What is an “Anglo-Catholic” Parish?


#1

And does it have anything to do with the Catholic Church?


#2

[quote=mark a]And does it have anything to do with the Catholic Church?
[/quote]

An Anglo Catholic parish is part of the Anglican Communion, (the Episcopal Church in the U.S.) - ecusa.anglican.org/index_flash.htm

An Anglo Catholic parish is one influenced by the Oxford Movement encyclopedia.com/html/O/Oxfordmo.asp which sought to revive some Catholic doctirnes and rituals within the Church of England in Victorian times. Anglo Catholic parishes are often called ‘High Church’. Other ‘types’ would be ‘Low Church’ which would hold generally evangelical beliefs, and ‘Broad Church’ which would be somewhere in between. In practice you often find parishes in between these, e.g Not as ‘high’ as ‘high’ but not as ‘low as broad’!

Some Anglo Catholic priests would, in the view of the Catholic Church, have valid orders by virtue of some Anglican bishops having been consecrated by Old Catholic or Orthodox bishops.

E.G. - An Anglo Catholic parish
osp.org.uk/


#3

[quote=JGC]An Anglo Catholic parish is part of the Anglican Communion, (the Episcopal Church in the U.S.) - ecusa.anglican.org/index_flash.htm

An Anglo Catholic parish is one influenced by the Oxford Movement encyclopedia.com/html/O/Oxfordmo.asp which sought to revive some Catholic doctirnes and rituals within the Church of England in Victorian times. Anglo Catholic parishes are often called ‘High Church’. Other ‘types’ would be ‘Low Church’ which would hold generally evangelical beliefs, and ‘Broad Church’ which would be somewhere in between. In practice you often find parishes in between these, e.g Not as ‘high’ as ‘high’ but not as ‘low as broad’!

Some Anglo Catholic priests would, in the view of the Catholic Church, have valid orders by virtue of some Anglican bishops having been consecrated by Old Catholic or Orthodox bishops.

E.G. - An Anglo Catholic parish
osp.org.uk/
[/quote]

There’re a couple of points here that I’d quibble with, but only two I’ll post on. An Anglo-Catholic parish need not be associated with the Episcopal Church or the official Anglican Communion at all, though of course many are. Mine isn’t.

And though I agree with the logic behind the point in your last paragraph, you’ll have a hard time getting an official RCC agreement on that.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus


#4

[quote=GKC]There’re a couple of points here that I’d quibble with, but only two I’ll post on. An Anglo-Catholic parish need not be associated with the Episcopal Church or the official Anglican Communion at all, though of course many are. Mine isn’t.

And though I agree with the logic behind the point in your last paragraph, you’ll have a hard time getting an official RCC agreement on that.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
[/quote]

Pt 1 - point taken, the majority of Anglo Catholic parishes are in communion with the Anglican Communion. Explanation and comprehensive details in link below.

THE CHURCHES LISTED HERE are not ‘in the communion’. That means that they are not part of the Anglican Communion. To be part of it, a church must have a formal relation with the See of Canterbury. It is entirely possible for a church to be in full communion with the Anglican Church without being in the Anglican Communion. It is also entirely possible for a church to be completely Anglican in heritage and origin, but for it not to be in communion with the See of Canterbury. - anglicansonline.org/communion/nic.html

Pt 2 - a response to a query on the CIN pages from a Catholic priest cin.org/cinmateo.html

There is, though, a further complication. Some candidates for Anglican priesthood, recognizing the sterile nature of their church’s holy orders, have received ordination at the hands of validly ordained schismatic bishops (such as the Old Catholics, who broke from Rome in the nineteenth century). Assuming these bishops used the proper rite and the necessary intention, those ordinations would be valid, though illicit. The problem is that it’s extraordinarily difficult to ascertain whether an individual Anglican priest’s are valid or not.
cin.org/mateo/m921117c.html


#5

an Anglo-Catholic parish is a protestant parish that has the facade of catholicism that is only skin deep. pope leo ruled they have invalid orders. they may or may not hold to the book of common prayer of 1928. they are free to accept or reject whatever catholic beliefs they want based on thier interpretation of scripture and/or tradition. they generally have resulted in many episcopalians/anglicans converting to catholicism or orthodoxy. this movement was started as the oxford movement in the 19th century. newadvent.org/cathen/01498a.htm

"With the truest charity, which consists in the candour of truth, Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical on Unity, pointed out that there can be no reunion expect on the solid basis of dogmatic unity and submission to the divinely instituted authority of the Apostolic See. In September, 1896, after a full and exhaustive inquiry, he issued a Bull declaring Anglican Orders to be “utterly null and void”, and in a subsequent Brief addressed to the Archbishop of Paris, he required all Catholics to accept this judgment as “fixed, settled, and irrevocable” (firmum, ratum et irrevocabile).

The Anglican Revival continues to reiterate its claim and to appropriate to itself, where practical, whatever in Catholic doctrine, liturgy, and practice, church vestments or church furniture, it finds helpful to its purpose. …It stands thus in the illogical and unhistorical position of a system which is philocatholic in its views and aspirations, but hopelessly committed to heresy and to heretical communication, and built upon an essentially Protestant foundation. Although to Catholics its very claim is an impious usurpation of what belongs of right to the Catholic Church alone, it fulfils an informal mission of influencing English public opinion, and of familiarizing the English people with Catholic doctrines and ideals.

Like the Oxford movement, it educates more pupils than it can retain, and works upon premises which cannot but carry it in the long run farther than it is willing to go. A branch theory which is repudiated by the principal branches, or a province theory which is unknown to the rest of the provinces, and a continuity theory of which more than twelve thousand documents in the Record Office and the Vatican Library are the overwhelming refutation, cannot form a standing ground which is other than temporary and transitional. In the meantime, its work amongst the masses is often a species of catechumenate for Catholicism, and in all cases it is an active solvent and a steady undoing of the English Reformation. "


#6

[quote=JGC]Pt 1 - point taken, the majority of Anglo Catholic parishes are in communion with the Anglican Communion. Explanation and comprehensive details in link below.

THE CHURCHES LISTED HERE are not ‘in the communion’. That means that they are not part of the Anglican Communion. To be part of it, a church must have a formal relation with the See of Canterbury. It is entirely possible for a church to be in full communion with the Anglican Church without being in the Anglican Communion. It is also entirely possible for a church to be completely Anglican in heritage and origin, but for it not to be in communion with the See of Canterbury. - anglicansonline.org/communion/nic.html

Pt 2 - a response to a query on the CIN pages from a Catholic priest cin.org/cinmateo.html

There is, though, a further complication. Some candidates for Anglican priesthood, recognizing the sterile nature of their church’s holy orders, have received ordination at the hands of validly ordained schismatic bishops (such as the Old Catholics, who broke from Rome in the nineteenth century). Assuming these bishops used the proper rite and the necessary intention, those ordinations would be valid, though illicit. The problem is that it’s extraordinarily difficult to ascertain whether an individual Anglican priest’s are valid or not.
cin.org/mateo/m921117c.html
[/quote]

Greetings, JGC,

Re: Point 1. Yep. I’m one of those not in communion with Canterbury.

RE: Point 2. The reciprocal participation of Old Catholic and Anglican bishops, in the episcopal consecrations in both Churches, followed the establishment of full intercommunion between the Anglican Communion and the Old Catholic Church in the early 30s, each Church recognising the validity of the other’s orders in advance that is, (it wasn’t a retroactive thing for anyone). It’s not all that hard, actually, to find which Anglican priests have Old Catholic lines, if that is what is of interest. Since Old Catholics (I’m unaware of any Orthodox participations in modern times) began participating in Anglican consecrations in 1932, fairly careful records have been kept of Episcopal lineage. My parish priest, for example, was ordained 10 years ago, by a bishop consecrated 26 years ago, by a bishop consecrated 42 years ago, whose consecrators included Old Catholic bishops. It’s not that hard, though certainly I’m not the keeper of the records. Of course, in addition to the question of the episcopacy, there’s form and intent to consider. Another story.

And hi, oat soda. I thought you might be along on this one. The enquiry that proceeded the issuing of *APOSTOLICAE CURAE * was, in my not totally uninformed opinion, a little less than full and exhaustive, but that *is * an opinion. Still, what you post is certainly a statement of the RCC position. For a statement of the Anglican viewpoint (not that I expect anyone to rush out and find these titles), I frequently recommend Fr. J. J. Hughes two books ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID (catchy title) and STEWARDS OF THE LORD. Fr. Hughes is an interesting figure. He was an Anglican priest who swam the Tiber, and was the first such Anglican priest to be ordained sub conditione, rather than absolutely, since 1896, at least. (It has happened at least once since). Fr. Hughes wrote these books, the best summary of the sad *APOSTOLICAE CURAE * situtation that I am aware of, after he became an RC. I highly recommend them to anyone interested in the subject. If, OTOH, you are only interested in seeing the RC side, the best book is by the (then) Jesuit Fr. Francis Clark, ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. Or, if you are not interested in the matter at all, nothing need be read, and you will be no worse off.

GKC

traditional Anglican, Anglicanus Catholicus


#7

If your caucasion and your catholic doesn’t that make you anglo catholic?:smiley:


#8

[quote=Maccabees]If your caucasion and your catholic doesn’t that make you anglo catholic?:smiley:
[/quote]

:eek: That wouldn’t go down well here, there are a few English Catholics up here but most of us are Scottish or of Irish descent. It would be like calling a Canadian ‘American’… :smiley:


#9

[quote=JGC]It would be like calling a Canadian ‘American’… :smiley:
[/quote]

But Canadians ARE American, just not Unitedstatesian. I suppose you could call them “flannel Americans”, tho they might get confused for a different demographic.


#10

[quote=JGC]:eek: That wouldn’t go down well here, there are a few English Catholics up here but most of us are Scottish or of Irish descent. It would be like calling a Canadian ‘American’… :smiley:
[/quote]

How is the faith doing in ol Scotalnd these days here the Irish are rapidly loosing touch with catholicism and well the English are just pagan now adays. Is ther hope for Catholicism in the aisles?


#11

" Some Anglo Catholic priests would, in the view of the Catholic Church, have valid orders by virtue of some Anglican bishops having been consecrated by Old Catholic or Orthodox bishops."

I very much doubt that there are any valid orders recognized by the Catholic Church in the Church of England.


#12

[quote=Pondero]" Some Anglo Catholic priests would, in the view of the Catholic Church, have valid orders by virtue of some Anglican bishops having been consecrated by Old Catholic or Orthodox bishops."

I very much doubt that there are any valid orders recognized by the Catholic Church in the Church of England.
[/quote]

Generally, you are correct. An good dicussion on the theoretical possibilities that certain Anglican clergy might not fall under the logic of *APOSTOLICAE CURAE * can be found at this site, Accipe Potestatem:

angelfire.com/nj/malleus/

It 's a good place for anyone interested in that sad subject.

A point to ponder are the cases of Fr. John Hughes, mentioned above and Fr. Graham Leonard, one time Anglican bishop of London, who were ordained in the RCC sub conditione, rather than absolutely, reflecting the uncertain nature of the subject. AFAIK, these two are the only ones so ordained. The logc involves both the intent and the presence of Old Catholic lines in their Anglican ordinations. Again, *Accipe Potestatem * is an interesting place to read up on these matters.

GKC

traditional Anglican


#13

[quote=Pondero]" Some Anglo Catholic priests would, in the view of the Catholic Church, have valid orders by virtue of some Anglican bishops having been consecrated by Old Catholic or Orthodox bishops."

I very much doubt that there are any valid orders recognized by the Catholic Church in the Church of England.
[/quote]

When Graham Leonard, the former Anglican Bishop of London, was ordained a Priest in the Catholic Church, his ordination was conditional. Ergo, there was, in the Catholic view, grounds to believe that his consecration in the Anglican Church was of sufficient validity that ordination de novo would have been sacrilege.


#14

[quote=mercygate]When Graham Leonard, the former Anglican Bishop of London, was ordained a Priest in the Catholic Church, his ordination was conditional. Ergo, there was, in the Catholic view, grounds to believe that his consecration in the Anglican Church was of sufficient validity that ordination de novo would have been sacrilege.
[/quote]

mercygate,

Just so. Great minds. etc, etc.

Fr. Hughes preceded Fr. Leonard by about 20 years. Logic was the same.

GKC


#15

i attended an low “mass” for an anglican catholic church (st. mark’s) in portland oregon. for what it’s worth, i didn’t recognize any presence of the Lord in the church as i normally do in catholic churches. i have been in a greek orthodox church and felt his presence. but i felt like i was in an old stuffy museum at st. mark’s. but with any feelings, they can be totally subjective.


#16

Thanks for all these answers.

Originally I had to think that an Anglo-Catholic was an Englishman who happened to be Catholic.

I understand now that an Anglo-Catholic is Not a Catholic!
It is some derivation of Anglican, I assume the Church of England.


#17

[quote=mean_owen]But Canadians ARE American, just not Unitedstatesian. I suppose you could call them “flannel Americans”, tho they might get confused for a different demographic.
[/quote]

Canadians are North Americans.


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.