Skip to comments.Traditional Anglo-Catholic vs. Anglo-Papalist
Posted on 02/04/2007 7:16:31 PM PST by sionnsar
TexanglicanFriends, I have been thinking about the term "Anglo-Papalist" lately. I only began to run across it frequently a few years ago, and have never really had a clear understanding of exactly what folks mean by it.
I came across this article purporting to describe the difference between "Anglo-Catholics" in the traditional sense and "Anglo-Papalists". Is this distinction accurate? If so, I can happily declare myself a traditional Anglo-Catholic. Definition 1 fits me to a tee (even if the rhetoric of the statement is a tad overblown. I'm prone to that sort of thing myself!). And the position outlined in definition 2 is illogical and inconsistent to me. I have a difficult time seeing how a person who held such an "Anglo-Papalist" position (if accurate) can hold back in good conscience from swimming the Tiber, especially since large-scale organic reunion between Rome and Canterbury seems further away than ever in light of the present Anglican doctrinal crisis and the present AC leadership.
I consider myself a Catholic Anglican. I am an Anglican by conviction, not a Roman who happens to be separated from the Holy See by an historical accident. I cannot in good conscience assent to the claims of universal ordinary jurisdiction and infallibility presently made by the Roman Pontiff, as much as I do admire the present incumbent as a man and a thinker. (As I have said before, if some sort of accommodation on the Petrine office could be worked about between Rome and the Eastern Patriarchs, I suspect I could sign onto whatever they worked out between them. Let us pray, brothers and sisters.)
My own thoughts on the Papacy are identical, as far as I can tell, with those of the Eastern Orthodox--a primacy of honor but not universal ordinary jurisdiction. And infallibility in the decrees of a Pope acting without the endorsement of a Council of the Universal Church [both East and West] is out of the question for me. In fact, my own understanding of Catholic Anglicanism is that it is (or at least ought to be) "Western Orthodoxy," standing by the teachings of the Fathers and the decrees of the seven Ecumenical Councils alongside the Eastern Church while celebrating the heritage of the West (Ambrose, Augustine, Anselm, Bernard, Aquinas, etc) in a special way and worshiping in the traditional Western liturgical expression. This might be a preposterously Romantic vision--and perhaps even an untenable ecclesiology in light of the present crisis--but dear Reader it is where I stand. Kyrie eleison!
The author is clueless. He wrote:
"I consider myself a Catholic Anglican."
No such thing nor is it possible.
"I am an Anglican by conviction, not a Roman who happens to be separated from the Holy See by an historical accident."
If you're an Anglican by conviction then you're a Protestant and not Catholic.
"I cannot in good conscience assent to the claims of universal ordinary jurisdiction and infallibility presently made by the Roman Pontiff, as much as I do admire the present incumbent as a man and a thinker."
Then again, you're not Catholic. You're a Protestant.
"(As I have said before, if some sort of accommodation on the Petrine office could be worked about between Rome and the Eastern Patriarchs, I suspect I could sign onto whatever they worked out between them. Let us pray, brothers and sisters.)"
So if the whole Church works to satisfy you you might agree with it? If that isn't proof that you're a Protestant than what could be?
As the Papal aphorist, Pope Leo XIII declared, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.
*And what does Pope Benedict think about that teaching? Just what you would expect him to think. Writing as the prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, then Cardinal Ratzinger...
With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations ...
*So, does it really make a difference that protestant laymen label themselves Catholic? To those who know the facts it does. In their favor though, it can be said that somewhere deep inside them the protestant laymen know the importance of others thinking them Catholic. If they didn't, why make the claim?
"Why do you insist on making sense?"
I think it may be a genetic defect. No known cure as of yet.
"As the Papal aphorist, Pope Leo XIII declared, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void."
Yep. I should point out that I am a big supporter of the Anglican Use idea. I am, in fact, working hard to get an Anglican Use parish set up in my own diocese. Two Protestant minsiters, one already Catholic, and one who says he wants to become Catholic, are my co-workers in this effort. Both would be ordained as Catholic priests if all goes well. These men would be CATHOLICS. Not Anglo-Catholics. Not Catholic Anglicans (which makes no sense at all as a term). No, they would be CATHOLICS, CATHOLIC priests, using a liturgy approved by the CATHOLIC Church.
These men are leaving, or have already left, behind their Protestant sects to embrace the CATHOLIC faith. They're going to put their livelihoods on the line to do this. They will earn the right to call themselves CATHOLIC. No Anglican has that right. No other Protestant has that right. That reality won't stop some Protestants from having active fantasy lives, however.
God speed on your great idea. I will pray for its success
I probably shouldn't jump into an Anglican - Roman squabble, but here goes: What constitutes the "Catholic" faith was defined in the athanasian creed 1,600 years ago. A number of orthodox Christian denominations subscribe to the Athanasian Creed and deny to any one denomination, including the Roman Catholic Church the right to limit or expand it.
" A number of orthodox Christian denominations subscribe to the Athanasian Creed and deny to any one denomination, including the Roman Catholic Church the right to limit or expand it."
The Catholic Church is not a denomination. I am Catholic. I am not Roman.
That's exactly what the traditional Anglicans believe; That they're Catholic and not Roman.
Such displays of the kind of arrogance your church (others too; yours is not alone) can breed in its natives ought to be a warning to others.
"That's exactly what the traditional Anglicans believe;"
Some do, some don't. The difference is that I AM CATHOLIC, and they are Anglicans, Protestants. They can believe the moon is made out of cheese too.
"That they're Catholic and not Roman."
In reality they're neither. Let's deal with reality and not errant thoughts or emotions here.
"The sight of catholics fawning all over themselves the way you do is not pretty."
I don't fawn. It's not in my nature.
"Such displays of the kind of arrogance your church (others too; yours is not alone) can breed in its natives ought to be a warning to others."
Get a clue. Reality is not arrogant. It just is. This is reality: Anglicans are Anglicans, not Catholics.
I would LOVE to see Benedict XVI go to Rwanda, observe Archbishop Kolini and his ministry, and then tell him to his face that his ministry is "completely null and utterly void". Somehow I don't think the Bishop of Rome (whose own ministry could be considered completely null and utterly void according I Timothy 3:2-5) would do that.
arrogance from O.Fr. arrogance (12c.), from L. arrogantia, from arrogantem (nom. arrogans) "assuming, overbearing, insolent," prp. of arrogare "to claim for oneself, assume," from ad- "to" + rogare "ask, propose"
*No arrogance on the part of me or brother Vladimir. It was Jesus' idea.
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
*Now, the Anglican schism does fit as an exercise of Arrogance, doesn't it?
I have nothing to be arrogant about. I am but a simple obedient son in the Church Jesus established
Sounds to me like he should just become Orthodox.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.