Differences between Anglican and Roman Catholicism

I have often wondered that too, because the similarities (especially in episcopal authority) are striking. Orthodoxy does have an infallible sort of teaching office/"holy" tradition, though, which may cause Anglicans to cringe somewhat?

It may have to do with the fact that the Orthodox deny Filioque and original sin.

Most of all, it may just be the fact that Orthodoxy is highly ethnic and almost entirely eastern. Even in American dioceses that have been established more than a hundred years, they have no culture but Greek or Russian. The Western Rite has such a paucity of actual members that it might as well not even exist.

 

While there can be extremists in Orthodoxy (like any denom/religion -- of which most seem to be on the internet forums ) they tend to prefer apophatic statements that declare what something "isn't" opposed to what something "is". So in that sense there may actually be less "official" dogmatization.

 

That's the problem, you can't pin 'em down and get anything concrete or solid!

 

They lose their Anglican identity by joining the Roman Church, what does it matter if they use the Roman Rite or a pseudo-BCP?

 

Interesting, I should have noted that there are very traditional parishes in both TEC and continuing movement. The fact of matter is that Anglicans don't have to go through any kind of annulment process, divorce is accepted, albeit the parish priest and Bishop largely determine that degree of acceptability.

You both raise many good points and i've always said that if I was forced out of TEC and couldn't find a continuing Anglican church, then Orthodoxy would probably be next on my list or very close to the top. Many who have left TEC or another Anglican province have found joining the Orthodox Church to be more to their theological liking than the RCC.

That said, I think Consular hit the nail on the head...some of us find their theology on original sin a bit strange. Further, the ethnic "barriers" are bit difficult for Westerners to adjust to or to understand....although things are improving on this front. Further, the liturgy, while beautiful, is a bit unfamiliar to most of us. I've never seen a Western-Rite service, but I have heard of them (if anyone has a video, i'd be curious to see it). Another problem is that Orthodoxy is pretty much confined to large cities with many different ethnic groups, while Orthodoxy is growing in the U.S., it can be difficult to find a parish.

Most importantly, we are Anglicans and not Orthodox or Roman Catholic. If possible, the majority of us would like to remain Anglican, that's who we are.

 

Sean,
Excellent points about Orthodoxy, but your last statement does sum up the issue very well. We are Anglicans and that's who we are. Anglicanism is a beautiful expression of the Christian faith and Sacramental life within the Body of Christ.

 

For me I just came here from Catholicism and I am very content here (in Anglicanism) that being said I am sure I am an odd bird because I do not hate the Catholic Church and have some fondness for her but I am more comfortable here for the moment

 

I certainly hope you don't take my posts as me hating the Catholic Church! When I think it's necessary, I point out the problems in Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Protestantism. Despite my concerns about certain Catholic doctrines, its been implied that i'm an "anglo-papist," because I don't sufficiently hate the RCC enough or something, so take everything you read here with a grain of salt my friend.

 

Sadly the Roman view of Anglicanism is not that of a legitimate, separate Church, such as the Maronites, Melkites, Ukrainian, Syriac, and Coptic communities. Those were "orthodox" churches who kept apostolic orders unblemished, in Rome's view - they were also remnants of ancient local churches which were never under Roman jurisdiction; it was only a matter getting them to believe in Papal theology, and allowing them into communion.

For the Anglicans, Leo XIII made their nullity as a very church quite definitive in 1896, declaring that Anglican clergy are play-actors, and nothing more. It's difficult to have an "Anglican Rite" with an Anglican church becoming part of the Roman communion, when the former isn't even considered to be a church in its own right. With the Melkites and such, whole local churches and their headships made the decision to become Roman-affiliated. That is not so with Anglicanism, since only 2-3 bishops went over so far, right?

I think this Ordinariate is partly political: all Anglicans come under the fold, or none. Two or three are useless to Rome.

"Identity" is extremely personal - except that which we objectively have as created children of God. :think:We can't say that an "Anglican" attending exclusively-Methodist services is an Anglican can we? Yet there is more to identity than action; there is mindset, culture, point of view, and feeling.

 

No I don't take your post that way

 

Why should they? What has Orthodoxy got that we havn't? Apart from a tighter discipline! They have got exactly the same faith, I'm talking about the Eastern Church and the Anglican Church not so much about individuals, Christ's Revelation, scripture and the Councils.. When the business of W/ Ordination came up in the 1970's, a group of Anglo Catholics made a journey to Rome and put a case for a group secession. Everything seemed to go well at first and then two of the group were called in to see the then Cardinal Ratzinger, he gave the thumbs down, and is reported by the two who were there to say, "You are bad Anglicans and you will make bad Roman Catholics". When Rome issued the so called Catholic Catechism, it was met with joy amongst the Anglican Bishops, Carey the Calvinist, raved saying, this is what we believe and a letter was sent to the Vatican, pointing out the similarities, they received in reply a terse letter accepting the point, but asking why Anglican's didn't teach it? Orthodox Patriarchs and senior Church leaders in the 1930's gave a guarded acceptance to English Orders and belief, but the war and the collapse of the Anglican Belief after the debacle of South India, cooled what ardour the Orthodox had. Anglicanism has not abandoned its faith, they simply keep it in the archives for scholars and private judgment!
Look at many individuals on this board, all good Anglicans, but in many cases their belief is not Anglican as such, but simply an idiosyncratic look at what we teach and if it can be set in to the prearranged parameters of Neo Anglicanism!

 

Highchurchman, you make a stirring point by bringing up the Nicene Creed: we have the same symbol of faith as Rome! The problem is: they no longer say that the essential faith is fully contained in the Creed. We are called heretics for not mandating belief in papal infallibility, prayer for the dead, prayer to saints, transubstantiation, and other things.

Anglicanism has always taken seriously the dictum "in necessary things, unity; in lesser things, charity". The Communion considers the articles of the Creed, ratified by Ephesus 431, to be the "necessary things"; all else is lesser. Rome has come to refuse this; instead of one Creed making us one in Catholic doctrine, we must also accept every single Sacred Tradition as equal to the Creed. The same thing goes for the Orthodox and Holy Tradition.

What the R.C. and E.O. churches fail to grasp is that the Fathers of Nicaea I, Constantinople I, and Ephesus, all declared "the faith" to be fully contained in the Nicene Creed. That was why they forbade its changing at Ephesus, in canon 7. They violate their own "Tradition" by nullifying the sufficiency of the Creed!

The Creed was, for 700 years, believed to summarize the basic Orthodox Catholic Faith. Only by adding to, or taking from, the Nicene Creed, do we become heretics. Since Anglicanism steadily confesses Nicaea across the Communion, no one has any right to call us heretics!

 

There are some other issues that may seem "small" compared to many of the other posts, but they have been the source of considerable controversy and strain between Anglicans and Catholics:

This is entirely misleading, Anglicans are Catholics, holding to the faith of the first thousand years whilst Rome as we know it , is the product of the Council of Trent, that Church at that precise time, added items to the Creed as well as robbing Bishop's of their freedom to operate. Whilst the catholic Bishops of Europe quietly surrendered the rights and authority in to the hands of the Bishop of Rome, The name of the Roman Church was originally , the Suburbicarian Church of Rome, it operated in the area about Rome for a hundred leagues, then to the southern toe of Italy and the three major Islands. With the growth of papal authority it took over the northern part of italy becoming the Suburbicarian Church of Italia. The present name , (Holy Roman Church,) was assumed at Trent in 1565. There were followers of Trent in England after 1565, but it was not a Church only a catholic sect. 'Sect,' comes so I'm told from ,'I follow,' and the Romans at Trent, followed the false teachings of the papacy, whilst not abandoning the basic catholic tenets of scripture.

Further there was no Roman Church in England till 1850, a fact freely admitted to by both Cardinals Wiseman and Newman. It shows a lack of knowledge on the part of Anglicans to misuse the term in this way. "Pope Pius (IX) has brought us together, has given us Bishops and created out of us a Body politic. ORATORY CHURCH, BIRMINGHAM. SUNDAY 7.8. 1866. THE POPE & THE REVOLUTION. P14. "WE ARE A NEW MISSION STRAIGHT FROM ROME. OURS IS A NEW WAVE OF CHRISTIANITY FROM ROME, TO TAKE THE PLACE OF AUGUSTINE'S. father Humphries, S.J. The Divine Teacher. pg, 54. Pope Pius IX, .......established once more the hierarchy in England as S'Gregory had done." (Jubilee Address. Jan. 1890. ​

​

​

​

 

historyb,
Disagreeing with Catholics doesn't mean I hate them.

 

It does seem like a bait and switch. Some have called it "sheep stealing." I still think many will return to Anglicanism, though doubtful a return to TEC.

 

Excuse my ignorance:
--what happened in South India?
--Can you help me understand what is "Anglican" as opposed to "Neo-Anglicanism"?
Thank you

 

I believe he's referring to the United Church of South India, which was a merger of three or four Protestant denominations, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and Anglicans, in 1946, I believe, whereby non-episcopal ministers were allowed to continue in ministry, while the church had bishops consecrated by Anglican bishops to grandfather in a completely episcopal ministry.

 

Dave!

That is only part of it, the fact was and is still, that the Anglican Faith was left out of it. Everyone minister participating in the scheme was allowed to hold to his own ideas. I was asked to meet one some time ago in my home town, a Baptist Minister now, who was clearly and boastfully, a Calvinist. They had a joint Concelebration, C. of E, and various protestant ministers,( in a C.of E, Church,) which I declined to join in, nicely I hope! Had I wanted to be a protestant I would have become one in my youth.
As for Neo Anglican?
Anglicanism is the distillation of two thousand years of Catholic teaching in these Isles.The Church in Britain was very probably here before Christianity was, in any meaningful way, in Rome. We took part in the formulation and development of the early catholic church through our participation in the Councils and by evangelism, we reformed our faults in the 16th Century . Surviving near extinction during the wars of religion (1640/ 60) we at all times preserved and restored the ancient faith inspite of massive neglect from 18th, up till 1994 when it became apparent that there had been a terrible decline in standards. Today, it very apparent to some that the Church in Britain is held in very little respect even by the people who hold the name Anglican,these people keep the name and ignore the teaching, or Revelation, passed on to us by Christ through the Apostolic college. Virtually making the faith up in their own minds ignoring the Anglican fathers of some 2000, years. It is this which is Neo , or new, Anglicanism,the shadow without the substance.

 

HighChurchMan,

Thank you.
1) Can you recommend a source on the web to read more about "authentic" Anglicanism?
2) How do the 39 Articles play into authentic Anglicanism
3) I've read that the "original" church in Britain was Orthodox and not Roman up until 9th or 10th centuries... do you subscribe to that theory?

Thank you again.
Regards,
Dave

 

Dave,

As to #3, the Church of England (and Britain generally) held to the Nicene Orthodoxy of the early Fathers. The contention that the Britons of 604-1066 were "Orthodox" in the modern sense of the term, is a conceit of the Easterns. They like to claim everyone for themselves, just as Rome does.

In a way, many churches were deceived into the superstitious practice of veneration icons, among other things. Since there isn't a terribly large amount of self-documenting information surviving from that period, it's difficult to say. The Venerable Bede documents the history of the British Churches from 604-730 in Books III, IV, and V of his Ecclesiastical History, here:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bede/history.toc.html

It's a start.