Anglo-Catholicism

Discussion in 'Theology and Doctrine' started by TemplarKnight40, Mar 12, 2018.

  1. TemplarKnight40

    TemplarKnight40 New Member

    Posts:
    17
    Likes Received:
    13
    Country:
    Canada
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Do the Anglo-Catholics share the same beliefs as the Roman Catholics? Do they still keep the"Reformed" theology, or just Catholics without the Pope?

    I've been to two Anglo-Catholic masses: a low mass and a High one, and I loved them both very much.
     
  2. peter

    peter Active Member

    Posts:
    95
    Likes Received:
    141
    Country:
    England
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Its a fairly wide tent. At one end, there are even Anglo-Catholics that accept the Pope to some measure (though I doubt many if any would agree with the concept of infallibility). At the other end, an Anglo-Catholic might be just a pretty high Anglican who maybe accepts one or two more Catholic notions like the Real Presence.
     
  3. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    938
    Likes Received:
    753
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    1. No, Anglo-Catholics are a stream of thought within Anglicanism proper. The ones you probably have in mind are the really nuts party, called the Anglo-Papalists, historically too-fond of the Pope and always looking across the Tiber with little manful resolution in their own convictions. This party is very rare these days.

    2. There is no Reformed theology in Anglicanism. Reformed theology is a new, hitherto-unknown way of thinking, which is created from scratch starting with the teachings of Theodore Beza in Geneva, rising through the Synod of Dort, magnifying at the Westminster Assembly, and beyond.

    Anglicanism has its own stream of thought, rooted primarily in the Church Fathers, mixed with some benign teachings from the middle ages, and with the broadly basic teachings of the Reformation. Anglican theologians are noted in their reluctance to give too much study to Medieval/Reformation thinkers, because it is inherently invalid to teach at a distance from the Fathers and the Apostles. Both Rome and the continental Protestants have not understood this truth and erred in both directions.
     
    realdocphil and Lowly Layman like this.
  4. Aidan

    Aidan Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    953
    Likes Received:
    567
    Country:
    N Ireland
    Religion:
    Traditional RomanCatholic
    Stalwart, what do you mean please by "....erring in both directions"?
     
  5. American Anglican

    American Anglican New Member Anglican

    Posts:
    9
    Likes Received:
    8
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I would consider myself and "Anglo-Catholic" but only because I feel the Anglican church is the real catholic church. I do not share any beliefs that are strictly Roman. That being said, I don't think there is any obvious definition of what an Anglo-Catholic is, because there are so many people with various beliefs who consider themselves such.
     
  6. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    938
    Likes Received:
    753
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    As in, say, taking the Middle Ages or the Reformation as the absolute rule of faith, the very height and pinnacle for all time.

    If you're a Trad Roman Catholic this means taking Aquinas and Bonaventure and Scotus (even if unaware, because it's the people you read who are still doing so) as the foundation of Roman Catholic thinking. Try subtracting Aquinas from Catholicism, and what do you get? A huge void.

    Continental Protestants have done a similar move on their own, where they've taken Theodore Beza, or William Perkins, or Melanchthon, or Luther, as the foundational and absolute source of right understanding, for all time. As a Lutheran you're practically forced to admire the Law v. Gospel distinction and its related concepts from Luther.

    Whereas if you're an Anglican, you needn't ever worry about the Law v. Gospel distinction. It's actually a pretty silly idea. You don't need to worry about anything the Lutherans or the Presbyterians have conjured up. You just need to know that Luther did some good things, and accept a few basics such as the justification by faith, which is a patristic doctrine. And you can respect the middle ages but you don't need to take the Mariolatry or the worship the Saints; you just need to celebrate Our Lady which is just a patristic doctrine. You sit and drink from the pure patristic source, lightly enriched from the thinking of the later periods.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2018
  7. Cameron

    Cameron Active Member

    Posts:
    147
    Likes Received:
    152
    Country:
    Newfoundland
    Religion:
    Catholic
    To be Anglo-Catholic you must drink gin on Sundays, but anything goes the rest of the week. Scotch, preferably, on Friday's. I know many Anglo-Catholics who hold very much the same beliefs as Roman; my grandfather, the vicar I have often mentioned, was a very Anglo-Catholic, however he was not what could be called an Anglo-Papalist. He loved the established Church, but viewed it as equally Catholic in theology and practise, claiming that it was the English form of Catholicism. Like Orthodoxy in Russia. He did admire the Pope, but didn't hang off of every word he said (nor do most Roman Catholics) and valued Aquinas as well as St John Chrysostem.

    I agree with the above that you will not find any "reformed" theology in traditional Anglicanism, regardless of what the Episcopals and Anglican Church of Canada are getting on with today. If you visit a High Church parish, or an Anglo-Catholic parish, you will experience something beautiful and pious. One local parish has the Rosary each Friday, before the scotch, and the parish I work for subscribes to beautiful vestments and incense (in the opportunity). As with most things, your mileage may vary.
     
  8. JoeLaughon

    JoeLaughon Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    145
    Likes Received:
    98
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Reformed High Anglican
    To claim there is no reformed theology (reformed sacramentology, soteriology, etc...) seems quite odd given the views of the English Reformers. Sometimes in Anglo-Catholic reading of history one wonders if the English Reformation ever even happened at all.

    That being said though I am High Church and Reformed, due to how the camps get divided these days I often get mislabeled as an Anglo-Catholic.
     
    AnglicanTex and PotterMcKinney like this.
  9. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    938
    Likes Received:
    753
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I am not an anglo-catholic, because I believe hyphenated and split identities are an evil. I'm just an Anglican. A traditional Anglican. That's what you and we all should be.

    That being said, I'd go even further and say that even Calvin and Peter Martyr etc were not Reformed, in the sense of what that has come to mean now. There is literally no federal theology in Calvin. Peter Martyr (also no federal theology) taught that there were four ranks of holy orders, not two (Presbyterian), or three (Anglican).

    I know some modern books throw about labels like Reformed and Reformer but they're basically ignorant and written by apostate non-Christians -- like Diarmaid McCullough. Christianity is in a crisis so nobody knows what they're talking about.

    And as for the English Reformers, sure we can talk about baptismal regeneration in Nowell (Nowell's Catechism) and in the BCP ( and even in Calvin!). We can talk about jure divino episcopacy in Bilson, Hooker, Bancroft and Lancelot Andrews. We can talk about Archbishop Parker tracing the origins of the Anglican Church to the 1st Century AD, not to Henry VIII or Martin Luther. We can talk about Church Fathers deciding Anglican doctrine (as in John Jewel and the 1572 Canons).


    Reformed in the 16th century context referred to pertaining to the Reformation. I.e. Reformational. And yes even the Lutherans were considered Reformed.

    The "Reformed" of the 16th century had nothing to do with Federal Theology, or with supralapsarianism, or with Voetius and Cocceius, or with the Puritan Coventant and Half-Covenant, or with Murray, and Kline, and Geerhardus Vos or with anything Presbyterian. Literally NONE of the Protestants were Presbyterian, until John Knox introduced this what Archbiship Bancroft called "the heresy of Aerius".
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2018
  10. TemplarKnight40

    TemplarKnight40 New Member

    Posts:
    17
    Likes Received:
    13
    Country:
    Canada
    Religion:
    Anglican
    This is a really good thread. I'm new to the Anglican Church, and I came upon it by accident. More of a calling.

    I don't know what it entails to be a "Traditional Anglican", but I want to take the time to learn about the Church Fathers. The only one I know of is Richard Hooker.

    I have my work cut out for me.
     
    Magistos, realdocphil and Stalwart like this.
  11. Aidan

    Aidan Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    953
    Likes Received:
    567
    Country:
    N Ireland
    Religion:
    Traditional RomanCatholic
    What are the two orders in Presbyterianism ? I'm only aware of the minister, unless the second order is moderator?
     
  12. Will_

    Will_ Member

    Posts:
    37
    Likes Received:
    29
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Presbyterians basically hold that there are two orders - elders and deacons. Elders, including ministers or "teaching elders", are considered to hold the function of bishops as well...they do not distinguish between presbyters and bishops.
     
  13. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    938
    Likes Received:
    753
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Basically as Will said: deacons, and "elders" (being clever with taking the word presbyteros literally). The latter they break down into teaching elders (what would be properly called a priest or minister in the church), and ruling elders (vestry).
     
  14. JoeLaughon

    JoeLaughon Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    145
    Likes Received:
    98
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Reformed High Anglican
    @Stalwart I think we will have to agree to disagree. While I mourn MacCulloch's departure from the faith, he is universally acknowledged as a first rate historian. To claim that Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Jewel, Hall among others would not fit neatly within the pan-Reformed moment and context is disregard how they regarded even themselves.

    It is true that "Reformed" is used too often to mean either the "Five Points" or late Reformed orthodoxy post-Synod of Dort, and often reformed theologians forget the diversity with the Reformed movement. It is true we forget that our neat taxonomy is imposed afterwards (ex. John Knox being a CoE clergyman, bishops being invited to the Synod of Dort) but pretending that Anglicanism does not contained reformed theology of any sort seems like extreme revisionism.
     
    AnglicanTex likes this.
  15. realdocphil

    realdocphil New Member Anglican

    Posts:
    18
    Likes Received:
    11
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    I’m right where you are Templar
     
    AnglicanTex and Magistos like this.
  16. AnglicanTex

    AnglicanTex Member Anglican

    Posts:
    34
    Likes Received:
    26
    Country:
    United States of America
    Religion:
    Christianity
    I've always viewed anglo-catholicism as a theological outlook and high church as a liturgical preference. My parish growing up was very high church (maniples and all, lol) but reformed in terms of the 39 articles. Somewhere along the way the theology became more "1979 and less 1928" if that makes any sense.
     

Share This Page