Anglicans and Catholics?


#1

What are the differences?


#2

The Church of England was initially formed when Henry VIII was denied an annullment by the pope. He then broke away and appointed the Archbiship of Canterbury as head of the COE. At that time, there was little doctrinal difference between the two churches except for who was in charge. Currently, there are some differences but I’ll leave it to the Anglicans on this board to tell you what they are.


#3

I was just looking around for a topic about this very thing :slight_smile: because I just read on another thread that C.S. Lewis was Anglican. I knew that he was not Catholic, but I want to learn why he is so highly thought of by Catholics. Apparently his beliefs never conflicted with the Catholic faith…??

Don’t want to steer from the original question so if anyone could direct me to a thread about C.S. Lewis I’ll enjoy that one and this one, which will discuss the differences between Anglicans and Catholics.

Hope I didn’t confuse anyone. :rolleyes:


#4

Hi guys, I am Episcopalian. I was confirmed May of 2004…funny one week before my son was born…it was close…we were wondering if I would make it…after the Bishop laid his hands upon me he said…“Okay, you can have that baby now!” It was really funny!

What I can give to this discussion is maybe just a little. Basically, I would say that the difference is more in the “authority” area of the church. The Episcopal church is very “loose” in it’s beliefs or rather telling or outlining what “beliefs” it should have. It doesn’t say…hey, you can’t do this or you can’t do that. And to put it bluntly…“we don’t care what exactly you believe as long as you worship the same”…now I know that sounds very liberal. But our worship service itself reflects the “beliefs” of the church. If that makes sense?

We have seven sacraments, just like the Catholic church. We cross ourselves with holy water when entering the church. We bow at the altar and cross in procession. I believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, yet the “service” offers Eucharist to everyone who has been baptized, because during the service the priest also states “in rememberance of me”. We are very “careful” with the host after communion. The host is consummed by the priest and others…chalice and plate are washed in a sink draining directly to the earth, so we believe the Eucharist to be the body and blood.

Honestly, service wise…you probably couldn’t tell the difference between my church and the Catholic.

The reason I love this forum is that my personal beliefs are about the same as Catholics. The only thing that I probably do not do according the Catholic belief is Confession. In our service, we do have a confession prayer and receive absoulutation (sp?) from the priest. Our priest has appointed confession times during certain times of the year…Lent and Christmas, etc. We do have service on Feast Days. We have Stations of the Cross and we also do fast. But, all of this “traditional” stuff is done on an individual basis. It’s not really “taught”, if you know what I mean? The way you belief and the “tools” you use to make your faith more “special” are up to you…
I’m open to more question concerning this if anyone wants to ask! :love:


#5

[quote=DJgang]Hi guys, I am Episcopalian. I was confirmed May of 2004…funny one week before my son was born…it was close…we were wondering if I would make it…after the Bishop laid his hands upon me he said…“Okay, you can have that baby now!” It was really funny!

What I can give to this discussion is maybe just a little. Basically, I would say that the difference is more in the “authority” area of the church. The Episcopal church is very “loose” in it’s beliefs or rather telling or outlining what “beliefs” it should have. It doesn’t say…hey, you can’t do this or you can’t do that. And to put it bluntly…“we don’t care what exactly you believe as long as you worship the same”…now I know that sounds very liberal. But our worship service itself reflects the “beliefs” of the church. If that makes sense?

We have seven sacraments, just like the Catholic church. We cross ourselves with holy water when entering the church. We bow at the altar and cross in procession. I believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, yet the “service” offers Eucharist to everyone who has been baptized, because during the service the priest also states “in rememberance of me”. We are very “careful” with the host after communion. The host is consummed by the priest and others…chalice and plate are washed in a sink draining directly to the earth, so we believe the Eucharist to be the body and blood.

Honestly, service wise…you probably couldn’t tell the difference between my church and the Catholic.

The reason I love this forum is that my personal beliefs are about the same as Catholics. The only thing that I probably do not do according the Catholic belief is Confession. In our service, we do have a confession prayer and receive absoulutation (sp?) from the priest. Our priest has appointed confession times during certain times of the year…Lent and Christmas, etc. We do have service on Feast Days. We have Stations of the Cross and we also do fast. But, all of this “traditional” stuff is done on an individual basis. It’s not really “taught”, if you know what I mean? The way you belief and the “tools” you use to make your faith more “special” are up to you…
I’m open to more question concerning this if anyone wants to ask! :love:
[/quote]

Sounds like your parish is very High Church. I suspect your beliefs are closer to Catholic teachings than they are to those of most practicing Anglicans, and this in itself demonstrates the breadth of Anglican theological diversity.

Irenicist


#6

[quote=Irenicist]Sounds like your parish is very High Church. I suspect your beliefs are closer to Catholic teachings than they are to those of most practicing Anglicans, and this in itself demonstrates the breadth of Anglican theological diversity.

Irenicist
[/quote]

I would say “rather” high church…although I especially LOVE feast days and other “important” days when my priest sings lituragy and we have incense. Unfortunately…there is much diversity…let me explain. There are those who do not like the “high church” services. They feel that people who may visit will feel uncomfortable, etc. To me, I say “tough”…that’s the way it should be and I just help visitors if I am sitting beside them with our Book of Common Prayer. Also, we have alot of people who do not use all the sacraments…boy are they missing out! I have come to “know” who in my church is more “protestant”. Right now I am “struggling” with my beliefs in the the “Anglican Theology”…I feel that there should be more taught and not just assumed. I think there should be more “stance” on issues, but there isn’t. Especially on the abortion issue. I am very Anti-abortion and find it hard to express my views…get my church involved in this issue. I would perfer to “check out” the Catholic church…I know only two people who are Catholic, but my husband won’t even think about it right now. And I have “vowed” for us to always go to the same church with our children. But, I am working on him.


#7

Almost doesn’t count, only in horseshoes and hand grenades. I hope the Anglicans as well as other factions see the error of their ways.


#8

[quote=geezerbob]The Church of England was initially formed when Henry VIII was denied an annullment by the pope. He then broke away and appointed the Archbiship of Canterbury as head of the COE. At that time, there was little doctrinal difference between the two churches except for who was in charge. Currently, there are some differences but I’ll leave it to the Anglicans on this board to tell you what they are.
[/quote]

actually, henry VIII declared *himself *as head of the church (look at the “restraint of appeals” act for reference). the archbishop of canterbury is the highest clergy office.
the anglican church has gone back and forth quite a bit in how “catholic” their practices are. one of my history teachers is an episcopal priest with a PHD in history from caimbrige who has written a book on the english reformation. she’s very fair to catholics, though, which is refreshing. i’m not sure exactly what the official belief is on the eucharist is now, but i’ve been meaning to ask her about it.


#9

[quote=fellicia]What are the differences?
[/quote]

Anglicans are a broad-church movement. Originally we were supposed to be organized around a fundamental set of basic beliefs (the 39 Articles of the Book of Common Prayer), but there has been a great deal of de-emphasizing of orthodoxy in the Western Episcopal churches, especially in America and Canada. The largest American body of Anglicanism is called Episcopal Church, USA and is usually abbreviated ‘ECUSA’. There are a number of schisms from ECUSA which are called the ‘Continuing Church’ movement. These groups are attempting to preserve some measure of orthodox teachng within Anglicanism. Unfortunately these groups tend to be rather small, regional, and widely scattered. There has been some influx into the ‘continuing church movement’ due to the ordination of homosexuals and women by ECUSA, but almost as many Episcopalians have simply abandoned the Episcopal Church for Presbyterian, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic churches. Many Episcopalians are standing ‘pat’ in ECUSA because they have a longstanding familial relationship with it and hope to rescue it from it’s own apostasy.

The Episcopal Church is organized around the use of the Book of Common Prayer (abbreviated BCP), as I noted above. This is available in various editions–ECUSA uses the 1979 BCP, and so do some ‘Continuing Church Movement’ groups. Most ‘Continuing Church’ groups however use a more traditional version of the BCP–the 1928 edition or earlier. The BCP serves as a guide to Morming and Evening Prayer for personal or family use, as a missal for collective worship, and as a breviary for priests. It also has a catechism for instruction of the young and, as mentioned, the Articles of Faith. Various other prayers and rites are also included–the 1979 BCP has optional orders of Noontime and Night Prayers, for example. The longstanding rule of the Episcopal Church is that the Law of Prayer is the Law of Belief–Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. (I probably mispelled the Latin).

Epscopal Church worship will strongly resemble the Roman Catholic Mass. However, there will usually NOT be side altars in an Episcopal Church dedicated to Mary or the Patron Saint, and there will typically not be any prayers addressed to any particular Saint. If a particular Episcopal parish designates itself as ‘high-church’ or ‘Anglo-Catholic’ the resemblances to Roman Catholicism will be very strong; if an Episcopal parish calls itself ‘Evangelical’ or ‘low-church’ the service will be simpler and may seem much more ‘Protestant’. Some Episcopalians privately, and some Episcopal parishes collectively have such devotions as the Rosary, Benediction of the Sacrament, etcetera. Most do NOT.

Episcopalians do NOT believe that Henry the Eighth established their church. They believe that their national church was established by Joseph of Arithmatea and was independent of the Roman See until they were conquored by the Franks in the Middle Ages. At that point, for political reasons, they were subjected to obedience to Roman oversight, although the English church limply re-asserted it’s independence several times before King Henry’s final catalyzing split. Episcopalians have a much broader definition of what constitutes ‘orthodoxy’, both in belief and in personal practice than does Roman Catholicism–it is said that where one finds two Anglicans, one will fnd no fewer than three opinions. Where one finds four Episcopalians, one will often find a fifth–usually bearing the name Jack Daniels. (These same tired jokes get told about Roman Catholic priests, by the way).

Hope this helps!


#10

[quote=flameburns623]T.

Episcopalians do NOT believe that Henry the Eighth established their church. They believe that their national church was established by Joseph of Arithmatea and was independent of the Roman See until they were conquored by the Franks in the Middle Ages. At that point, for political reasons, they were subjected to obedience to Roman oversight, although the English church limply re-asserted it’s independence several times before King Henry’s final catalyzing split.

OK I know about Joseph of Arimithea supposedly going to Glastonbury Tor with the Holy Grail but you really have some explaining to do about the Franks conquering England. The Angles and Saxons conquered Romano Celtic Britain and were followed by the Normans in 1066. Anglo-Saxon monks were sent to aid Charlemagne who was a Frank but the Franks never attempted to conquer England. As far as every history book I’ve ever seen, they always had connections to the Bishop of Rome since Roman times. How can they even remotely make this assumption?
[/quote]


#11

flameburns -
your post is right on with one small exception for me personally…

my church has St. Mary’s Chapel…side altar for Mary. There we have healing services and rosary services…just FYI.

But you are VERY true in that you will “find” many opinions within many Episcopalians.

For instance, I personally go to the Catholic church on Tuesdays for Eucharistic adoration.


#12

[quote=Rand Al’Thor]actually, henry VIII declared *himself *as head of the church (look at the “restraint of appeals” act for reference). the archbishop of canterbury is the highest clergy office.
the anglican church has gone back and forth quite a bit in how “catholic” their practices are. one of my history teachers is an episcopal priest with a PHD in history from caimbrige who has written a book on the english reformation. she’s very fair to catholics, though, which is refreshing. i’m not sure exactly what the official belief is on the eucharist is now, but i’ve been meaning to ask her about it.
[/quote]

I’ve been talking about this in another thread. The Act in Restraint of Appeals is one of about 7 acts that were passed between 1532 and 1534, culminating in the Supreme Head Act. These, and the other Acts (Conditional Restraint of Annates Act, Submission of the Clergy Act, the 2nd Restraint of Appeals Act, the Ecclesiastical Appointments Act, the Dispensations Act), could be seen as Henry playing a determined game of chicken with Rome, driven by the situation he was in, or as a continuation of a long historical process, stretching back at least to the Statute of Westminister, in 1275, by which the Engliash monarchy established through Parliment an increasing degree of autonomy for the Church in England. IMO, both ways of looking at it are correct.

GKC


#13

[quote=brotherhrolf]OK I know about Joseph of Arimithea supposedly going to Glastonbury Tor with the Holy Grail but you really have some explaining to do about the Franks conquering England. The Angles and Saxons conquered Romano Celtic Britain and were followed by the Normans in 1066. Anglo-Saxon monks were sent to aid Charlemagne who was a Frank but the Franks never attempted to conquer England. As far as every history book I’ve ever seen, they always had connections to the Bishop of Rome since Roman times. How can they even remotely make this assumption?
[/quote]

I stand corrected. I confuse the various warring bodies of Europe. To provide some measure of elaboration, while ensuring I remain relatively accurate, I cite the following:

**
*"ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH: In the beginning, all Bishops of the Church were possessed of equal powers. But for convenience of administration, the dioceses were grouped together into provinces, with an Archbishop at the head of each. These provinces were in turn groups under the Bishops of the five great Christian centers–Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Contantinople. These Bishops were called Patriarchs. *

ROMAN CLAIMS: It was not long, however before the Church’s peace was threatened by the growing pretensions of the Bishop of Rome. As the supposed successor of St. Peter (a very doubtful supposition), he claimed to be the “Vicar of Christ” and supreme head of the whole Church. This arrogant claim was backed by the forgery of certain important documents and by the misinterpretation of passages in the Bible.

*SUBJECTION OF ENGLAND: As Rome was at this time the first city in the world, the influence of her Bishop was naturally very great. Little by little he succeeded in forcing his claims upon the surrounding Churches until at last he gained complete authority over every Bishop in Europe. The English Church was the last to yield; and it was only after an independence of more than eight hundred years that she was finally compelled to surrender. The Papal rule was set up under force of arms when William of Normandy conquored England in the year 1066. From that time until the 16th century the Church in England was dominated by Rome. Yet even so, it was never thought of nor spoken of as the “Roman Catholic Church”. It was always and at all times the “Church of England” or the "Anglican Church–“Ecclesia Anglicana” . . . . *

*INDEPENDENCE OF THE EAST: The Eastern Bishops, however, were strong enough to resist the power of Rome. The great Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople maintained their independence and have remained independent ever since . . . . . *

INDEPENDENCE RESTORED: During the Middle Ages and largely on account of the bad influence of Rome, the Churches of Europe had come into a very bad state. A reformation, therefore, was most necessary. The first step in reforming the English Church was the restoration of her ancient independence. With the aid of the English King, the Roman power was driven out and the English Church became once more an independent national Church . . . . . .

THE CHURCH PRESERVED: The old Church however, that had lasted for so many centuries, was not destroyed: it was set free. It regained it’s independence and innaugerated certain reforms, but it’s real identity was in no way affected. The old Apostolic Faith was retained, the same sacraments were celebrated, and the ministry of Bishops, Priests andDeacons was continued . . . . .

from The Ways and Teachngs of the Church: a Course of Instruction, by the Reverend Lefferd M.A. Haughwout, 1966 edition, selections from pages 85-87 inclusive.

A very old and rather ancient book exists in the library of a friend which elaborates at great length on the subject of English independence from Rome. The thing is the size of a very large collegiate dictionary, and is considered a classical treatise on the topic, though it has been out of print for a hundred or more years and was written in Elisabethan English–it was composed around the same time as the Homilies and Canons. I would have to get the name of the work and the author and doubt anyone is quite THAT interested anyhow; let me know, however if someone is interested. For most purposes I suspect the above is sufficient to understand the difference of opinion between Anglicanism and Catholicism.


#14

[quote=flameburns623]I stand corrected. I confuse the various warring bodies of Europe. To provide some measure of elaboration, while ensuring I remain relatively accurate, I cite the following:

**
"ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH: In the beginning, all Bishops of the Church were possessed of equal powers. But for convenience of administration, the dioceses were grouped together into provinces, with an Archbishop at the head of each. These provinces were in turn groups under the Bishops of the five great Christian centers–Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Contantinople. These Bishops were called Patriarchs.

ROMAN CLAIMS: It was not long, however before the Church’s peace was threatened by the growing pretensions of the Bishop of Rome. As the supposed successor of St. Peter (a very doubtful supposition), he claimed to be the “Vicar of Christ” and supreme head of the whole Church. This arrogant claim was backed by the forgery of certain important documents and by the misinterpretation of passages in the Bible.

SUBJECTION OF ENGLAND: As Rome was at this time the first city in the world, the influence of her Bishop was naturally very great. Little by little he succeeded in forcing his claims upon the surrounding Churches until at last he gained complete authority over every Bishop in Europe. The English Church was the last to yield; and it was only after an independence of more than eight hundred years that she was finally compelled to surrender. The Papal rule was set up under force of arms when William of Normandy conquored England in the year 1066. From that time until the 16th century the Church in England was dominated by Rome. Yet even so, it was never thought of nor spoken of as the “Roman Catholic Church”. It was always and at all times the “Church of England” or the "Anglican Church–“Ecclesia Anglicana” . . . .

INDEPENDENCE OF THE EAST: The Eastern Bishops, however, were strong enough to resist the power of Rome. The great Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople maintained their independence and have remained independent ever since . . . . .

INDEPENDENCE RESTORED: During the Middle Ages and largely on account of the bad influence of Rome, the Churches of Europe had come into a very bad state. A reformation, therefore, was most necessary. The first step in reforming the English Church was the restoration of her ancient independence. With the aid of the English King, the Roman power was driven out and the English Church became once more an independent national Church . . . . . .

THE CHURCH PRESERVED: The old Church however, that had lasted for so many centuries, was not destroyed: it was set free. It regained it’s independence and innaugerated certain reforms, but it’s real identity was in no way affected. The old Apostolic Faith was retained, the same sacraments were celebrated, and the ministry of Bishops, Priests andDeacons was continued . . . . .

from The Ways and Teachngs of the Church: a Course of Instruction, by the Reverend Lefferd M.A. Haughwout, 1966 edition, selections from pages 85-87 inclusive.

A very old and rather ancient book exists in the library of a friend which elaborates at great length on the subject of English independence from Rome. The thing is the size of a very large collegiate dictionary, and is considered a classical treatise on the topic, though it has been out of print for a hundred or more years and was written in Elisabethan English–it was composed around the same time as the Homilies and Canons. I would have to get the name of the work and the author and doubt anyone is quite THAT interested anyhow; let me know, however if someone is interested. For most purposes I suspect the above is sufficient to understand the difference of opinion between Anglicanism and Catholicism.
[/quote]

If it’s not too much trouble, I’m interested. I like history.

GKC


#15

Here’s the latest!

nccbuscc.org/comm/archives/2005/05-096.shtml


#16

What happened when the Church of England was founded by Henry (I don’t buy their perpetual church argument - Henry himself was deemed the “lion of the church” for his defense against the reformation) that caused the church not to recognize the apostolic lineage of its bishops? The orthodox church’s bishops are still recognized as having apostolic authority.

Thanks.


#17

The Anglican Church was the first to give in to modern “wisdom” in regards to contraception. Check it out:
dashjr.is-a-geek.org/~cora-jr/chaste/legacy.html
dashjr.is-a-geek.org/~cora-jr/chaste/fcta.html
John F. Kippley’s short book “Birth Control and Christian Discipleship”

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne


#18

[quote=fishtrader]What happened when the Church of England was founded by Henry (I don’t buy their perpetual church argument - Henry himself was deemed the “lion of the church” for his defense against the reformation) that caused the church not to recognize the apostolic lineage of its bishops? The orthodox church’s bishops are still recognized as having apostolic authority.

Thanks.
[/quote]

There’s a lot of history in your questions.

Henry had 2 titles given him by the Church, and he had solicited both of them. He was allowed to style himself “Christianissimus”, for supporting the Church against Loius XII. And in October 1521, he was given the title of “Defensor Fidei”, partially because of his book ASSERTIO SEPTEM SACRAMENTORUM, (which was mostly his work). But he had already been soliciting another title before the book was presented. That quest went back to 1515, and for years nothing came of it. In May 1521, however, Wolsey again raised the issue and Leo was considering it favorably, if without much enthusiasum. He had a number of possible titles sent to Henry, and told him to chose one. Hank picked *Defensor Fidei *, and sent his choice back to Rome about the time Leo was reading the ASSERTIO. Leo was impressed with the book, and went ahead and awarded the title Henry had selected, though without adding a few other honorifics (“Orthodoxus”, “*Gloriosus” *, “Fidelissimus”) as suggested by some cardinals. Henry would have liked them. He liked sparklies.

The answer to your question about the Anglican Apostolic Succession can be found in the Papal letter *Apostolicae Curae * (1896). In (very) brief, it held that Anglicans, through the use of a defective form (the Anglican Ordinal) and through defective intent (not to do what the Church does, re: ordinaation of a sacerdotal priest) had lost the Apostolic Succession at the time of the consecration of Archbishop Parker ( a sort of bottleneck in the Anglican episcopacy). The issues of form and intent have to be considered together, since the form itself is no different from a number of rites that the RCC does acknowledge to convey valid Orders.

It is a complicated subject. Anglicans have their own opinions on the matter.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus


#19

look here:

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/arcic/e_arcic-info.html


#20

[quote=DJgang]… The Episcopal church is very “loose” in it’s beliefs or rather telling or outlining what “beliefs” it should have. It doesn’t say…hey, you can’t do this or you can’t do that. And to put it bluntly…“we don’t care what exactly you believe as long as you worship the same”…now I know that sounds very liberal. But our worship service itself reflects the “beliefs” of the church. If that makes sense?

[/quote]

I’m having a hard time understanding this. If the beliefs are “loose” how can a service that is almost indistinguishable from Mass reflect all these (contradicting?) beliefs?


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.