before King Henry the VIII had a hissy fit with the Pope concerning divorced if this is their root thatn what to think of their church as the Real anglican church?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.