Anglo catholic veiw on the pope - what does mean how to refute

I was reading somthing the other day about the views of Anglo Catholics on the pope so how would I refute this Especilly since they mention the councils etc ?

" Since we have stated that the Anglican Catholic Church is not a ‘Roman’ but an ‘English’ Catholic Church it will come as no surprise that we do not consider ourselves to be under the Bishop of Rome’s ‘Universal Jurisdiction’. Again our position is comparable to the practice of the Undivided Church. Furthermore the Pope claims to be infallible in certain matters. Anglican Catholics believe in infallibility, but they believe that it is found not within the Office of the Pope, but within the Church itself, and that this is best expressed when it is acting as an undivided unity through the medium of the Ecumenical Councils. But since A.D. 1054 this hasn’t happened. As a result the pronouncements and decisions of Church Council’s within the Roman Catholic Church, such as the Council of Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II are not considered to have the same authority."

Thanks chuck

Can you tell me where you found this? It is not an uncommon view among Anglo-Catholics, and the term used “Anglican Catholic Church” suggests to me that it comes from a particular Continuing Anglican Church of that name. Anglo-Catholic, as a general term, refers to any Anglican whose doctrines are close to the RCC, but who might very well say this, with respect to the office of the Pope or Councils.

The positions stated here are generally similar to the Orthodox.



Basically, what they are advocating there is conciliarism which was first proposed by William of Ockham in an attempt to resolve the Western Schism. It’s wrong though, Mt 16:18 Jesus gave the keys to Peter, not the first council of Apostles. The Catholic model is benevolent dictatorship, which has long been considered the best form of government, as long as your dictator is benevolent. :slight_smile:

It may have come from here:

You need to scroll down quite a ways for the subheading, “What about the authority of the Pope?”

In searching for this, I found a quote that seems to be on the same general theme from an article entitled “A response from the Anglican Catholic Church to Rome’s Offer to Former Anglicans”

The forthcoming Constitution is in effect addressed to those who are already essentially Roman Catholic. We are not. We wish nothing but the best to Roman Catholic converts when they act in good conscience. But persons already convinced of the truth of Roman Catholic teaching in its fulness should become Roman Catholics promptly with or without the Pastoral Provision, with or without a liturgical “Anglican Use,” and with or without the new Ordinariates. . . . We believe that classical Anglicanism, as presented clearly in The Affirmation of Saint Louis and in our liturgies and other authoritative formularies, is already faithful to Scripture and the Fathers and is already fully Catholic and Orthodox. Conversion is not necessary and absorption is not appropriate.

I’m curious as to why you feel a need to refute this. Is it for personal assurance that you’ve made the right choice in converting to Roman Catholicism, or is there perhaps a friend or relative who’s going in another direction that you’re in dialogue with? Since they all stem from and adhere to the doctrines beginning with the Apostles and up to what are known as the seven ecumenical councils, it is hard to sort out the competing claims of the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglo Catholics.

Thank you. That is what I thought; it is from the ACC, one of the major Continuing Anglican Churches that broke from the Episcopal Church, when it started running off the rails, around 45-50 years ago. The sort of thing that I am.


Anglicanus-Catholicus, posterus traditus Anglicanus

It’s actually a pretty effective model for family life, too :smiley:

Another case of misunderstanding infallibility. Perhaps it should have been called “Divinely guided” - the only problem being that every street corner preacher believes the same by dint of his possession of a bible.

In any event the Anglican Communion is devolving and dissolving into a meaningless morass of relativism.

I don’t have any reason to want to refute it. It sounds more or less correct to me. :thumbsup:

But I’m an Episcopalian in an Anglo-Catholic parish.

I am an Anglo catholic in an Anglican Parish. I think that one of the great strengths of the RCC is the strength of the Pope. Because he is led by God’s Spirit, adheres to the teaching of the Holy Bible, is anointed for life and does not have to be concerned with the ‘modern’ way of viewing things, he is never swayed by popular opinion and remains true to our Lord.

Ok, but if you feel that way, why aren’t you Catholic instead of Anglo-Catholic?

The Anglican view is basically the same as the Orthodox view. I wish you well in trying to refute it. I do not think you can.:slight_smile: The Anglican Catholic Church and the Anglican Province of Christ the King take their Catholic emphasis very seriously and know their history well.

Then why would you worship in a Church that condemns everything you just said as heresy?



It’s all about location. I’m a widow who lives in Canada where we can have six months of icy roads. At my age, I am not comfortable driving in the winter and unless the roads are clear, I don’t drive. The Catholic Church would be very difficult to get to by public transit. I would have to take a bus, the train and another bus. The buses only run once an hour and I’ve learned that when the buses breakdown, it’s nearly always when it is -25C or colder. I can walk to the Anglican Church in 10 minutes.

It doesn’t. Anglicans condemn relatively little as heresy–you have to start denying something in the Nicene Creed, basically. (Even then you may well be tolerated, but at least you’re in the ballbark of ideas that theoretically could be defined as heresy!)


Considered by whom? And many Popes have clearly not been benevolent.

Please support your claim–which I find outrageous–that the Catholic Church officially endorses benevolent dictatorship. Dictatorship is evil, period. The word “benevolent” is just an honorific awarded by dictators to themselves as a reward for seizing power.

As I see it, the Church does not rest on any particular juridical model. The Pope is the center of fellowship, not primarily a ruler either constitutional or dictatorial. This matches the way Ratzinger, for instance, wrote about the Papacy (long ago, before he became Pope, hence the past tense), just to show that I’m not making this up or following Hans Kung or whatever.

Western conciliarism is juridical and hence flawed. Juridical structures in the Church should be respected but not absolutized.


To clarify: while it is true that the Orthodox reject the papal claims, we do not believe that the Church is divided or incapable of manifesting the truth in its current state, nor do we believe that certain criteria must be met for a council to teach doctrine which is inerrant.

You know, you can be Catholic without having to travel dangerously to mass every sunday. The obligation does not apply in the circumstances you describe. And while you may be forbidden from participation in any communion (bread and wine) I don’t think that sometimes having fellowship with others near you would be strictly forbidden if that is your only option and is not dangerous to your faith. But I could be wrong, perhaps a canonist could correct me if what I say is incorrect.

Peace. I wish you well in your journey to the Church of Christ. :slight_smile:

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