Are 'Anglo-Catholics' Catholic?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Libertas, in one of his screeds, condemned Anglicans as Protestant heretics outside the church with totally invalid rights.  He backs up his claim with the Apostolicae Curae (1896), written by Pope Leo XIII:

"Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void."

I am not a Roman Catholic, but I revere the sacraments and the spiritual value that exists in them.  I pray novenas and use rosary beads when I meditate, and lately I've been getting into Centering Prayer, which fundamentally is a Catholic spiritual exercise.

As it says on the tin: are Anglo-Catholics, Catholics?  Or are we ultimately Reformed Christians?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Anglo-Catholics are Catholic but not Roman. There's very little Reformed about ultra-High Anglican theology except certain aspects of its ecclesiology.

[DC Al Fine]

Libertas, in one of his screeds, condemned Anglicans as Protestant heretics outside the church with totally invalid rights.  He backs up his claim with the Apostolicae Curae (1896), written by Pope Leo XIII:

"Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void."

I am not a Roman Catholic, but I revere the sacraments and the spiritual value that exists in them.  I pray novenas and use rosary beads when I meditate, and lately I've been getting into Centering Prayer, which fundamentally is a Catholic spiritual exercise.

As it says on the tin: are Anglo-Catholics, Catholics?  Or are we ultimately Reformed Christians?

I thought you were UCC, not Anglican?

Personally, I would differentiate between those Anglo-Catholics that are in communion with or are actively seeking to reconcile with Rome and those that aren't. I'm not really comfortable calling the latter group Catholic. Like Nathan, I definitely agree that they aren't Reformed in any meaningful sense of the word, but they do belong to an historically Protestant church with things like the 39 Articles in their prayer book, which are ahem, rather anti-Catholic. I have trouble calling a group comfortable reamining in such an organization "Catholic". Those Anglo-Catholics probably ought to be called a third way group or called their own branch of Christianity.

Anglo-Catholics are Catholic but not Roman. There's very little Reformed about ultra-High Anglican theology except certain aspects of its ecclesiology.

How would you define Catholic? I feel like Rome is the elephant in the room when defining "Catholic". Even if a group isn't Roman Catholic per se, it feels very odd including a group that is not currently in communion with Rome, nor has any historic ties to Rome (so that we can include Old Catholics and SSPX under the "Catholic" umbrella).

Or are you using a more expansive definition for "Catholic" like "Non-Protestant Nicene Christian" or "Non-Protestant Western Christian"?

[Santander]

They could be, but not if they actively hold anti-Catholic positions like SSM.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Anglo-Catholics are Catholic but not Roman. There's very little Reformed about ultra-High Anglican theology except certain aspects of its ecclesiology.

How would you define Catholic? I feel like Rome is the elephant in the room when defining "Catholic". Even if a group isn't Roman Catholic per se, it feels very odd including a group that is not currently in communion with Rome, nor has any historic ties to Rome (so that we can include Old Catholics and SSPX under the "Catholic" umbrella).

Or are you using a more expansive definition for "Catholic" like "Non-Protestant Nicene Christian" or "Non-Protestant Western Christian"?

Perhaps it would make more sense to say that they're catholic rather than Catholic. Broadly Anglo-Catholics uphold the authority of the Church Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils (including at least some of those of the High and Late Middle Ages), and the Seven Sacraments (as opposed to just baptism and the Lord's Supper, which as I understand it are the only practices recognized as sacraments in the Reformed tradition; correct me if I'm incorrect). They also employ prayers and devotional practices associated with the Catholic and Orthodox traditions like prayers for the dead, (sometimes) Marian prayers, and statues and representational stained glass galore. At least some of these features are present in the other Magisterial Protestant traditions, to be sure, and some are also present in later Protestantisms such as Methodism (which of course began life as a current within Anglicanism), but Anglo-Catholics are unusual in upholding all of them at once.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Post Vatican II they are in aesthetic terms more Catholic than the Catholics. And in certain other respects as well: after all, they less trouble with the clerical celibacy issue, ahem.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As an aside, growing up in the thoroughly Low Church environment of the Marches, discovering that 'Anglo Catholics' were a thing was quite a surprise.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Libertas, in one of his screeds, condemned Anglicans as Protestant heretics outside the church with totally invalid rights.  He backs up his claim with the Apostolicae Curae (1896), written by Pope Leo XIII:

"Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void."

I am not a Roman Catholic, but I revere the sacraments and the spiritual value that exists in them.  I pray novenas and use rosary beads when I meditate, and lately I've been getting into Centering Prayer, which fundamentally is a Catholic spiritual exercise.

As it says on the tin: are Anglo-Catholics, Catholics?  Or are we ultimately Reformed Christians?

I thought you were UCC, not Anglican?

Personally, I would differentiate between those Anglo-Catholics that are in communion with or are actively seeking to reconcile with Rome and those that aren't. I'm not really comfortable calling the latter group Catholic. Like Nathan, I definitely agree that they aren't Reformed in any meaningful sense of the word, but they do belong to an historically Protestant church with things like the 39 Articles in their prayer book, which are ahem, rather anti-Catholic. I have trouble calling a group comfortable reamining in such an organization "Catholic". Those Anglo-Catholics probably ought to be called a third way group or called their own branch of Christianity.

I left the UCC for the Episcopal Church in 2016, though the wish-washyness of the contemporary Episcopal Church has compelled me to identify as an "Anglo-Catholic" or at the very least as a high-church Anglican.

Overall I probably fit in better with the typical liberal American Catholics, but for me there are a few big problems with that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I left the UCC for the Episcopal Church in 2016, though the wish-washyness of the contemporary Episcopal Church has compelled me to identify as an "Anglo-Catholic" or at the very least as a high-church Anglican.

Overall I probably fit in better with the typical liberal American Catholics, but for me there are a few big problems with that.

Perhaps you'd fit in better with the ELCA?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I left the UCC for the Episcopal Church in 2016, though the wish-washyness of the contemporary Episcopal Church has compelled me to identify as an "Anglo-Catholic" or at the very least as a high-church Anglican.

Overall I probably fit in better with the typical liberal American Catholics, but for me there are a few big problems with that.

Perhaps you'd fit in better with the ELCA?

Why do you say that?  Are ELCA Lutherans closer to liberal Catholicism than the Episcopalians?  If BRTD's church is any indicator, I'd say they're a mixed bag as far as the liturgy and the sacraments are concerned.  Also, my relationship with the saints is too important for me to consider abandoning it in another church.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If saints are important to you, then the ELCA probably is not for you.  It is a liturgical church (tho how liturgical will depend on the congregation), but you won't find veneration of the Saints in any Protestant church outside the Anglican tradition. (You'll find Saints commemorated in Lutheran churches, but not venerated.)

I suggested it because as a general rule the Lutheran churches are exceeded among the Protestant churches by only the Anglican churches in being liturgical, but unlike the Episcopal church, you won't have to worry about them being wishy-washy concerning Christ.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I left the UCC for the Episcopal Church in 2016, though the wish-washyness of the contemporary Episcopal Church has compelled me to identify as an "Anglo-Catholic" or at the very least as a high-church Anglican.

Overall I probably fit in better with the typical liberal American Catholics, but for me there are a few big problems with that.

Perhaps you'd fit in better with the ELCA?

Why do you say that?  Are ELCA Lutherans closer to liberal Catholicism than the Episcopalians?  If BRTD's church is any indicator, I'd say they're a mixed bag as far as the liturgy and the sacraments are concerned.  Also, my relationship with the saints is too important for me to consider abandoning it in another church.

Some ELCA churches are VERY high church. Note this one: https://www.mountolivechurch.org

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Also Scott Lutheran saints do exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_of_saints_(Lutheran)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I left the UCC for the Episcopal Church in 2016, though the wish-washyness of the contemporary Episcopal Church has compelled me to identify as an "Anglo-Catholic" or at the very least as a high-church Anglican.

Overall I probably fit in better with the typical liberal American Catholics, but for me there are a few big problems with that.

Perhaps you'd fit in better with the ELCA?

Why do you say that?  Are ELCA Lutherans closer to liberal Catholicism than the Episcopalians?  If BRTD's church is any indicator, I'd say they're a mixed bag as far as the liturgy and the sacraments are concerned.  Also, my relationship with the saints is too important for me to consider abandoning it in another church.

Some ELCA churches are VERY high church. Note this one: https://www.mountolivechurch.org

Also Scott Lutheran saints do exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_of_saints_(Lutheran)

My (limited) experience with Lutherans suggests that the kind of church you linked to is more so the exception than the rule within Lutheran churches.  Also, my understanding of Lutheran saints is that they are not allowed to be prayed to.  I believe that prayer to saints is a valid expression of religious devotion and I also pray novenas, which are nine-day prayers to saints, so that would be a no-go in any Lutheran setting.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I left the UCC for the Episcopal Church in 2016, though the wish-washyness of the contemporary Episcopal Church has compelled me to identify as an "Anglo-Catholic" or at the very least as a high-church Anglican.

Overall I probably fit in better with the typical liberal American Catholics, but for me there are a few big problems with that.

Perhaps you'd fit in better with the ELCA?

Why do you say that?  Are ELCA Lutherans closer to liberal Catholicism than the Episcopalians?  If BRTD's church is any indicator, I'd say they're a mixed bag as far as the liturgy and the sacraments are concerned.  Also, my relationship with the saints is too important for me to consider abandoning it in another church.

Some ELCA churches are VERY high church. Note this one: https://www.mountolivechurch.org

Also Scott Lutheran saints do exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_of_saints_(Lutheran)

My (limited) experience with Lutherans suggests that the kind of church you linked to is more so the exception than the rule within Lutheran churches.  Also, my understanding of Lutheran saints is that they are not allowed to be prayed to.  I believe that prayer to saints is a valid expression of religious devotion and I also pray novenas, which are nine-day prayers to saints, so that would be a no-go in any Lutheran setting.

Since my background and experience is entirely Upper Midwestern, I'm only used to areas where Lutherans are the largest denomination and there are more Lutheran churches than any others. But most Lutheran churches are traditional with the contemporary services being only at the larger and more urban ones. Most aren't as high church as that one, but they're not incredibly rare, at least not around here. There are even Lutheran emergent churches, but those are far more rare and basically isolated to a few urban areas.

And while praying to saints isn't a Lutheran practice, it's not really something that would be "disallowed" as in you'd be kicked out of an ELCA church for doing it or something. ELCA is pretty friendly to syncretic practices, there's a lot of African traditions syncretized in churches with a large African refugee membership, and when my childhood friend got married two years ago her wedding included some Mexican Catholic wedding traditions (these were more "Mexican traditions" than "Catholic traditions" of course, but definitely not common in Lutheranism.) It's like how I've seen people at my church making the sign of the cross after taking communion (obviously that's not as big of a deviation as prayers to saints would be, nor is it even an odd sight in Lutheran churches), it wouldn't be part of the tradition, but it's not like it's prohibited.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Around here, because this part of South Carolina was settled by Germans in colonial days, Lutheran churches are fairly common as well. That said, Article XXI of the Augsburg Confession is quite clear. Good Lutherans honor the saints as examples of inspiration, but they do not offer intercessory prayer to them for prayers are to be offered to Christ alone.

Of the Worship of Saints they teach that the memory of saints may be set before us, that we may follow their faith and good works, according to our calling, as the Emperor may follow the example of David in making war to drive away the Turk from his country. For both are kings. But the Scripture teaches not the invocation of saints or to ask help of saints, since it sets before us the one Christ as the Mediator, Propitiation, High Priest, and Intercessor. He is to be prayed to, and has promised that He will hear our prayer; and this worship He approves above all, to wit, that in all afflictions He be called upon, 1 John 2:1: If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, etc.

Scott is not seeking a mere religious experience; he wants a church whose doctrines he can fully embrace, so I don't think "not being kicked out" would suffice for him, BRTD.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Ernest is correct.  I feel that I would have a difficult time "fitting in" with a church that doesn't have doctrines which concur with my understanding of the faith that I was brought into, and also those which don't make sense to me biblically.  And while all churches are sure to embrace one teaching, or follow a certain attitude, that I disagree with, the intercessory role of the saints is a particularly important one to me.  Even where I disagree with other Episcopalians, I think that there is more I can get out of that denomination than most other denominations, and that includes theologically liberal ones too like the ELCA or my former denomination that is the UCC.

For mainline parishioners I'm probably in the minority of those who care about the finer points of the theology, but they inform my beliefs and practices nonetheless.

[DC Al Fine]

Anglo-Catholics are Catholic but not Roman. There's very little Reformed about ultra-High Anglican theology except certain aspects of its ecclesiology.

How would you define Catholic? I feel like Rome is the elephant in the room when defining "Catholic". Even if a group isn't Roman Catholic per se, it feels very odd including a group that is not currently in communion with Rome, nor has any historic ties to Rome (so that we can include Old Catholics and SSPX under the "Catholic" umbrella).

Or are you using a more expansive definition for "Catholic" like "Non-Protestant Nicene Christian" or "Non-Protestant Western Christian"?

Perhaps it would make more sense to say that they're catholic rather than Catholic. Broadly Anglo-Catholics uphold the authority of the Church Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils (including at least some of those of the High and Late Middle Ages), and the Seven Sacraments (as opposed to just baptism and the Lord's Supper, which as I understand it are the only practices recognized as sacraments in the Reformed tradition; correct me if I'm incorrect). They also employ prayers and devotional practices associated with the Catholic and Orthodox traditions like prayers for the dead, (sometimes) Marian prayers, and statues and representational stained glass galore. At least some of these features are present in the other Magisterial Protestant traditions, to be sure, and some are also present in later Protestantisms such as Methodism (which of course began life as a current within Anglicanism), but Anglo-Catholics are unusual in upholding all of them at once.

I think that's fair. I was struggling to come up with a definition of Big-C Catholic that would include Anglo-Catholics but wouldn't also include Eastern Orthodox, high Lutherans (or even the Reformed! depending on the bar for "high view of the sacraments", or "authority of the Fathers").

Including Martin Luther in the "Catholic" camp is a good test to see if your sorting algorithm is off

[LucasJ]

Letter of Clement to James

 

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most  sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

 

Origen

 

And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail left only one epistle of acknowledged genuineness (Commentaries on John 5:3 [A.D. 226-232]).

 

Cyprian

 

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).



Tyrannius Rufinus

 

and further how he speaks of the city of Rome, which now through the grace of God is reckoned by Christians as their capital (Apology 2:23 [A.D. 400])


Please Paul (my Anglican friend who reads my posts)... convert.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Matthew 16:18-19 doesn't have anything to do with papal primacy though. It's probably asserting the foundational role of Jews and Jewish customs in the early church.

[Mopsus]

Scott, if you wouldn’t mind, would you go a little bit into why prayer to saints is important to you? I’ve grown less and less low church protestant in my affinities recently, but this is one practice that I still don’t “get”.

[Georg Ebner]

Anglo-Catholics are Catholic but not Roman. There's very little Reformed about ultra-High Anglican theology except certain aspects of its ecclesiology.

How would you define Catholic? I feel like Rome is the elephant in the room when defining "Catholic". Even if a group isn't Roman Catholic per se, it feels very odd including a group that is not currently in communion with Rome, nor has any historic ties to Rome (so that we can include Old Catholics and SSPX under the "Catholic" umbrella).

Or are you using a more expansive definition for "Catholic" like "Non-Protestant Nicene Christian" or "Non-Protestant Western Christian"?

Perhaps it would make more sense to say that they're catholic rather than Catholic. Broadly Anglo-Catholics uphold the authority of the Church Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils (including at least some of those of the High and Late Middle Ages), and the Seven Sacraments (as opposed to just baptism and the Lord's Supper, which as I understand it are the only practices recognized as sacraments in the Reformed tradition; correct me if I'm incorrect). They also employ prayers and devotional practices associated with the Catholic and Orthodox traditions like prayers for the dead, (sometimes) Marian prayers, and statues and representational stained glass galore. At least some of these features are present in the other Magisterial Protestant traditions, to be sure, and some are also present in later Protestantisms such as Methodism (which of course began life as a current within Anglicanism), but Anglo-Catholics are unusual in upholding all of them at once.

I think that's fair. I was struggling to come up with a definition of Big-C Catholic that would include Anglo-Catholics but wouldn't also include Eastern Orthodox, high Lutherans (or even the Reformed! depending on the bar for "high view of the sacraments", or "authority of the Fathers").

Including Martin Luther in the "Catholic" camp is a good test to see if your sorting algorithm is off

LUTHER was a Janus, ambivalent, praxis&theory being contradictionary (and as a result ignorant secular historians, who call Him a "humanist", describe His movement finally better than theological experts, who take His reactionary theories for real protestantism): On the one hand as catholic as AUGUSTINUS, BERNARDUS de Clairvaux, WILLIAM de St.Thierry; on the other hand an antichristian and atheistic Pelagian by abolishing the sacraments, the priests, the celibacy, the monasteries - creating a bourgeois "Christianity", a shameless tyranny of the mediocre unmasked by KIERKEGAARD & NIETZSCHE.

[McNukes™ #NYCMMWasAHero]

A church that accepts married lesbian bishops and encourages contraception is less Catholic than the Southern Baptist Convention or Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Therefore, Anglicanism as a whole is not Catholic to start.

Anglo-Catholics, who believe in Catholic theology but acknowledge the Anglican hierarchy as legitimate despite its errors, are somewhat respectable, somewhat admirable, and somewhat pitiable. Catholicism has become increasingly ecumenical towards them, even allowing Anglo-Catholic priests to become real Catholic priests, and I hope that in the future Anglicanism expels its heretical elements and reunites with the one true Church.

However, they are sadly still not Catholic. Hopefully, more Anglo-Catholic bishops and priests will convert and bring their parishioners back to the Church so that they may stand a greater chance at entering Heaven.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A church that accepts married lesbian bishops and encourages contraception is less Catholic

Fair position so far.

than the Southern Baptist Convention or Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

?!?!

[Kingpoleon]

A church that accepts married lesbian bishops and encourages contraception is less Catholic

Fair position so far.

than the Southern Baptist Convention or Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

?!?!

Church structures, theology, history, tradition, and style (contemporary vs. traditional) are, in the eyes of some, more important in judging how much alike two churches are. Others, like him apparently, consider politics - namely, abortion, birth control, and homosexuality - more indicative of how alike churches are. A ridiculous position to you and I, but for those who have linked religion in a most unnatural way with politics, it must seem quite reasonable.