Anglican view on the Roman Catholic Church?

[GeminiMoon]

Hey all. I am trying to understand different denominations views on what they think about the Roman Catholic Church and it's teachings. I've heard a lot from the Eastern Orthodox Christians and a lot off other Protestants, but i'm curious as to what you Anglicans believe regarding the Church and it's doctrines. Funny that I live in a country with a majority of Anglicans and half my family are Anglican and I don't even know
Thanks in advance and God bless!

 

[MichaelNZ]

I was baptised in the Roman Catholic Church, and an Anglican priest I spoke to said that they accept the Roman Catholic baptism as they are a sister church.

I heard that the Anglicans and Catholics in the city of Christchurch, New Zealand, used to have a joint Ash Wednesday service. I don't know if it happened this year, though, because of the earthquake.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Depends on which Anglicans you ask. There are many Catholic-haters in Anglicanism who find their moral clarity appauling and offensive. There are many who consider an Anglican with respect for Catholicism to be an "Anglo-Papist" and other rot.

I grew up Catholic most of my life. I have a great fondness for Catholicism and I think the papacy is awesome in so many ways. After going Anglican for around 9 years of my life and seeing the mind-numbing liberal take-over of it and the lack of faithfulness to the Scriptures and the Fathers, the willingness to let the secular world come into the house and pollute it in every crevice, trust me, the pope is a breath of fresh air in many ways!

Anglo-Catholics tend to have more respect and admiration for the papacy and the Catholic Church. I know my own rector, who is an evangelical and NO FAN of the pope, admitted to me one time in his office, "I hate to see the scandals and crisis and corruption going on in the Catholic Church right now. A weak Catholic Church hurts and affects all the rest of us as churches. We respect them and the Catholics are the loudest voice on the world stage for morals and Christian faith." I thought that was quite illuminating. The Catholic Church is still the loudest warrior against abortion, the gay agenda, fighting poverty, defending the elderly and the infirm, maintaining the dignity of the human person, affirming the Risen Christ, fighting blasphemy, defending the immigrant, reminding us of the importance of Mary, keeping an eye on medical ethics, fighting communism and out-of-control capitalism, discouraging war, and fighting for economic equality. The Pope is the greatest religious leader in the world. I cannot speak for others, but I greatly respect the office of the papacy. Just tonight my wife was saying that we ought to just return to the Catholic faith. We ADORE our rector and Anglican parish, but what I read is going on in Anglicanism and just the views of God I often read in STR, it's definitely motivating me to the Orthodox or Catholic brand....

 

[aussieoldcatholic]

Rome is fine. as long it stays in Rome and doesn't inferfer with the Anglican Church.

one fav blog of mine is Augustine of Canterbury: 'The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England

in the last sentence the author writes "My response to news stories about the Pope and his criticisms of anti-discrimination legislation is to quote the Article of Religion Number 37 'The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England' So I'll listen politely but I'm not really taking any notice."

that's pretty much my response to the papacy, I'll listen politely but Im not really taking any notice.

 

[Timothy]

The Roman Catholic Church is a fine institution, however the senior leader has historically taken illegal authority over places outside of his own remit. Primacy of honour, not supremacy is the historic position. The Bishop of Rome has no jurisdiction outside of Rome, and until they return to that historic position, we consider them to be in error. They are welcome to share at our Table in the Eucharist any time they fancy though...

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I have a lot of respect for Catholics and Catholicism... but IMHO the RCC is much in need of reform, and something like Vatican II needs to happen again.

 

[PaladinValer]

The Vatican Catholic Church is a valid, Apostolic, and truly Catholic institution; a true member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Her clergy are rightly and duly ordained, her sacraments are rightly and duly administered, etc.

That being said, the concept of Papacy is absolutely unhistoric. Episcopal polity is absolutely right, but the idea of one person as a "Vicar of Christ" isn't found anywhere in the historical record. The Pope is a true and valid bishop, but the Pope should not have much of the authority or powers his office currently has.

Furthermore, she has unilaterally promoted dogmatic ideas that are outside Ecumenical agreement: the Immaculate Conception of St. Mary the Theotokos, the Assumption of St. Mary the Theotokos, Transubstantiationism, Papacy (as above), and also the Filioque are absolutely out of bounds in the sense that they are declared absolute and unchangeable doctrines. The Assumption, Transubstantiationism, and the Filioque are pious opinions at best. Papacy has no historic merit. The worst of these is the Immaculate Conception, which, while I do understand why they wanted to keep Jesus as "pure" as possible, it wasn't necessary and it does have a tendency of weakening the Incarnation because of St. Mary's lack of guilt of original sin *based on their theology on the subject) as well as actual sin.

That being said, I applaud her for her achievements in Trent, which ended a lot of the abuses, and for Vatican II for ending hurdles like the vernacular in liturgy.

If the Anglican Communion and the Vatican are to achieve reunity, the following must be done: 1) End of Papacy...the Patriarch of Rome is the historic primus inter pares, but anything above and beyond that is unacceptable. 2) End those two Marian ideas as dogmas...and restore them as pious opinions at best (probably safest to just drop IC entirely). 3) Accept that Anglican Orders are valid, our sacraments valid, and our Church to be valid as well...the arguments they have a faulty at best...and just outrageous at worst. 4) End the idea of Treasury of Merits...just leave it at prayers are a sacramental act and leave it at that.

 

[mark46]

You have stated the differences well.

However, the OP didn't ask about the conditions that we would put on the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC has a similar list for us, as do the Orthodox. After all, much of our Church is Calvinist.

If Anglicans want to consider unity with half the world's Christians, then the first step is unity among ourselves. We can't even figure out whether the Eucharist is important and what it means.

IMHO, if groups of Anglicans want unity (re-unity) with Rome, then they will find their way toward that end. The ordinairiate is a baby step. A step of a different kind could be recognition of our bishops and priests. This could not happen for the Communion as a whole because of the Articles and our pride as being a Reformation church. Obviously, many Anglo-Catholics do not have this same barrier. But then, Anglo-Catholics could simply become Old Catholics and have more acceptance by Rome.
======

On a side note, I don't think the Marian doctrines are a big deal. They are theological opinions (as the Orthodox would call them). Obviously, they are not justification/salvation issues or doctrine. Specifically, the Immaculate Conception is irrelevant, unless one has a Protestant/Calvinist approach to original sin. In any case, the IC doesn't seem an important doctrine at all. Perhaps in 100 years, the Virgin Birth will also be considered a theological opinion (I think it likely). The real issue for me is that Mary should have an important role in our lives and the life of the Church. There have been many efforts (through doctrine) to honor Mary. I applaud those attempts. Obviously, we are miffed that Rome made these determinations for all Christians. In the end, there was no other way for Rome. There were no ecumenical councils.

You would restrict the Bishop of Rome to Rome. Some would restrict his authority to Europe, some to the West. It is NOT terribly unreasonable for there to be a Patriarch of the West. Given the history, the pope might better be considered the Patriarch of Western Europe.

The Vatican Catholic Church is a valid, Apostolic, and truly Catholic institution; a true member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Her clergy are rightly and duly ordained, her sacraments are rightly and duly administered, etc.

That being said, the concept of Papacy is absolutely unhistoric. Episcopal polity is absolutely right, but the idea of one person as a "Vicar of Christ" isn't found anywhere in the historical record. The Pope is a true and valid bishop, but the Pope should not have much of the authority or powers his office currently has.

Furthermore, she has unilaterally promoted dogmatic ideas that are outside Ecumenical agreement: the Immaculate Conception of St. Mary the Theotokos, the Assumption of St. Mary the Theotokos, Transubstantiationism, Papacy (as above), and also the Filioque are absolutely out of bounds in the sense that they are declared absolute and unchangeable doctrines. The Assumption, Transubstantiationism, and the Filioque are pious opinions at best. Papacy has no historic merit. The worst of these is the Immaculate Conception, which, while I do understand why they wanted to keep Jesus as "pure" as possible, it wasn't necessary and it does have a tendency of weakening the Incarnation because of St. Mary's lack of guilt of original sin *based on their theology on the subject) as well as actual sin.

That being said, I applaud her for her achievements in Trent, which ended a lot of the abuses, and for Vatican II for ending hurdles like the vernacular in liturgy.

If the Anglican Communion and the Vatican are to achieve reunity, the following must be done: 1) End of Papacy...the Patriarch of Rome is the historic primus inter pares, but anything above and beyond that is unacceptable. 2) End those two Marian ideas as dogmas...and restore them as pious opinions at best (probably safest to just drop IC entirely). 3) Accept that Anglican Orders are valid, our sacraments valid, and our Church to be valid as well...the arguments they have a faulty at best...and just outrageous at worst. 4) End the idea of Treasury of Merits...just leave it at prayers are a sacramental act and leave it at that.

 

[CatholicAtHeart]

I believe the Roman Catholic church to be part of the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church also. But I absolutely detest that she thinks she has the authority to judge other denominational orders. No, it does not. We are all part of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church.
A valid church.

 

[GeminiMoon]

But I absolutely detest that she thinks she has the authority to judge other denominational orders.

By authority to judge other denominational orders, what exactly do you mean?
We believe that the Bishop of Rome has Universal Jurisdiction over the whole Church. At the present moment, that is the Roman Catholic Church. We believe this as Jesus gave the keys of heaven to St Peter and the Pope is his successor. But of course you know that as I assume you know your stuff. What is your issue with this teaching?

 

[CatholicAtHeart]

By authority to judge other denominational orders, what exactly do you mean?
We believe that the Bishop of Rome has Universal Jurisdiction over the whole Church. At the present moment, that is the Roman Catholic Church. We believe this as Jesus gave the keys of heaven to St Peter and the Pope is his successor. But of course you know that as I assume you know your stuff. What is your issue with this teaching?

Apostolicae Curae the Papal bull published in 1896 claiming Anglican orders to be 'null and void'.
After certain threads this week mentioning validity of Anglican orders, it's built me up to judge what the Holy Father said was wrong.

 

[MKJ]

The Vatican Catholic Church is a valid, Apostolic, and truly Catholic institution; a true member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Her clergy are rightly and duly ordained, her sacraments are rightly and duly administered, etc.

That being said, the concept of Papacy is absolutely unhistoric. Episcopal polity is absolutely right, but the idea of one person as a "Vicar of Christ" isn't found anywhere in the historical record. The Pope is a true and valid bishop, but the Pope should not have much of the authority or powers his office currently has.

Furthermore, she has unilaterally promoted dogmatic ideas that are outside Ecumenical agreement: the Immaculate Conception of St. Mary the Theotokos, the Assumption of St. Mary the Theotokos, Transubstantiationism, Papacy (as above), and also the Filioque are absolutely out of bounds in the sense that they are declared absolute and unchangeable doctrines. The Assumption, Transubstantiationism, and the Filioque are pious opinions at best. Papacy has no historic merit. The worst of these is the Immaculate Conception, which, while I do understand why they wanted to keep Jesus as "pure" as possible, it wasn't necessary and it does have a tendency of weakening the Incarnation because of St. Mary's lack of guilt of original sin *based on their theology on the subject) as well as actual sin.

That being said, I applaud her for her achievements in Trent, which ended a lot of the abuses, and for Vatican II for ending hurdles like the vernacular in liturgy.

If the Anglican Communion and the Vatican are to achieve reunity, the following must be done: 1) End of Papacy...the Patriarch of Rome is the historic primus inter pares, but anything above and beyond that is unacceptable. 2) End those two Marian ideas as dogmas...and restore them as pious opinions at best (probably safest to just drop IC entirely). 3) Accept that Anglican Orders are valid, our sacraments valid, and our Church to be valid as well...the arguments they have a faulty at best...and just outrageous at worst. 4) End the idea of Treasury of Merits...just leave it at prayers are a sacramental act and leave it at that.

I tend to agree with most of this, though I think Mark is right in that these thoughts really reflect an Anglo-catholic approach - a very evangelical or Calvinist Anglican would be hard to fit into this view.

I'd also say that for us Anglicans, in a perfect world, the Pope would, rightfully, be our patriarch, and have the role/power of a patriarch. So I think those who suggest Rome would have no legitimate authority over the English Church are mistaken.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Some would say that Vatican II was precisely what muffed up the Church to begin with!

I have a lot of respect for Catholics and Catholicism... but IMHO the RCC is much in need of reform, and something like Vatican II needs to happen again.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Some would say that Vatican II was precisely what muffed up the Church to begin with!

Yeah, I know. I've read a fair bit about the history of it. But for me, that Vatican II didn't go nearly far enough is why I choose Anglicanism over Catholicism.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

So funny you say that; I was a Catholic who wished the Tridentine were still the norm complete with incense, priest facing the altar, no Baptist-style happy-clappy charismatic stuff, and the dignity of the ancients preserved. No extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, no kumbaya, just dignified worship. The overtures to Islam and other non-Christian religions repels me, and the lax overall kick-back environment that Vatican II gave us is sad IMHO. It's one reason I have looked into the East. My ACNA parish is fairly conservative and more dignified than the novus ordo Mass actually. But in my heart I miss the Catholic Church a lot. There is a Tridine Mass an hour's drive north of me...hmmmm

Yeah, I know. I've read a fair bit about the history of it. But for me, that Vatican II didn't go nearly far enough is why I choose Anglicanism over Catholicism.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

So funny you say that; I was a Catholic who wished the Tridentine were still the norm complete with incense, priest facing the altar, no Baptist-style happy-clappy charismatic stuff, and the dignity of the ancients preserved. No extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, no kumbaya, just dignified worship. The overtures to Islam and other non-Christian religions repels me, and the lax overall kick-back environment that Vatican II gave us is sad IMHO. It's one reason I have looked into the East. My ACNA parish is fairly conservative and more dignified than the novus ordo Mass actually. But in my heart I miss the Catholic Church a lot. There is a Tridine Mass an hour's drive north of me...hmmmm

I understand. We both post on that Catholic forum, and similar PoVs are very common there. We're approaching it from opposite directions. My church background is mostly Baptist and Pentecostal. I enjoy the high church ceremony, at least as a change of pace (I'm not totally used to it yet) and even a bit of Latin sounds good to me sometimes, but I do emphasize the priesthood of all believers and individual liberty of conscience. And while my theology is mostly moderate conservative in the Anglican style, like C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright, I'm also a social liberal, moderate emergent and political libertarian. If I were to be Catholic, I could only be a Garry Wills kind of Catholic, and you wouldn't want that.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What was your name on "that" Catholic board?

I understand. We both post on that Catholic forum, and similar PoVs are very common there. We're approaching it from opposite directions. My church background is mostly Baptist and Pentecostal. I enjoy the high church ceremony, at least as a change of pace (I'm not totally used to it yet) and even a bit of Latin sounds good to me sometimes, but I do emphasize the priesthood of all believers and individual liberty of conscience. And while my theology is mostly moderate conservative in the Anglican style, like C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright, I'm also a social liberal, moderate emergent and political libertarian. If I were to be Catholic, I could only be a Garry Wills kind of Catholic, and you wouldn't want that.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

What was your name on "that" Catholic board?

The same one I use nearly everywhere: Izdaari.

I stay almost entirely in the Non-Catholic section.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Haven't been there since June.

The same one I use nearly everywhere: Izdaari.

I stay almost entirely in the Non-Catholic section.

 

[GeminiMoon]

Some would say that Vatican II was precisely what muffed up the Church to begin with!

Haha, I like some things that Vatican II brought about, but I think they were mostly wrong. They should never have introduced the Novus Ordo Mass. I was happy about mass in the vernacular, but it would have been better for them to have the Tridentine mass in English but have parish's in Latin for those who wanted it.

As for people's issues with the Papacy and other Catholic teachings, I think it's worth a go having a look at Catholic Answers.

Here is a link to the section on Papal Infallibility: Papal Infallibility | Catholic Answers