Old Catholic

[FireDragon76]

How is Old Catholic different from Anglican?

I've come to the conclusion I'm just not Protestant, and I don't think I could join the Anglican Communion and share the same faith with evangelical, low-church Protestants, even though there are some Anglican theologians, like Rowan Williams, I admire a great deal. I just don't think Catholic-minded Christians get much respect in the Anglican Communion now days, all the arguments come down to "Sola Scriptura" in a Protestant fashion- either conservative or liberal but the arguments are always about the Bible, which is rather tiresome and boring theologically. I consider the Tradition of the Church also very important in working out theologies. I'm also liberal on some social issues, like being pro-gay and pro-choice, but otherwise I consider myself an orthodox Christian and not fitting liberal Protestantism. So, I've thought about the Old Catholic churches, but I'm not sure what that would be like exactly.

I've also considered Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[MKJ]

Well, they broke away from the Catholic Church around the issues of Vat I.

I am not sure is they would be much of a solution for you though - they are in communion with Anglicans, so you would still be sharing faith with Protestants.

More practically, there are not many congregations in North America.

 

[FireDragon76]

Some Old Catholic groups do not have formal ties to the Anglican Communion.

Where I live there are at least 3 Old Catholic congregations. One meets in a Disciples of Christ church building, however.

Where I live, the Episcopal Church isn't really nurturing me spiritually. There's alot of folks even more conservative culturally than the Orthodox clergy and laity I know, for instance, and the tone is evangelical Protestant (Campus Crusade for Christ is sponsored, even though I don't agree with their approach), even if it is high church. So I gain little by being Episcopalian and lose spiritually. I'm pro-gay and tired of the culture war nonsense, and while I know groups like Catholics and Orthodox aren't exactly pro-gay either, they are coming at the issue from different perspectives and sensibilities that are more tolerable to me.

Having come into Anglicanism through the Continuing Anglican movement which I think misrepresents "classical Anglicanism" (in my opinion, classical Anglicanism doesn't exist, and certainly wouldn't be Western-Rite Orthodoxy), my perception of Anglicanism has now changed: it's thoroughgoing Protestant with ritualist elements. The Oxford Movement died and there are people like Rowan Williams that are minority voices in a church that increasingly is dominated by liberal Protestants and conservative Protestants.

 

[Albion]

How is Old Catholic different from Anglican?

I've come to the conclusion I'm just not Protestant, and I don't think I could join the Anglican Communion and share the same faith with evangelical, low-church Protestants, even though there are some Anglican theologians, like Rowan Williams, I admire a great deal. I just don't think Catholic-minded Christians get much respect in the Anglican Communion now days, all the arguments come down to "Sola Scriptura" in a Protestant fashion- either conservative or liberal but the arguments are always about the Bible, which is rather tiresome and boring theologically. I consider the Tradition of the Church also very important in working out theologies. I'm also liberal on some social issues, like being pro-gay and pro-choice, but otherwise I consider myself an orthodox Christian and not fitting liberal Protestantism. So, I've thought about the Old Catholic churches, but I'm not sure what that would be like exactly.

I've also considered Eastern Orthodoxy.

Given everything you've said there, I'd definitely think you should examine Old Catholicism. However, before you do, you have to decide if you want a church that is part of the actual Union of Utrecht or are OK with one of the many tiny churches in this country that call themselves Old Catholic because their clergy claim Old Catholic orders.

You seem to me to be one who values credentials, etc., so if you want one of the former, there aren't any in the USA. But you could consider the (Polish) National Catholic Church which had been a member of the UofU until it withdrew over the Union's decision to ordain women and is the only such church in this country with any significant membership.

 

[Tigger45]

Subscribing because I've been on the same spiritual journey this past year. Pro-gay as far as our approach with them with the gospel but only pro-choice in very limited situations. But that's for another thread The RC and EO have maintained many of the ancient traditions but added a few IMO. The only Anglicans we have here are Episcopalian. I may be able to fit into a local congregation but I don't like the agenda of it's political views. We don't have any Old Catholic churches here at all. And protestants have thrown the baby out with the bath water concerning historic church tradition, neglecting many awesome writings of the ECFs and their lives and deaths and they have completely missed the mark concerning the sacraments. JMHO

 

[Albion]

Subscribing because I've been on the same spiritual journey this past year. Pro-gay as far as our approach with them with the gospel but only pro-choice in very limited situations. But that's for another thread The RC and EO have maintained many of the ancient traditions but added a few IMO. The only Anglicans we have here are Episcopalian. I may be able to fit into a local congregation but I don't like the agenda of it's political views. We don't have any Old Catholic churches here at all. And protestants have thrown the baby out with the bath water concerning historic church tradition, neglecting many awesome writings of the ECFs and their lives and deaths and they have completely missed the mark concerning the sacraments. JMHO

Although we have a vast collection of denominations in this country that amaze people from other lands, there's no escaping the fact that, sometimes, it's the case that there just isn't a congregation or parish of one's preference within driving distance. That's true even when the individual's views (i.e. yours) are not at all unique or unprecedented.

 

[MKJ]

Some Old Catholic groups do not have formal ties to the Anglican Communion.

Where I live there are at least 3 Old Catholic congregations. One meets in a Disciples of Christ church building, however.

Where I live, the Episcopal Church isn't really nurturing me spiritually. There's alot of folks even more conservative culturally than the Orthodox clergy and laity I know, for instance, and the tone is evangelical Protestant (Campus Crusade for Christ is sponsored, even though I don't agree with their approach), even if it is high church. So I gain little by being Episcopalian and lose spiritually. I'm pro-gay and tired of the culture war nonsense, and while I know groups like Catholics and Orthodox aren't exactly pro-gay either, they are coming at the issue from different perspectives and sensibilities that are more tolerable to me.

Having come into Anglicanism through the Continuing Anglican movement which I think misrepresents "classical Anglicanism" (in my opinion, classical Anglicanism doesn't exist, and certainly wouldn't be Western-Rite Orthodoxy), my perception of Anglicanism has now changed: it's thoroughgoing Protestant with ritualist elements. The Oxford Movement died and there are people like Rowan Williams that are minority voices in a church that increasingly is dominated by liberal Protestants and conservative Protestants.

It sounds like it is more an issue of your location. I think you could find what you were looking for in TEC in other locations.

Well, I dont know that I would say the Oxford movement is dead - it is probably the dominant approach where I am. Though I cannot say I would really see it as particularly compatible with wanting a pro-gay stance in the sense you mean. i would not have included Rowan Williams in that group either.

Whether the continuers represent classical Anglicanism accuratly is hard to say - some I would say are more Protestant thyan could be really justified, but I do not think that is true of all. A few seem to go the other way too.

 

[Albion]

Whether the continuers represent classical Anglicanism accuratly is hard to say - some I would say are more Protestant thyan could be really justified, but I do not think that is true of all. A few seem to go the other way too.

Just for the record...most Continuing Anglican churches and jurisdictions are Angl0-Catholic or lean strongly that way.

 

[FireDragon76]

Just for the record...most Continuing Anglican churches and jurisdictions are Angl0-Catholic or lean strongly that way.

Right, they think of themselves as Western-Rite Orthodox, almost... "sola scriptura" is not spoken of, and there is a great deal of appeal to Tradition with a big "T". The BCP alone is often used for highly sentimental reasons, but underneath it is a belief that somehow they are carrying on the same practices that ancient Christians would have recognized.

My experience of mainstream Anglicans from around the world is that they don't think tradition is nearly as important as the plain text of the Bible. It is decoration, not precedent. This is true of liberal or conservative Anglicans.

On the other side of things are Eastern Orthodox that view the Bible as part of Tradition... and I think that is where I am coming from now.

Subscribing because I've been on the same spiritual journey this past year. Pro-gay as far as our approach with them with the gospel but only pro-choice in very limited situations. But that's for another thread The RC and EO have maintained many of the ancient traditions but added a few IMO. The only Anglicans we have here are Episcopalian.

Well, I'm pro-gay in that I support marriage equality or civil unions for gays and lesbians. It's a thoughful stance I arrived at through alot of hard thinking- at one time I was far less certain about things than I am now. And when I reached this place, I also realized the whole conservative Protestant phronema or mindset just doesn't work as a good foundation for a Christian life of spiritual growth in the modern world.

I'd describe my beliefs now as liberal and Catholic. It doesn't bother me if I joined a small group of Old Catholics that were not formally tied to Utrecht. While I favor episcopacy and the ancient order and form of worship, that doesn't mean I think God's grace is tied down to these man-made structures- the real religion pleasing to God is to care for the widow and orphan in their distress, to have self-control and to be untouched by the corruption of the world, after all. I'm very much against sola fide now too (at least as interpreted in a reductionistic sense, I believe both faith and works are equally important). I just realize though, I'm a fallen creature and cannot live up to these ideals alone and it would be good to have to rub shoulders with somebody, occasionally, and maybe find some spiritual friends or a good spiritual father (or mother).

 

[Albion]

Right, they think of themselves as Western-Rite Orthodox, almost.

Some do.

"sola scriptura" is not spoken of, and there is a great deal of appeal to Tradition with a big "T". The BCP alone is often used for highly sentimental reasons, but underneath it is a belief that somehow they are carrying on the same practices that ancient Christians would have recognized.

My experience of mainstream Anglicans from around the world is that they don't think tradition is nearly as important as the plain text of the Bible. It is decoration, not precedent. This is true of liberal or conservative Anglicans.

I think the problem you're having there is that Anglicanism never has endorsed "Tradition" in the sense that the RCs believe "Sacred Tradition" -- or the EO's believe "Holy Tradition" -- to be the equal of Scripture. It's important to us Anglicans, along with Reason, but not as they conceive of "Tradition."

On the other side of things are Eastern Orthodox that view the Bible as part of Tradition... and I think that is where I am coming from now.

OK. I always want everyone to follow his conscience in these matters and it may be that EO is the right place for you. I'm less confident about Old Catholicism, although it does use Western liturgies and some of these jurisdiction are gay-friendly, unlike the Orthodox.

 

[everbecoming2007]

Your observations of Anglicanism mirror my own experiences with some exceptions, but I have met my fair share of Episcopalians across the country, and many of them are very catholic-minded. Despite being close to a high church parish liturgically, most people in my parish do seem very Protestant. Of course this is to be expected. I have always conceived of Anglicanism as Protestant whatever else it is. But some of the converts in my parish coming from Church of Christ background don't understand infant baptism or think that a lay person or any baptized Christian can and should celebrate Holy Communion. I am also not sure that some of the elder lifelong Anglicans in my parish understand the basics I was taught by my sponsor/priest much better.

Now the new rector is trying to push us into being an "evangelical" congregation with a dash of charismatic. Totally didn't see that coming, especially since we are a staunch traditional and historic Episcopal parish with a traditional liturgy (1928 BCP) despite some of the non-Anglican views of individual parishioners, so these characteristics of my parish largely shielded me from some of these problems until recently.

Regarding Old Catholics, if you want to be in one of the splinter groups of the Independent Sacramental Movement research it really well. Make sure you actually verify their documented apostolic succession. Not all groups in the Independent Sacramental Movement which claim the historic succession of bishops actually have it. You would also need to consider what you think the succession is and who has it. Not everyone in the independent movement would recognize Anglican orders, for instance. Even if you don't think episcopal succession is strictly necessary to the fullness of the church, you wouldn't want to be in a church claiming to have something they don't. You might also consider how important monasticism is to you and whether you feel it is essential to the life of the church. Some parts of the Anglican communion have small orders -- this was revived in the 1800's. I am not sure that Old Catholics (Union of Utrecht) have monastics: I think they do not. I started a thread about that, but I don't think anyone had a reference for this, so I could be wrong. Some of the churches in the Independent Sacramental Movement have tiny religious orders.

Only the Polish National Catholic Church is available in America that had a solid connection with Utrecht before it withdrew over the ordination of women. They also withdrew communion from the Episcopal Church over this issue. The rest of Utrecht is still in communion with the entire Anglican Communion, including Sydney Anglicans. As far as I know, Old Catholics don't have the same divide between high and low church theologies that exist within Anglicanism, but Utrecht has been influenced by Protestantism over time in some ways, which may be why they lack monastics, even in the revived form they exist in within Anglicanism today in some places.

To me, if one could reconcile themselves to the specific claims of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Oriental Orthodox, or one of the other historic pre-reformation Communions, that would be an attractive solution to the catholic-minded person. The problem is whether we are able to do that. So far I have never been able to do so.

But we must not be discouraged. If we trust in God, he will lead us. I will pray for you!

 

[Gnarwhal]

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but has anyone heard of the diocese of our lady of angels? I just recently heard of a church that claims to be old catholic (they say they offer communion to both Anglicans and Roman Catholics).

I'm kind of confused about their identity...

http://stcatherine.ourladydiocese.com/

 

[PaladinValer]

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but has anyone heard of the diocese of our lady of angels? I just recently heard of a church that claims to be old catholic (they say they offer communion to both Anglicans and Roman Catholics).

I'm kind of confused about their identity...

Saint Catherine of Siena Parish ®

Appears to be a case of "too many chiefs; not enough indians", if you get my meaning. A lot of Old Catholic groups (definitely not all) outside the US and Canada are truly nothing more than self-proclaimed archbishops with a very teeny-tiny flock. That being said, there have been members of non-Utrecht Old Catholics here who are definitely legitimate, so they do exist and I have no issues at all with them or their clergy or laity.

The above...I have no clue. I would exercise caution.

To give an Anglican example I remember not that long ago there was even an "archbishop" who posted here just a few times. Upon some research, I found some very...interesting information about the individual and, with another poster, reported it to staff. I won't go into further details publicly but I will say that the interesting information was equally disturbing.

As I said; beware!

 

[Mick116]

Another Catholic-minded former Anglican here seeking a spiritual home. Somehow my wife and I landed in a Lutheran church, and while the (albeit watered-down) sacramental worship sustained me for a while, there was no escaping the Sola Scriptura theology and teaching.

We've moved across town recently, and I've discovered a local parish of the tiny independent catholic jurisdiction calling itself the United Ecumenical Catholic Church; gay-affirming, claiming valid orders and beliefs of the "Universal, undivided church". Still a watered-down liturgy.

I've considered Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, but I have doctrinal reservations, and a not-quite-so-catholically-minded wife. Think I'll try to find my way back to Anglicanism, but I'd like my wife to come with me. She's becoming a rather happy Lutheran.

 

[mark46]

You might consider The Episcopal Church. Certainly, there are many Anglo-Catholic parishes within all diocese.

I might also note that sola scripture is a fairly complex set of beliefs. Most here believe in sola scriptura as talk by the early Church (e.g. St Vincent of Lorins). The question is whether Scripture speaks for itself and needs no interpretation as many of the evangelicals would have it (solo scripture). Surely, we need someone to interpret the Scriptures. Why else would Luther and Calvin relied so much on the Early Church Fathers? We have all that we need for salvation in Scripture (Scripture is sufficient). Any doctrine (interpretation) must be tested agains Scripture and cannot conflict with Scripture (Scripture is primary).

As Anglicans, we believe that the Catholic Church is in error in that they have added doctrines/dogma and considered them essential. This addition of dogma without Ecumenical Council is simply not acceptable.

Another Catholic-minded former Anglican here seeking a spiritual home. Somehow my wife and I landed in a Lutheran church, and while the (albeit watered-down) sacramental worship sustained me for a while, there was no escaping the Sola Scriptura theology and teaching.

We've moved across town recently, and I've discovered a local parish of the tiny independent catholic jurisdiction calling itself the United Ecumenical Catholic Church; gay-affirming, claiming valid orders and beliefs of the "Universal, undivided church". Still a watered-down liturgy.

I've considered Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, but I have doctrinal reservations, and a not-quite-so-catholically-minded wife. Think I'll try to find my way back to Anglicanism, but I'd like my wife to come with me. She's becoming a rather happy Lutheran.

 

[Albion]

Hi, Mick. Sounds like you are juggling a number of possibilities now, huh? That's a Continuing Anglican shield, but you're a former Anglican (Anglican Communion?), going to a Lutheran church, thinking of an Old Catholic jurisdiction, and expecting to return to Anglicanism. If we can help you with some advice, let us know. I'm assuming that you are in Australia, as per the flag logo.

 

[Mick116]

You might consider The Episcopal Church. Certainly, there are many Anglo-Catholic parishes within all diocese.

Or the Australian equivalent, the Anglican Church of Australia. There are none in our immediate vicinity, but there are options in surrounding suburbs.

 

[mark46]

I would note that in the US, The Episcopal Church and The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America are in full communion. So, the differences are not huge (among the liberal churches).

I would also note that Australian Lutherans are part of the Lutheran World Federation and have endorsed a joint document with Catholics on salvation. For many, the huge differences are long gone.

Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

 

[Albion]

Or the Australian equivalent, the Anglican Church of Australia. There are none in our immediate vicinity, but there are options in surrounding suburbs.

Isn't that the church you started with? I'm a bit confused about what's looking good to you at the present.

 

[FireDragon76]

Why else would Luther and Calvin relied so much on the Early Church Fathers? We have all that we need for salvation in Scripture (Scripture is sufficient). Any doctrine (interpretation) must be tested agains Scripture and cannot conflict with Scripture (Scripture is primary).

I've come to the conclusion early Reformers were quite wrong about the early Church, particularly in alot of practices they rejected, such as the veneration of saints or some of the later Protestant attitudes to the Mother of God. The suspicion to all things Roman and "Popish" wrecked havoc on Protestantism and sucked alot of spiritual vitality out of it.

That "sufficiency of Scripture" emphasis, Protestant minimalism, is part of the problem too. Because it results in a distortion as to what salvation is. Instead of being about the deification of human life, salvation becomes reduced to a legal concept- being justified and getting to heaven when you die. Thinking of spirituality in such carnal terms is one of the weaknesses in the Protestant approach I'm criticizing.

There are many true things we must believe that are not in the Bible. One would be a fool to not believe that the sun won't come up tomorrow, for instance. We know this from Science. Yet sufficiency of Scriptures is often construed to say things like science is not important to our souls, all that matters is what we read in the Bible all by ourselves, unaided by Reason or the Church. Thus is born the seeds of the current problems in the Anglican Communion- certain people just want to stick their fingers in their ears and eyes and pretend that the Bible alone can guide them.

This is why I'm more comfortable, as an Affirming Catholic minded person, with Catholic and Orthodox traditionalists than Protestant conservatives- because at least the Catholics and Orthodox are not unreformable in their opinions. But the hardcore Protestant is left with fundamentalism or sentimentality as their guide to truth.

As Anglicans, we believe that the Catholic Church is in error in that they have added doctrines/dogma and considered them essential. This addition of dogma without Ecumenical Council is simply not acceptable.

I don't believe Anglicans uphold all the Ecumenical Councils universally. Especially the Seventh. A Calvinist might reject the logic of the council, but then Calvinists are often crypto-Docetists. Again, the real force in Anglicanism is Sola Scriptura interpreted privately, and often, liberally.