Some have acknowledged the Pope's authority. Anglo-Papalism is an extreme development of Anglo-Catholicism. There were a few notorious cases in my Diocese in the earlier years of the 20th century.
Consular is right. There is a great diversity among ACs, and has been since the days of the Oxford movement if not before. There are the Newmans who seem to be working through some inner questions before going to the RCC. There are others like myself who are more closely connected to the eastern orthodox church, follow the authority 7 councils, look to the church fathers and embrace the spirirualty of the church during the first 1000 years, but all the while maintaining Anglican identity and patrimony through the use of the BCP, the 3 creeds, and finding unity in the 39 articles insofar as they are interpreted in the light of scripture, tradition, and conscience. Then there are liberal ACs who enjoy the high ritual of catholic worship but go off on a frolic of their own when it comes to theology ala Archbishop Rowan. I think there are 3 qualities imho that identify an AC: (1) belief in the authority of holy tradition, second only to scripture (though some would probably put it on the same level), (2) love of rich ritual, liturgical worship centered around the Eucharist, and (3) a maximalist understanding of the church with regard to scripture, meaning that the church may add anything to its worship and witness that is not contrary or in disobedience to Holy Writ (or tradition). On the other hand, what makes us authentically Anglican, as consular pointed out, is our belief in the sufficiency of the scriptures and the understanding that extra-biblical practices, even if traditional, are not necessary or essential for salvation. This is a practice that got its start (more or less) with Henry VIII.
Thank you Lowly Layman. I still found it quite disconcerting to see Lourdes in an Anglican context. I feel very close to those AC's that identify with the first 1000 years of the universal Church, the Creeds, and the Fathers, and can't imagine accepting anything that has occurred in the RCC since the middle ages.
There is a thread called "what is Anglo-Catholicism" in the theology section that may give you more insight into AC. Also, the canterbury project offers some AC resources. I found one set of articles especially helpful. Here's a link to the articles: http://anglicanhistory.org/alexander/
Since Lowly-Layman described the Anglo-Catholic positions so well, here is a description of the positions in my own "side": Laudian or "Old" High Church Anglicans comprised the majority from c. 1560-1860. The clergy do not wear medieval vestments, but retain a white surplice (which can sometimes be like a thick version of your sticharion, Peteprint). A typical High Church Sunday lasts more than two hours: Matins, the Great Litany, and Holy Communion are treated as a whole - much like Eastern parishes have Matins & Divine Liturgy together. The Holy Communion is often said half-way through, forming an "Ante-Communion"; a full celebration of the Eucharist would be every second Sunday, or perhaps once a month. Processions, elevations, Latin, and incense were not - and are not - generally used. They reverence the "one canon, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries", and the Fathers therein, who determine the boundaries of our faith", as Lancelot Andrewes (17th c. bishop) is reported to have said. I am of this persuasion, as I see a great balance between "Protestant" & Catholic. Ritual is moderate, and all is balanced upon the Gospel of Christ. We must base ourselves off the holy scriptures as seen through the lens of those pious & blessed Fathers. The Church is our Mother, but there is one God and Father of all. Laudians do not invoke or venerate saints, nor pray for those who have fallen asleep. Your average Anglican diocese will have liberal Anglo-Catholics, conservative Anglo-Catholics, Latinist Newman-following Anglo Catholics, Reformed Anglicans, Broad Church Anglicans, and a few Laudians.
I understand your misgivings Peter. I don't know much about Lourdes except that many people believe it to be place of amazing miracles of healing. If God has found it good to create such a place, then Amen. But it is not a part of my tradition so ill leave it to others to honor it. I did want to point out that the ACC is what I would call Anglo- papist, so they may not be the best source for non-romanist AC. There was a parish in a town I used to live in. When I inquired for some info the church secretary said they were actively seeking reunification with Rome and prayed for the Holy Father every Sunday.
Hi! I thought I may help but I would just like to correct you on something if I may?.... High Church is Anglio-Catholic or Traditional Anglican and can be Conservative but isn't always. Low Church is mostly although not always Evangelical and that can be Conservative, open and Carasmatic. Broad Church is mostly Liberal but again not always. High Church is what it is because they are very Catholic or Traditional in tradition and practise they can be consevative because they believe in male only priests, lots of vestments, candles etc but aren't always. Low Church is what it is because they are very Protestant in tradition and practise and again some although not all can be classed conservative because they also believe in male only vicars etc but they tend to have plainer churches and the services are not as long. Broad Church is what it is because alot of people within the church have a mixture of beliefs and practises taken from all paths within the church and they can be very traditional or very liberal mixed with Bible based reasoning or any other combination of traditions, practises etc, Broad church is so called because it has a Broad mix of beliefs and practises within it. Any Priest/Vicar can go to any church of there choosing within the Anglican Tradition but they tend to stick with churches they feel comfortable in, which tends to be ones which hold there own beliefs. The Archbishop has to be for the whole Anglican communion he can't favour one more than the others but of course he has his own beliefs and his own opinion on which tradition of the church he prefers, it doesn't mean he will let this affect his judgement on important matters as he has to think of the whole church, but of course his peferences will guide him in some things. There are various people who do surveys and things to find those kinds of things out, but I am afraid I can't give you any more information than that, sorry. Hope this helps.
Anglican Churches do Baptise/ Christen Babies but any one at any age can be Baptised. Confirmation is seperate from Baptism, Baptism is when someone is Baptised in to the faith and becomes a member of the Church, Confirmation is when a person confirms there belief in God and in what the parents and Godparents agreed to at there Baptism, confirmation is also when a person comes into full communion with the church and is able to participate in Holy communion fully by being able to take the bread and wine. Confirmation takes place when a child or adult can understand and/or agree with the declaration there making and is usually offered at about 10 or 11 years of age or any age after, as far as I know there is no upper limit.
High Church ≠ Anglo-Catholic, UK Anglican and Low Church ≠ Evangelical. Maybe in some uninformed circles today, but, historically, no, not even close.
A couple of brief points of clarification about the vote on the ordination of women to the episcopate of the Church of England: (1) All three houses – Bishops, Clergy, Laity – had a simple majority in favour of the women bishops measure. But a two-thirds majority was required, and while this was achieved in the Houses of Bishops and Clergy, it failed by a handful in the House of Laity. (2) A number of those in all three houses who voted against the measure were in favour of women bishops, but were not satisfied with the safeguards proposed for the positions of those opposed. Many of the posts above have dealt with the different strands of belief represented in the Church of England: those strands remain present because of the agonisingly difficult path the church has taken (unlike, perhaps its Anglican sister churches in North America) to preserve a home for a wide range of Christian belief. Partly this is because of a natural dislike of schism, of course, but partly also because that is the responsibility of a national, established, church. That responsibility also includes a legal requirement to marry people no matter their background. And a requirement to be somehow, in some strange way, my church even though I am not a Christian. That is why the Anglican church remains at the heart of every community in England. Those who would, say, have its archbishop press for the expulsion of ECUSA from the Communion, or who mock it for its motley nature, fail to understand what it is about.
I understand that highchurch can refer to anglo-catholic now, but hasn't been that way historically, am I right?
Anglo-catholic as it stands today was not about in the past but the traditional anglicans and anglo-catholic's are the nearest type of anglicans in the modern church which follow what the original anglicans would have followed in the past. Henry VIII when he created the church did so for one purpose to get a divorce, he had no objections to the rest of the church, the other changes followed later on.
Anglo-Catholicism could be classified as a very recent strand of Anglican High Churchmanship, depending on how broad you are with the term High Church. I'm pretty strict with terminology, thus in my view, Anglo-Catholicism is really a form of low churchmanship, for its disregard of Anglican theology, liturgy, and discipline.
I 100% agree with Hackney. Anglo-Catholicism is very new, and has never existed before recent times. Additionally, as a theory (not ACs as people) it is not a form of high churchmanship, but low churchmanship, because at its core lies an indifference to the Anglican church, theology and liturgy. When you see AC churches pretend to have a "Mass" in outright contempt for our sacred BCP, what is that, if not a low churchmanship? Good high churchmen have been misled by this incredibly slick theory, with the result that they loosen their ties to the Church, rather than fight tooth and nail for every dot and comma of our liturgy.