Lifesaver said:
I also understand that many Anglicans, I think they are called High Anglicans (am I mistaken here?) or even Anglo-Catholics, have beliefs and practices very similar to those of Catholicism, even closer to it than most Eastern Orthodoxy. In fact, they are so similar in their beliefs that many consider themselves to be both at the same time.
We use the term "Catholic" rather differently than do those members of the Catholic church who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. The word Catholic literally means "universal". It refers to the belief that the Church, which is the Body of Christ, is the community of all faithful people united through time and space. The opposite of Catholic is not "protestant", but "Congregationalist", referring to the belief that the Body of Christ manifests in fullness in the local congregation, without reference to other Christians outside the local congregation. Anglicans believe very much that the Body of Christ is the Blessed Company of All Faithful People. In fact, we believe it to the extent that we don't draw distinction between faithful people who are members of our denomination, and faithful people who are members of other denominations. The Body of Christ manifests in its wholeness only when we recognize that it transcends the divisions we have created among us.
"Anglican", on the other hand, just means "English", and refers to the nationality in which our understanding of the Church, and our liturgy, had its birthplace. So you see, it is easy to be both Anglican and Catholic. In fact, you can't be Anglican without being Catholic.
Many Anglicans, of course, prefer to emphasize their protestant heritage. "Protestant" technically refers to those who
protested against the edicts of the Diet of Worms, which condemned Luther and forbade his teachings. Protestantism more generally refers to a belief in the individual's responsibility to protest in favour of what he believes to be right doctrine. The opposite of Protestantism is not Catholicism but dogmatism -- the belief that a clerical hierarchy has the power to codify doctrine and promulgate it as dogma. Anglicans are, by these definitions, every bit as much Protestant as we are Catholic.
(Now, some will make a distinction between "catholic" the adjective with a small "c", and "Catholic" the proper name with a capital "C". Unfortunately for that distinction, in classical English not only proper nouns but also poetical and spiritual abstracts take capitals. Throughout our Book of Common Prayer, which is the great uniting literary treasure of our communion, the Church is consistently referred to as Catholic, so the distinction doesn't hold. It does seem to work for twenty-first century American, though.)
Lifesaver said:
What would you say is the reason why the Anglican communion is not in communion with Rome? Would you be against a unification, bearing in mind that the Anglicans would be allowed (as many formerly Anglican parishes are today) to keep their liturgy and traditions?
Actually, we recognize the validity of all sacraments celebrated by that portion of the Catholic Church that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Members of your communion are welcome at our communion table and in our worship. So, as far as it is within our power, we are in communion with your portion of the Church. I have been invited to recieve the Eucharist consecrated by priests who are in communion with Rome, and I believe that I received from their hand the Body and Blood. So any lack of communion is on the part of those who refuse to come to our table, or who forbid us to come to their table. As far as we are able to create communion between us, we have done so.
Lifesaver said:
What would you say that, personally, constitutes the greatest obstacle for a unification under the authority of Rome (As it was until the XVI century)?
The notion that Rome has authority over other Bishops. We do not equate primacy with authority. Authority belongs to God, and to Bishops, each in his own see, under God. You will not find tacit agreement, either among Anglicans or among phenomenological religious scholars, that Rome wielded unquestioned "authority" rather than "influence" prior to the sixteenth century.
Lifesaver said:
Oh, and let me seize this oportunity to also learn about something I'm quite unclear on: what is the role of the British monarch in the Anglican communion? Is there any religious authority attached? Do they have the authority to make pronoucements about matters of faith? Is it true that if a successor to the throne becomes Catholic they lose their successory rights?
And how likely is it that the queen or the successors will try to make relations better with the Vatican?
Great Britain has religious establishment (something I personally and strongly oppose). The Church of England, which is the established church in Great Britain, is a member of the Anglican communion. However, the legal relationship between the Church of England and the government of Great Britain does not (much) affect the rest of the Anglican communion.
Under establishment, the government ratifies the election of Bishops. So there is some nominal secular authority over the governance of the Church. But the monarch can not make pronouncements about matters of faith, other than as the layperson that she is. And the successor to the throne does indeed lose his successory rights if he puts himself under the authority of the Bishop of Rome.
As head of state, the queen can take a role in *state* relationships with the Vatican state. To improve relationships between that portion of the Catholic Church that is in communion with Rome, and that portion of the Catholic Church that self-identifies as Anglican, would require that our respective Bishops reach out to one another. Preferably without one party being on record as thinking that the other party's episcopacy is null and void.
