Differences between Anglican and Roman Catholicism

I prefer music to be in English... akthough I do like miserere by (can't remember) and some Gregorian (Latin) chant. On the other hand some of the Russian Orthodox chant other-worldly beautiful. Also Capella Romana's Divine Liturgy in English is pretty amazing also.

 

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:

1. Roman Catholics are against the use of contraception. Anglicans were against contraception until the 1930s (I believe) and now it is left to the individual to decide.

2. Divorce in the Catholic Church is not acceptable....one must go through an "annulment" process in which the the "marriage" is determined to either be valid or never a valid marriage to begin with. Anglicans acknowledge the reality of divorce, though most have to get permission from their Bishop to be re-married in the Anglican Church. Many former Roman Catholics, who are now Anglican, are divorced "refugees."

3. Catholics require priests and nuns to remain celibate, thus, marriage is out of the question. Anglicans allow priests to get married and have children if they choose to. (Although, Anglican priests that are accepted to the Roman priesthood are allowed to stay married if they are married to begin with)

4. Catholics only ordain men to the priesthood. Anglicans are trending to ordaining women to the priesthood in many, if not most, provinces.

For me, the biggest of all these issues is papal infallibility.

 

One little correction Sean: nuns are not required to remain celibate in the same way priests are. Presbyters were able to marry in the early Church, but consecrated virgins are the origin of the nun, and hermits the origin of the monk. By nature, a monk (monachos - one, alone) is not married, nor is a nun. To choose to be a nun or monk is a choice for celibacy in the very essence of the life. Priesthood does not have an essential celibate nature.

Papal infallibility and the inerrant-hierarchy theory of the institution of the Church are the two pegs on which all our contentions hang. Without the concept of an infallible Magisterium, Christians would be free to make their individual conscience decisions in all matters outside the fundamental bases of the faith. Romans may argue this issue of Mary or that issue of the Eucharist, but no matter how rational the opposite reply is, the Catholic can always just say "oh well, the Church defines it and the Church is infallible, so there's nothing more to say".

Meaningful discussion on other issues can take place only when the infallibility of the hierarchy isn't assumed, for that one issue supersedes all.

 

Thank you for that correction Consular.

I should also like to say that many on Catholic Answers and even some on here ask why do Anglicans and, especially Anglo-Catholics, don't join the Roman Catholic Church? For me, the issue of papal/church infallibility is a HUGE issue. Despite the problems in TEC and Anglican Communion, i'm allowed to hold disagreements in regards to issues that I find unacceptable or issues that go against my conscience . Heck, I can even disagree (and have at times) with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Roman Catholics are not afforded this "luxury," as Anna pointed out, all Roman Catholics must submit to the Roman Pontiff on all theological issues in regards to the faith. Sure,a Roman Catholic can disagree with the Church on this issue or that issue, but the official teaching of the Church stands...no matter what I think or feel, there can be no real discussion or argument. That is something that I, personally, cannot do and is one of the biggest reasons why I can't go to Rome.

 

Sean, all that stuff was an important consideration in my decision to reluctantly depart from Rome.

Of course, petty or bitter Catholics say of you, "well of course you don't want to join us; you want to continue justifying living with some immoral behaviour, and only Rome has the power/authority/infallibility to tell you to stop it absolutely!" This is a very common reasoning amongst CAF users, to describe those who leave and those who refuse to convert, for the reasons you have given. A lot of angry heart-judging goes on over there, in my experience.

The big problem with Catholicism to me is that although infallibility currently encompasses only specific ex-cathedra declarations on matters of "faith and morals", there is a lawyer-like loop in the system. Given enough time, popes will have encompassed all beliefs under "faith" and all actions under "morals", because of the rationalist, explanation-seeking nature of western Christianity. Eventually, the popes will have defined everything ex-cathedra down the ages, and there won't even be little "this" or "that" issues left for Catholics to decide for or against. It's a sort of opposite version of the law of entropy - eventually everything will decay, given enough time; just so, eventually the popes will have declared everything ex cathedra, given enough time. Following that, what could we be left with but another 613 Mitzvot (and more)?

This logic derailed my faith in Rome, especially given the number of Popes who have taught ... different things.

 

Sean,
Excellent points in both posts. The "papal/church infallibility" issue is indeed "huge." I wonder if the Anglicans who made a mad dash to Rome will find it difficult, once the reality of submission of religious mind and will sinks in. I think we may find some returning to Anglicanism.

 

Traditional Anglicans hold the Church to be infallible under certain circumstances. For instance the Seven Councils.( Field, 'The Church'.) For Anglican,s the Councils set the pattern for our understanding of the lady Mary, that she is The Mother of God, ,'The Theotokos,' also that she is ,"Ever Virgin, Immaculate and All Holy'. We are expected I believe, to approach the matter of Christ's Mother on this understanding.

Regarding `Papal Jurisdiction, or Infallibility,' there is no support in scripture or tradition as far as I can see and the ideas are some sort of cancerous growth. For fifteen hundred years there was no clear claim for either it was the Council of Trent that was the launching pad, for these ideas as well as for the Holy Roman Church as we know it!

 

They are already finding it difficult. I've read a few articles and seen discussed on Anglican Unscripted that Anglican Use Roman Catholics are upset that they can't use some of the resources that they used when they were Anglican (like certain Missals).

http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2012/08/using-what-we-have-already/#comments


There has also been charges by some in the Ordinariate that Rome is favoring TEC priests over continuing priests.

http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2012/08/ordinariate-denies-favoritism-charges/#comments


I think they are finding out that you can't exactly be both Anglican and Roman Catholic.

 

Wow Sean, that's profound. Roman apologists have been marketing this as the end of Anglicanism; the collapse of old heresy and schism; a victory for the Papacy. Now it looks as if only a few intended to join anyway, and those that did are beginning to regret it!

 

I agree Consular, so far the numbers have been fairly underwhelming. I think Rome is viewing this as something more along the lines of being long-term.

I have a question about Anglicans going over to Rome. If an Anglican decides to become Roman Catholic is there a ceremony for reception into the Church? (like there is for Catholics who enter the Episcopal Church) Or, do Anglicans have to go through the entire process that other denominational Christians have to go through (RCIA and all the other ceremonies)? I've always been curious about the process for individual Anglicans who go to Rome, but i've never really found an answer. For Catholics coming to the Episcopal Church, the process is very easy.

 

A lovely older lady was leaving the Anglican Church of Canada in the same year I was baptised to the Roman Church. She entered with me. Though she had been confirmed an Anglican by her bishop here many years ago, the Church of Rome considers it invalid, and she was confirmed on Easter even, 2011, after I was baptised. She had to attend the entire RCIA program, except for the last few weeks which were dedicated to catechumens.

You already know that clergy must be re-ordained. Laity must be re-confirmed!

 

I understand why they would want to re-confirm laity and re-ordain priests, given that they don't think our orders to be valid. That said, you'd think they'd have a more "stream-lined" program for Anglicans entering Rome. Since TEC views Roman orders as being valid, it makes their reception into TEC easy.

If you were to join the Anglican Church of Canada, Consular, what would the process be for you?

 

That's what I was thinking would be the case. Indeed, it's laughable for Confirmed Anglicans to have to go through RCIA and the rest of the process. You'd think with all the work that has gone into the Ordinariate and into joint Catholic-Anglican statements that they would have made the path a bit easier for Anglicans. Catholics like to pretend like Anglicans are different from other groups, but we are clearly the same as everybody else at the end of the day, despite all the joint statements. I'd say that many Anglicans view it as a "slap in the face", so to speak, and may help explain why so few have taken advantage of the offer.

 

What about the other way, I was confirmed in the Catholic Church what is required to go completely Anglican?

 

Sean,
Thanks for posting the links. I read both articles. Looks like my concerns are not unfounded. Seems like a rather rocky entry through the gates of Rome. Anglicans take liturgy very seriously. So, I'm not surprised this is already an issue.

I found this part of the article especially interesting

Ordinariate denies favoritism charges
". . . .A second aspirant said he had been pressed to explain why he had not come to Rome when he left the Episcopal Church some twenty five years ago. If he accepted papal supremacy and the dogmas of the Catholic Church, why had he delayed a quarter century in making his submission, he was asked, the clergyman told AI.

The question is not an unfair one, however, as the Catholic Church’s self-understanding of its role in the economy of salvation is found in the statements of the Second Vatican Council.

Lumen Gentium 14 states: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved”, which on its face, would appear to render suspect in Roman eyes those who have held long standing doubts as to the veracity of Anglican truth claims and delayed going over to Rome. . . . ."

I just can't see how all these Anglicans just woke up one day and suddenly decided the Pope has the authority to proclaim Ex Cathedra/infallible teachings.

Anglicans enjoy a great freedom in Christian belief and practice. Granted, that freedom comes with a price; but so does an unquestioning loyalty and submission of religious mind and will to the Roman Pontiff/Magisterium.

Very true.

 

Wow, all previously-Anglican people who convert to Romanism, even in a regular parish, are assigned to the Ordinariate? That seems weird. They're like second-class Catholics.

Sacramental issues cannot be put aside for Catholics, unfortunately. If you want to be confirmed, you must go through a legalistic process. It's their theology at work.

In the Anglican Church of Canada, at least, the orders of Roman Catholic bishops are accepted. This means that a confirmed Catholic goes through "Reception". Most ACoC sites don't say what this entails, only "Call the church office for more information".

The only official thing I can find is the reception of a Roman Catholic priest into the ACoC, here.

 

In my Diocese which has a strong Anglo-Catholic presence there was apprehension when the Ordinariate was established. It was thought that several congregations would go over. Actually only one third of a single congregation converted, together with the Priest. (Just over 20 individuals). Since the group conversion, one person has been admitted to the local group. I've read on another forum of some Ordinariate members returning to the CofE or dithering between the RCC and CofE.

There was an accelerated RCIA program for the local Ordinariate - somewhere in the region of 40 days. The Ordinariate Priest has since been granted a faculty to confirm and admit new members.

In some ways the local Ordinariate group are already being assimilated into the regular RC system. They don't use an Anglican Use liturgy but will continue to use the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The Ordinariate Priest has also been made Priest-in-Charge of a regular RC parish on the county border so on certain holy days of obligation, the Ordinariate have to join with the regular RC congregation in the church they share. There is not much 'Anglican Patrimony (whatever that is) that I can see.

 

Update to my post above, about reception of a Confirmed Catholic into Canadian Anglicanism:

From the Book of Alternative Services, 1985 replacement for the 1962 BCP (for those who want to use it):

Under the rubrics for Holy Baptism:

Not very comprehensive stuff.

 

In my search for a church home we had an Anglican priest visit us who made it clear that it would be difficult for us to be in positions of teaching or authority because we have been divorced ( and annulled in RCC) and remarried. :think:

 

I am curious why Anglicans -- especially the conservative Anglo-Catholics haven't converted over to Orthodoxy, especially a Western-Rite one?