Anglican church

what exactly is this religion. One day, I went to eat lunch with my mother and I saw a man I assumed was a priest because he was dressed like one. I went to say hi to him and asked him which parish does he preach at. He said he was an Anglican priest. do they practice the same as us? I mean, do they stay celabate? Do they have nuns too? I always thought that the Catholic church is the only one with priests and nuns.

Non-Catholic Christians resemble Catholicism to a degree. For example, sola scriptura Christian have their own sacred tradition.

Anglicans share many things in common with RCs - they are Episcpally lead, Eucharistic, Sacramental and can be very Devotional. Their churches look a lot like ours. Their clerics look a lot like ours. They even recite the Creed word for word as we do. I find it best to describe Anglicans as “Catholic Lite.”

Or said in another way, if you want your clergy to marry, your daughters the chance to be priests, you don’t have a problem with birth control but have issues with infallibility and you think that an annulment is just a divorce anyway but you want the history, the sacraments, the symbols and the traditions of the RC church, then Anglicanism just might be for you.

From the RCC standpoint, you are being a little overly generous to the Anglicans. And over-generalizing, with respect to some Anglicans


*Anglicanus-Catholicus *

Ohhhhh… please clarify.

I always thought that the Catholic church is the only one with priests and nuns.

**Anglicans have, like Catholics and Orthodox, always called the three major orders Deacon, Priest, and Bishops.

Orthodox and other Eastern Churches have priests and nuns, too.

There are Anglican, Lutheran (one in my city), and other Protestant religious communities of both sexes.

BTW–a nun is NOT the female equivalent of a priest.**

The main point, from the RC side, is that the RCC does not consider Anglicans to possess the sacraments (baptism and matrimony aside), since they do not believe that Anglicans possess apostolic succession, and hence lack valid orders to confect sacraments. This is expressed in Leo XIII’s Bull, Apostolicae Curae, 1896.

As to over-generalizing the Anglicans, not all accept female ordination, and some are more prickly with regard to decrees of nullity than Rome is, currently.

Anglicans come in many flavors.


*Anglicanus-Catholicus *

Many would embrace female ordination and a married priesthood in the RC church. And while loyal to the church, I respectfully argue that there is nothing natural about a celibate priesthood.

As GKC already pointed out, this is a broad brush painting. Not all Anglicans ordain women. The majority of ACNA membership do not. My diocese here in the San Joaquin Valley does not ordain women and there are provinces outside the states that do not. Also, not all Anglicans are hot for divorce and passionately in love with birth control though most do not see it as a diabolical lifestyle. You post makes it sound like an Anglican is just a wannabe-Catholic who wants the looks of a Catholic Church with no strings attached and no morality or challenge. That Catholic Lite monacker is not really one of my favorite expressions though I know Robin Williams loves saying it. LOL…It really depends on the brand of Anglicanism. The Episcopal Church most definitely is lite. It’s as lite as you can get. Negative gravity lite, as in no morality PERIOD. But there are Anglicans who have high ideals and moral fiber and want a spiritual challenge…they just disagree with the Roman path. I’ve noticed that often times my fellow Catholics assume that someone jumps ship to Lutheranism or Anglicanism or what have you, in order to have it easy or just carpe diem themselves silly. I know folks who are more conservative and conscience-driven than most Catholics I know who left Catholicism just because they disagreed with the methodology and some particulars, not because it’s hard.

In addition this was mentioned on another thread:

*As has been pointed out it seems unlikely that modern clerical dress is the product of the Catholic (Roman Church). My understanding is that it was based on the dress of the time and that stuck (black being a reliable color/dye). It was professional dress of the 17th century with the collar reversed to show spiritual service.

So someone in a clerical collar could be anything from Lutheran, Anglican, RC, Greek Orthodox, to Methodist. In fact, I once read some notes from irritated people because an Orthodox priest was wearing a collar. The writers felt no Orthodox priest should be in anything other than their cassock and with a nice length of beard. The collar was TOO much innovation.:smiley:

…both women and men.

I think one of the only good things to come from Anglicanism is that we wouldn’t have Dawn French’s hilarious “the Vicar of Dibley” without it.

There are indeed many ‘flavours’ of Anglican - here in the UK, there are ‘high’ churches (or Anglo-Catholic) which are sacremental, liturgical etc; ‘middle’ churches which are also sacremental and liturgical but without the costume and ceremony and comparitively informal (such as the one I attend), and ‘low’ churches which tend to be very much more informal and have a communion service monthly. (Or as my friend puts it - lots of candles, some candles, and candles once a month!)

Many are very conservative (particularly the ‘high’ churches), some are more liberal, most are just trying to their best to serve their parishoners and community as best they can in politically turbulent times.

Anglicans (and I speak as one) do somewhat suffer from a rather mis-placed desire to be ‘all things to all people’, which would explain our rather confused state much of the time. Nevertheless, I am very fond of it, if increasingly at odds with it.

I beg your pardon, Caritas. Since part of your reply appeared within my quotes, I missed some of it.

If you are asking if I would expect Rome to acknowledge Apostolicae Curae and require it to be affirmed by the faithful, I can only answer, in some confusion, yes.

Would you care to restate the question? I must be missing something.


The statement I made was in the context of there being many flavours within both churches. And an example I used was my own opionion on celibacy as a discipline within the priesthood. It was the reason afterall that I left the seminary. But I harbour no grudge. I practice my faith - faithfully and charitably. I do not stand on street corners in opposition to the church. But I respectfully disagree on the imposition of the discipline of celibacy and believe that it hurts the priesthood more than it helps. And it keeps many good men from being priests.

That part I got. But this earlier sentence “Would you expect Rome to acknowledge this?”, apparently replying to my statement about Apostolicae Curae, that I don’t get.

But it was only a passing thought.


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