High Anglican and Catholic Differences and Similarities

[PaladinValer]

Don't forget the "only."

Straw Man. An answer please.

 

[Albion]

Straw Man. An answer please.

The official Anglican position is that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is only spiritual and heavenly. That stance excludes the Lutheran and Roman theories that it is the physical (as well as spiritual) presence of Christ that is received. Therefore, while Anglicans come down on this issue in various says--and we generally take that fact for granted--it is NOT the case that the church has no official or formal policy. It DOES...although it gets ignored or defied by some Anglicans.

 

[Fish and Bread]

The official Anglican position is that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is only spiritual and heavenly. That stance excludes the Lutheran and Roman theories that it is the physical (as well as spiritual) presence of Christ that is received. Therefore, while Anglicans come down on this issue in various says--and we generally take that fact for granted--it is NOT the case that the church has no official or formal policy. It DOES...although it gets ignored or defied by some Anglicans.

My understanding is that the 39 Articles are not considered official or formal theological positions that must be adhered to in many Anglican provinces. The move to put them in the "Historical Documents" section of the 1979 BCP in the US is partial evidence of this. All one really has to do to is look at what the primates, bishops, priests, deacons, and lay people really believe, though. Anglicanism reflects a wide variety of theological positions.

I mean, look at Bishop Pike and Bishop Spong. By comparison, people who believe in transubstantiation or consubstantiation are nothing. Spong not only didn't face any canonical sanctions for being an atheist, he received a special award from the Presiding Bishop at one point.

Even when the articles where implemented, it was largely as an attempt to push a certain theological position that didn't necessarily reflect Anglicanism's history to that point.

Queen Elizabeth I took great pains to allow liberty on the non-essentials and unify Protestants and Catholics who were not at the absolute extremes of those positions. So, really, theological vagueness goes back to the 16th century, at least.

And then if we want to count Anglicanism up *until* the Reformation, obviously we'd get a theology a bit closer to transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or the Eastern Orthodox position than a Calvinist spiritual presence.

Which is not to say that there aren't people who adhere to the 39 Articles and that they aren't an important document in the history of Anglicanism. Obviously there are and they were.

 

[PaladinValer]

The official Anglican position is that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is only spiritual and heavenly. That stance excludes the Lutheran and Roman theories that it is the physical (as well as spiritual) presence of Christ that is received. Therefore, while Anglicans come down on this issue in various says--and we generally take that fact for granted--it is NOT the case that the church has no official or formal policy. It DOES...although it gets ignored or defied by some Anglicans.

Still avoiding the question. I really don't personally care what non-Anglican Communion churches interpret; I only care of my own. However, that's an aside as much as your reply is.

Can my actual question be addressed please? Or is avoiding it the best that can be done?

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Interesing.

So, I guess I'm:

High Church,

Middler/Latitudinarian,

and Liberal (not in overall theology or politics, but in morals).

 

[alexsonofmatthew]

What is the Anglican position on the Deuterocanonical books? and how did the Anglican church come to that conclusion ?

 

[PaladinValer]

What is the Anglican position on the Deuterocanonical books? and how did the Anglican church come to that conclusion ?

Part of the Canon, since only Holy Scripture may be used for Lessons during the liturgy, although of secondary importance. While doctrine cannot be perhaps established by it, it can be proved by it.

 

[alexsonofmatthew]

Part of the Canon, since only Holy Scripture may be used for Lessons during the liturgy, although of secondary importance. While doctrine cannot be perhaps established by it, it can be proved by it.

thank you. that is really interesting. how does the Anglican church come to this conclusion ?

 

[PaladinValer]

thank you. that is really interesting. how does the Anglican church come to this conclusion ?

It is very similar to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox positions.

It comes to that conclusion based on the historic use of those books.

 

[VolRaider]

Methodists and Anglican beliefs in the Real Presence are identical. However, there are a decent number of Methodists in the South who view it symbolically (and even some Episcopalians do) because "we don't wanna be too much like them Kathlicks." I'm a Tennessean, so I'm allowed to joke about this.

 

[Pink Spider]

.
.
.

Two things need to be understood:
what is a dogma and what is
Transubstantiationism.

A dogma is a doctrine that is infallible,
either because it is clear out of the Deposit
of Faith (Holy Scripture) or because an
Ecumenical Council, based on a continuous
interpretation thereof, has declared it so and
makes it an absolute, undeniable requirement
to be a member.

Transubstantiationism is a Real Presence Eucharistic
theology which teaches, upon the Words of Institution
by a priest or bishop in valid Holy Orders, the actual
substances of the Elements changes into the actual
Body and Blood of Christ, leaving only accidentals
behind (in other words, they will still taste like bread
and wine and have outward properties of the same,
but in reality, the Body and Blood have obliterated
the substances of them), at that specific point in
the liturgy.

The declaring the infallibility of this belief is, to
Anglicans, silly at best and superstitious at worst.
The idea that we must believe that the
Real Presence works in that particular way when
it likely was not for centuries and also that He
becomes Present at a specific time
(also with the same objection) does make it sound
magical, even though that isn't the intent.


But the specifics of Transubstantiation isn't with
its physical aspect but with its particularities:
the necessary obliteration of the Elements and
when it occurs. Thus, to say that the Articles or
Anglicanism in general rejects a physical presence
is not truthful, since the very theology is quite
defining in scope.

As an aside see nothing wrong with
Transubstantiationism as a pious belief, but its
dogmatization is overkill and definitely its necessity of
adherence is well outside orthodox Anglicanism.

Thank You for this comprehensive answer, Brother!
I think I understand now.

GOD bless You!.
.
.

 

[Albion]

Methodists and Anglican beliefs in the Real Presence are identical.

I think that's safe to say, perhaps with the proviso that it's not uncommon for Methodists themselves to take the representational / memorialist view of the sacrament, despite their church's official stance.

However, there are a decent number of Methodists in the South who view it symbolically (and even some Episcopalians do) ....

That's right.

 

[mark46]

I think that's safe to say, perhaps with the proviso that it's not uncommon for Methodists themselves to take the representational / memorialist view of the sacrament, despite their church's official stance.



That's right.

I agree with your comments.
=========================
I would note that the world (and the US) tend to give a lot of notice to the views of a relatively small number of Christians, evangelical conservatives in the South of the US. They are are very vocal and influential in US media outlets. For so many, these folks are the voice of Christianity. They are the "face" of US Christianity in much of the press.

It was the comments regarding UMC (largest group of US Methodists) that caused this observation. In the South, Methodists are almost indistinguishable from Baptists and non-denominational churches, in their liturgy and politics. In the North, Methodists are much more likely to be more liturgically conservative (following the teachings of their documents and central organizations) and politically liberal. Nationally, UMC has an intercommunion agreement with the ELCA (Lutherans), and clearly rejects the memorialist view of the Eucharist.

 

[FireDragon76]

It was the comments regarding UMC (largest group of US Methodists) that caused this observation. In the South, Methodists are almost indistinguishable from Baptists and non-denominational churches, in their liturgy and politics.

That's my perception as well.

My parents and grandparents, who answered a lot of my questions I had about religion, were from the more southern style of Methodism. Memorialsm through and through (baptism was basically just a naming ceremony, and so on). The only real important thing was the feelings you had- pietist type sentiments. But the churches we tended to attend, because my dad was military, were much more liberal, mainline and liturgical.

 

[everbecoming2007]

Thanks for answering.

Interesting,

Now that you mention it, In the RC Mass, it's very "low". For example no chanting, or much singing, or a "fancy" procession etc. Just my observations.

There is much diversity in modern Roman Catholic worship as in Anglican worship. My parish for instance is not high church -- it's more what we would call broad church, something in between low church and high church styles, though leaning more toward the latter -- and yet it is much more ceremonial and traditional than any Catholic worship I've seen around here which tends to be very contemporary and informal with a much more "happy" feel, even on days like Ash Wednesday. But other Catholic parishes will have a more ceremonial atmosphere even if using the modern Catholic liturgy. The parishes I've been to in Illinois seem much more traditional with chanting of the canon of the mass and much of it in Latin. They also make much more use of stained glass, images, and incense.

There are still elements present in the Catholic parishes here despite their very contemporary style that are uncommon in Anglicanism and absent in my parish -- a formal service for Eucharistic adoration comes to mind. We have a holy hour during Holy Week with the Sacrament, but no formal service for adoration, no exposition of the Host in a monstrance.

So in terms of liturgy things can get a little blurry sometimes. Most people in my parish are evangelicals with influences on their theology that are actually foreign to traditional evangelical Anglicanism or any other form of our tradition probably due to our local cultural environment, no matter what our liturgy looks like.

Still, the style of liturgy in an Anglican parish does often reflect the theological emphasis, high church styles usually correlating with a more Catholic emphasis, low church styles often correlating with an evangelical emphasis, though no doubt there are exceptions.

 

[everbecoming2007]

That's my perception as well.

My parents and grandparents, who answered a lot of my questions I had about religion, were from the more southern style of Methodism. Memorialsm through and through (baptism was basically just a naming ceremony, and so on). The only real important thing was the feelings you had- pietist type sentiments. But the churches we tended to attend, because my dad was military, were much more liberal, mainline and liturgical.

The UMC parish here is the most liberal church I've been aware of in my area, although they are not very liturgical and conduct the Communion ceremony in such a way that suggests to me they are memorialists. I know the official doctrine teaches some form of the real presence whatever local beliefs are. As far as I know, the Methodist Articles do not differ from the Thirty-Nine Articles in their theology on that point.

 

[Hungarus]

My ignorance is obviously showing. I thought High Church Anglicans and Anglo-Catholics were the same thing.

I need to re-read the thread.

No, you were not ignorant, there are more ways of interpretation:

"High" and "Low" Church (an article on the website of the Anglican Church of Canada - I cannot insert the link):

"The terms “High” and “Low” are rarely used nowadays but refer to different “parties” or schools of churchmanship within the Church of England/Anglican Communion. “High” Church is the older of the two terms historically and was first applied, in the late seventeenth century, to those individuals who were opposed to the Puritan wing of the Church of England.

Later, and more famously, in the nineteenth century, it was applied to the Anglo-Catholic or Tractarian movement in England from 1833 onwards. The best known members of the High Church/Anglo-Catholic Movement were John Henry Newman, who converted to the Roman Catholic Church, and John Keble, who remained in the Church of England. High Churchmen placed great emphasis on liturgy and the sacraments, especially the weekly or daily celebration of the Eucharist. Their use of vestments and incense, along with their frequent devotion to Mary and high regard for the Roman Catholic Church, were often regarded with concern and even hostility. High Churchmen also placed great emphasis on the three orders of ministry (deacon, priest and bishop) and the importance of apostolic succession and the historical continuity of Anglican bishops with the early church.

The “Low Church” movement can trace its roots back to the early eighteenth century but is primarily associated with opposition to the “High Church” or Anglo-Catholic Movement of the later nineteenth century. The “Low” Church or Evangelical party placed great emphasis on preaching, personal piety and the authority of scripture. Evangelicals also gave much less importance to the orders of priesthood and episcopacy.
Today the terms are used infrequently and are often considered to have a negative or pejorative flavour. Nevertheless, the terms do reflect the theology and practice of two large parties/points of view within Anglicanism. In England, these points of view are now usually described as “Anglo Catholic” and “Evangelical”, and can be seen to a greater or lesser extent in many parishes. They are also represented by societies such as Affirming Catholicism, and the National Evangelical Anglican Congress."


The article is a little bit simplistic, but is quite good.

The meaning of the term "High Church" is not liturgical only, it can be theological/dogmatical, too.

 

[Pink Spider]

.
.

There is much diversity
in modern Roman Catholic worship as
in Anglican worship.

Maybe in the US - but not in Europe.
As for the High church service itself -
yes, it is similar to the RCC. But the
theology is definitely very different....
.

 

[Mockingbird0]

G'day and welcome.
I am exploring the Anglican church and I am learning about the different sub groups within your church. I have been reading that High Anglicans/Anglo-Catholics are more ''Catholic''.

What are the differences and similarities between High Anglican and Catholic beliefs ?

The Wesley brothers, the founders of Methodism, were high-church Anglicans, but they would have cared nothing for the Roman Church's doctrine of transubstantiation.

 

[Fish and Bread]

The Wesley brothers, the founders of Methodism, were high-church Anglicans

Were they really? What in the world happen to the Methodist church in the in the United States then? No offense intended to the Methodists, of course, but they are only liturgical relative to Baptists and the like as far as I know (Maybe I'm missing something- I am not an expert on Methodists). They seem decidedly less liturgical than Episcopalians and Lutherans in this country, even many low-church Episcopalians and Lutherans. How much less liturgical varies- I've heard it can go from a guy in civilian clothing with no real order or ornamentation or sense of liturgical season to the Methodist congregations I visited years ago where there was some sense of what season it was color wise and some liturgical dress (But not nearly as formal as what I've seen in more liturgical churches), but they sat for the Gospel, which was before a single reading from the Old Testament, and the communion aspects of things were to the informal side as well, if I recall correctly.

Are there Methodist congregations out there today somewhere where they are actually like high-church Anglicans with billowing clouds of incense and the like?

I thought John Wesley was all about taking the services out of the churches and into the workers in the fields and the factories and stuff, which seems to imply an informal cast to things, relative to high-church Anglican worship.