I was a cradle Catholic but a few years ago, I left for the Episcopal church for many reasons, one mainly being that I do not believe in the infallability of the pope nor do I believe that the Catholic church is the only institution where the sacrements are truly celebrated and where salvation can only be found. However, I do whole-heartedly believe in the communion of saints, sacred tradition, faith and works, sacremental confession and many other beliefs that us Anglicans share in common with Rome. I believe it is not only hurtful but self serving to label one’s self as the one and only valid church. I believe there is a common thread with those of us who have upheld the early church traditions along with sacred scripture like Catholics and Anglicans too!
Do you believe all the writers in the Bible wrote their works inspired by the Holy Spirit guiding them so they did not write errors?
Yes there are common threads with anglicanism, but the fact is the catholic church teaches infallibility and other specific doctrines the anglican church does not agree with including the Rosary and assumption of Mary(with the possible exception of very high Church anglo-catholics). The fact is it is not hurting to continue with the belief of infallibility, it defines our church. We do not believe in the doctrine of “invisible church”, so why should we accept other churches that do? That is the true sillyness suggesting we should go against our own belief and tradition and say “some other churches are ok too”, because the fact is we believe in the chair of St Peter and the infallible church of christ.
Yes there are common threads with some other churchs, hence we recognize such things as “Valid Mass”(which is basically mass in the Catholic order and where the true presence is believed) and “Valid Baptism”. But we will not and do not have to agree with “the invisible church” doctrine Anglicanism and otjher protestant faiths teach. Also if Anglicanism was solely made up of people like yourself, it would be much easier to accept the church sometimes has “Valid Mass”(Which I personally believe is so from my 9 years of being Anglo-Catholic), but the fact is the Anglican church believes in several things ranging from Real Presence(taken from the fact it was once the church of England in the greater Catholic Church) to the other completely opposite opinion. That’s why I left it in the end because it did not have a streamlined teaching on such an important issue, and I believed in the Real Presence.
The Catholic church cannot validate your mass service if some of your masses DO NOT CELEBRATE REAL PRESENCE. While I’m sure your church obviously does, there are many “Evangelical Anglicans” out there who don’t.
The Anglican church is an example of what our church could be without the Pope, a church of Christians with no streamlined belief system.
It seems to me that any similarity between the two is on a very superficial level.
Not so superficial if one leaves the Catholic Church in order to join the Anglican Church.
Or other way around of course
The traffic well and truly goes both ways.
The reason we cannot cease to “argue the basics” is because the Church can ONLY teach the Truth. There isn’t anything else she can teach.
Infallibility is not a superficial difference. It is a revealed Truth. Rejection of authority is a fundamental flaw in the thinking of those who leave the Catholic Church.
Moral relativism – “it really doesn’t matter what religion/denomination you are” – is also another item that is not a superficial difference, it is a fundamental difference. Moral relativsm is a fundamental flaw in non-Catholic teaching, it is a heresy.
The Church cannot embrace that which is false.
I believe it is not only hurtful but self serving to label one’s self as the one and only valid church
We do not label ourselves; we simply state the truth.
If you were to say that you were “the one and only Traveler”, you wouldn’t be ‘labeling’ yourself but merely acknowledging who you are.
Indifferentism is wrong. It really does matter whether one has ‘the fullness of truth’, ‘most of the truth’, ‘some of the truth’, or ‘none of the truth.’
I can only refer you to the concurrent thread about the imminent split between Episcopalians and the world-wide Anglican community, which many are forecasting. The divergence between belief and practice within the Anglican community is so vast, and in some places so antiethical to Catholic teaching, as to make unity impossible at this time. What similarities there may have been are rapidly disappearing as the radicial wing of the Episcopalian hierarchy gains ascendancy.
Sorry Trav. The worldwide Anglican communion can only celebrate one sacrament, that one being baptism. As for the rest it is not possible. All Anglican orders are null and void. There is no sacrificing priesthood in Anglicanism.
If it is a basic, doesn’t that mean it’s non-negotiable?
Marriage is also valid and Sacramental-- for the same reason as Baptism (the sacrament is not dependent upon Holy Orders… anyone can baptize).
The ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony are the Bride and Groom therefore, the invalidity of Holy Orders in the Anglican/Episcopal denomination is not an impediment to a valid, sacramental marriage.
For anyone who accepts the words in Apostolicae Curae, this is correct (as amended below). That would (or should) be all faithful RCs, at a minimum.
Anglicans have a different view.
Apostolicae Curae, like Henry VIII and his problems, is a hobby area of mine.
Wonder why it took so long to show up in these threads.
Exactly what I was going to point out…without a Pope your Church is going to do battle with Liberal members, and in this day and age…secular thoughts are infiltrating all Churches that don’t have protection…that’s what the Pope does…protect the deposit of faith…
Jesus had brilliant foresite to have the office pronounced…of course He is God…
If Henry VIII and the English Reformation are a habit of yours, then check out the latest issue of This Rock magazine. There is a wonderful article about how it all came to pass.
How is truth hurtful? I think many have a type of selective indignation. If one does not believe there are in the one valid Church why would one stay?
But Anglicanism does not agree with Catholicism on the what constitutes “the basics,” on the essentials of the faith. Consequently, Catholicism views Anglicanism as clinging to heresy. Your question seems to be, shouldn’t we just ignore heresy? We cannot.
I thank you. If I can find a copy of it, I will certainly read it. I enjoy that sort of thing. Though I already know how it came about, one can always enjoy reading stuff one already knows, or arguing with opposing veiwpoints. My recommendation, for anyone who is interested in Hank, is J. J. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII. Superb. On the issue of the annulment, Henry Kelly’s THE MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII is a mind-numbing mass of historical detail.
Thank you again.
*Anglicanus Catholicus *
The essence of the sacrament of matrimony is to be found in the marriage contract. Consequently, no marriage of baptized parties is valid unless it is also a sacrament.
Anglicans do not view Matrimony as a sacrament.
Depends on which Anglicans you ask. Many do, as also the other six sacraments.