Anglo-Catholic vs. High-Church

[RadixLecti]

I was talking to someone the other day who told me he considers himself Anglo-Catholic, and in favor of the ordination of women to the Episcopate.

I've always considered the all-male episcopate as one of the foundations of catholicism.

So... what's the difference between Anglo-Catholicism and merely High-Church worship? How do you define Anglo-Catholicism?

[ebia]

Affirming Catholicism is surely representative of a large body of Anglicans who regard themselves as Anglo-Catholic but are perfectly ok with female priests and bishops.

[Iosias]

So... what's the difference between Anglo-Catholicism and merely High-Church worship? How do you define Anglo-Catholicism?

Before the Tractarians came along the term Anglo-Catholic was used to describe many different people including the Evangelical Calvinist George Stanley Faber! The terms Low Churchman and Evangelical were not interchangeable and the former really was used to describe what we now call Broad Churchmen.

Once the Tractarians came onto the scene the old terms were used again but to describe different things. We would do well to remember that the old High Churchmen opposed Tractarianism as a papist innovation.

The Oxford Movement in Context (http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Movement-Context-Anglican-Churchmanship/dp/0521587190) by Peter Nockles goes into more detail on this in a couple of chapters.

[Iosias]

Affirming Catholicism is surely representative of a large body of Anglicans who regard themselves as Anglo-Catholic but are perfectly ok with female priests and bishops.

The question is, amongst others, are they truly Catholic or just liberals who like ritual? :)

[ebia]

The question is, amongst others, are they truly Catholic or just liberals who like ritual? :)
That depends what you mean by "True Catholic". Since (IMO) Anglo-Catholic is (at least now) mostly a self-identifier, and most of those who self identify as Anglo-Catholic (including some pretty conservative people) that I know are ok with women priests I would venture to suggest that there is no incompatibility there.

To answer your specific question, in my experience such people are not "just liberals who like ritural", but genuinely hold to an understanding that is more catholic than evangelical on some of the set-piece questions such as the role of tradition.

[Iosias]

That depends what you mean by "True Catholic". Since (IMO) Anglo-Catholic is (at least now) mostly a self-identifier, and most of those who self identify as Anglo-Catholic (including some pretty conservative people) that I know are ok with women priests I would venture to suggest that there is no incompatibility there.

In the UK the in-phrase or self-label is "liberal Catholic".

[ebia]

In the UK the in-phrase or self-label is "liberal Catholic".
Are we still talking about the same thing? (Please note that I might be 3 or 4 years out of date, but I'm only pretending to be an "ignorant colonial". I've actually spent more time active in an English Anglo-Catholic parish than anywhere else in my adult life. (As it happens an FiF parish, under alternative episcopal oversight, but that doesn't mean everyone within the parish was anti-women priests.)

I can think of quite a few Anglo-Catholic people (lay and ordained) who are more than ok with women priests who would certainly not self-identify as liberal.

I'm sure there are some within Liberal Catholic circles who's Catholicity is restricted to worship style, but surely that's drifting off the original question of the OP.

[Iosias]

I can think of quite a few Anglo-Catholic people (lay and ordained) who are more than ok with women priests who would certainly not self-identify as liberal.

On what grounds do they justify women priests?

[ebia]

I really don't see the point in having that debate over again.

[Iosias]

I really don't see the point in having that debate over again.

You said that they are not liberal but support women's ordination. Now I am just wondering how that works when as far as I can see one defining feature of a liberal is that they are in favour of women's ordination.

back to the OP:

How do you define Anglo-Catholicism?

Roman Catholics without a Pope.

[ebia]

You said that they are not liberal but support women's ordination. Now I am just wondering how that works when as far as I can see one defining feature of a liberal is that they are in favour of women's ordination.
While I can't imagine that there are many liberals who are not in favour of women priests, there are a heck of a lot of people out there (on the whole spectrum of Catholic to Evangelical) who would not regard themselves as liberal who are in favour.

Unless, of course, your definition if liberal is "anyone who is not ultra-conservative".

Roman Catholics without a Pope.
I'm not sure how that works as a definition.

[Mick116]

Are we still talking about the same thing? (Please note that I might be 3 or 4 years out of date, but I'm only pretending to be an "ignorant colonial". I've actually spent more time active in an English Anglo-Catholic parish than anywhere else in my adult life. (As it happens an FiF parish, under alternative episcopal oversight, but that doesn't mean everyone within the parish was anti-women priests.)

I can think of quite a few Anglo-Catholic people (lay and ordained) who are more than ok with women priests who would certainly not self-identify as liberal.

I'm sure there are some within Liberal Catholic circles who's Catholicity is restricted to worship style, but surely that's drifting off the original question of the OP.
Do you still attend the FiF parish? This wasn't too clear from your post.

I was a regular at All Saint's Anglican, Brisbane (FiF) until the controversy regarding Fr. (now Bishop) Chislett's consecration. Since then we've been members of Patmos House Community (ACCA/TAC), until we moved to Bowen earlier this year.

I would self-identify as Anglo-Catholic; I don't necessarily agree with the ordination of women, but have no problem communing with those who disagree.

[ebia]

Do you still attend the FiF parish? This wasn't too clear from your post.

I was a regular at All Saint's Anglican, Brisbane (FiF) until the controversy regarding Fr. (now Bishop) Chislett's consecration. Since then we've been members of Patmos House Community (ACCA/TAC), until we moved to Bowen earlier this year.

I would self-identify as Anglo-Catholic; I don't necessarily agree with the ordination of women, but have no problem communing with those who disagree.
I grew up in an classic English country broad-church parish. After University I happened to live in a parish that was FiF, so that's the parish I worshipped at and was active in. Since moving to Australia I've lived in and worshipped in a couple of parishes that would probably best be described as liberal-catholic, and I'm now (very actively) part of starting a new parish probably best described as open-evangelical.

I guess I'm happy to 'practice what I preach' in celebrating diversity in the Anglican church.

[Mick116]

I grew up in an classic English country broad-church parish. After University I happened to live in a parish that was FiF, so that's the parish I worshipped at and was active in. Since moving to Australia I've lived in and worshipped in a couple of parishes that would probably best be described as liberal-catholic, and I'm now (very actively) part of starting a new parish probably best described as open-evangelical.

I guess I'm happy to 'practice what I preach' in celebrating diversity in the Anglican church.
My prayers are with you and the new parish.:crossrc:

I started attending Church as a teenager, and it was an "open" Brethren assembly. Stayed there 5 years before moving to a Presbyterian Church closer to home, and got involved with Student Life (Campus Crusade for Christ) whilst at uni. Developed an interest in Eastern Orthodoxy in 2002, and did some reading which led me to traditional Anglo-Catholicism by 2003. Stepped back a little from my staunchly conservative position, although I retain an appreciation of traditional, sacramental Christianity.

God bless you.

[Albion]

I was talking to someone the other day who told me he considers himself Anglo-Catholic, and in favor of the ordination of women to the Episcopate.

I've always considered the all-male episcopate as one of the foundations of catholicism.

So... what's the difference between Anglo-Catholicism and merely High-Church worship? How do you define Anglo-Catholicism?

Essentially, that person was just confusing Anglo-Catholicism with High Churchmanship. Many Anglicans do. Favoring ceremony does not make one an Anglo-Catholic, and being an Anglo-Catholic is quite compatible with Low Churchmanship. After all, the Tractarians to whom every Anglo-Catholic looks for inspiration and justification were Low Churchmen for the most part. It's their successors who wanted to press the issue by imitating everything that the Roman Church does as a way of asserting that they are or were "as Catholic as the Catholics." No genuine Anglo-Catholic would part company with the historic Church on such matters as women priests, abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, etc.

[RadixLecti]

Essentially, that person was just confusing Anglo-Catholicism with High Churchmanship. Many Anglicans do. Favoring ceremony does not make one an Anglo-Catholic, and being an Anglo-Catholic is quite compatible with Low Churchmanship. After all, the Tractarians to whom every Anglo-Catholic looks for inspiration and justification were Low Churchmen for the most part. It's their successors who wanted to press the issue by imitating everything that the Roman Church does as a way of asserting that they are or were "as Catholic as the Catholics." No genuine Anglo-Catholic would part company with the historic Church on such matters as women priests, abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, etc.

Thanks Albion, this is more of what I was getting at with the op: What's the difference between High Church and Anglo Catholicism? And, how do you define Anglo Catholicism.

[Albion]

Thanks Albion, this is more of what I was getting at with the op: What's the difference between High Church and Anglo Catholicism? And, how do you define Anglo Catholicism.

Not sure if you were merely restating the OP there or asking me for additional information. But I might add that Anglo-Catholicism is grounded in the idea that the English Church did not change anything essential to its nature during the Reformation, that it still was a "branch" of the historic church and not at all reformed or Protestant. So what of the thirty-nine Articles which are heavily reformed? They are considered to be a momentary abberation of no lasting impact. Many Anglicans agree to that view now, but it was certainly not so when the proposition was asserted during the 19th century.

So everything that is "essential" to the pre-Reformation church is retained: Apostolic Succession, Real Corporal Presence, male clergy, etc. At the same time, we can't go too far the other way and assume that Evangelical Anglicans, being supposedly at the opposite end of some spectrum, are liberals on all such issues (and others not mentioned).

Because they follow the principle that Scripture is above all, they will often come to the same conclusions as Anglo-Catholics, but without relying upon Tradition to do it. For example, women clerics. Anglo-Catholics will say that there never were any, and the RCC and EO don't have any, and they are part of that "branch" perspective, and since the priest is the "alter Christus" at the "altar"...etc. An Evangelical Anglican is more likely to say that in the Bible we see that Christ chose not to include any women among the Twelve although we know that he had a number of close women associates. Of course, these arguments dovetail somewhat.

Finally, who ARE the liberals, then?

They are modernists at heart and not bound by either Tradition or Scripture as historically interpreted. The usually appeal to the idea of the Holy Spirit guiding--and developing--His church. But it is also worth noting that they gained their chance at remaking the church because of the Anglo-Catholics. That is to say that although the two did not wind up at the same point, the refusal of the Anglo-Catholics to abide by the church's rules on vestments, ritual, and the like, coupled with a contempt for the Articles when they were still required of every clergyman, opened the door to more significant lawlessness...and untimately to the
fix" that the Communion is in today.

[JasonV]

Im both a Liberal Catholic and a High Churchman. But Im not AngloCatholic and would agree with Albion that AC'ers are more like RCC'ers than not.

[RadixLecti]

Im both a Liberal Catholic and a High Churchman. But Im not AngloCatholic and would agree with Albion that AC'ers are more like RCC'ers than not.
very interesting! So would you say there is a difference between being a Liberal Catholic and a Liberal High-churchman? If so, what is it?

[gtsecc]

No genuine Anglo-Catholic would part company with the historic Church on such matters as women priests, abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, etc.
Really?
I would say all AngloCatholics would, and high church ritualists would not.

[Secundulus]

Really?
I would say all AngloCatholics would, and high church ritualists would not.

Why do you say this? Maybe I don't understand the meaning of AngloCatholic and hight church ritualist.

[gtsecc]

Why do you say this? Maybe I don't understand the meaning of AngloCatholic and hight church ritualist.
An AngloCatholic would not accept women priests.

[Albion]

Really?
I would say all AngloCatholics would, and high church ritualists would not.

I'm uncertain why we'd be in any disagreement on this point, Glen.

Anglo-Catholics, whatever their churchmanship (Hi, Low) would oppose those things as innovations breaking with the historic Church. But yes, while that is true of Anglo-Catholics, it's not necessarily true of all High Churchmen.

We all know, I think, that there are many Ritualists AKA High Church Anglicans who love incense, bowing, prostrations, chanting everything, having as many bodies around the altar as will fit, and etc. but who happen also to be theological liberals.

They can't be that and also be Anglo-Catholics, not even if they style themselves as such. We just have to keep in mind that Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical refer to theology, where we look for our beliefs. Churchmanship, either high or low, refers to the amount of ceremony we prefer...and back in the good old days, we all were comfortable with another having a different churchmanship, if not with false doctrine, since ceremony is normally not a matter of right or wrong.

The confusion usually enters in with these terms because most Anglo-Catholics are High Churchmen and most Evangelicals are Low Churchmen, and so people think of them as synonyms; however, they can cross over either way. There are Anglo-Catholics who are Low Churchmen and there are Evangelicals who are High Churchmen.

But I still don't know if any of this addresses what you were thinking.

[gtsecc]

I'm uncertain why we'd be in any disagreement on this point, Glen.



Because you said, "No genuine Anglo-Catholic would part company with the historic Church on such matters as women priests, abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, etc."

[Albion]

Because you said, "No genuine Anglo-Catholic would part company with the historic Church on such matters as women priests, abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, etc."

What's perplexing about that statement?

[gtsecc]

What's perplexing about that statement?
Oh, I see what you mean.
I thought you ment they would not part from ECUSA's stance on woemn priests.

[Albion]

Oh, I see what you mean.
I thought you ment they would not part from ECUSA's stance on woemn priests.

Certainly not. By "historic church" I meant that which every real Anglo-Catholic judges his own beliefs by, i.e. what the undivided church held, what all the catholic branches of Christianity, those with true priests and sacraments, have always agreed upon.

Obviously then, since there were no women priests before the last few years in any of the "branches" Anglo-Catholics conceive of, none can be allowed (at least not until the RC and EO have a change of heart). The fact that scripture doesn't give any clear support to the idea of women priests matters, but catholic history is what the Anglo-Catholic will consult first...and will conclude that if the HS is always guiding the church, he can't contradict himself now.

Sorry for going on like this. I understand that you merely mistook my use of "church" for another one.

[JasonV]

very interesting! So would you say there is a difference between being a Liberal Catholic and a Liberal High-churchman? If so, what is it?

Yes there is a difference. By "Liberal Catholic" I am referring to the Liberal Catholic Church, which is an ultra-liberal Christian denomination, which for all practical matters teaches no dogma, and requires no belief.
A "Liberal High-Churchman" may in fact be much more "Orthodox" in his/her beliefs, but perhaps allows some latitude on things like women Priests or whatnot.

So I believe in this thread we have established that "High-Church/Low-Church" refers to one's desires for ceremony during the liturgy, and Anglo-Catholic refers to one who is more "orthodox" in their theology verses someone who is "liberal".

[Albion]

Yes there is a difference. By "Liberal Catholic" I am referring to the Liberal Catholic Church, which is an ultra-liberal Christian denomination, which for all practical matters teaches no dogma, and requires no belief.

Yes, the term "Liberal Catholic" can mean at least three different things: Member of the denomination of that name (like yourself), a theologically liberal Roman Catholic (widely used in this way), or a liberal who is catholic in the broader sense, not excluding some Anglicans.

So I believe in this thread we have established that "High-Church/Low-Church" refers to one's desires for ceremony during the liturgy, and Anglo-Catholic refers to one who is more "orthodox" in their theology verses someone who is "liberal".

Not quite. The first part is true, but Anglo-Catholics are no more "orthodox" than Evangelical/Protestant Anglicans who say that nothing is more othodox than accepting, as the ultimate authority in our religious lives, the Word of God.

IOW, I'd change "orthodox" to something else indicating a reliance upon Tradition and historical consensus for the Anglo-Catholics or at least to holding to Scripture, Tradition, and Reason as equal factors. The Evangelical would say that all of them matter but that Scripture is the final word. On most issues of doctrine, they take the same position, although they may have arrived at it in separate ways. They both, then, stand opposed to theological liberalism or heterodoxy.

[longhair75]

So, yet another attempt to pidgeon-hole everyone into a particular slot is underway. Liberal, Conservative, Moderate, High Church, Broad Church, Low Church, Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical, Protestant, Calvinist are all just labels that divide us. It is no wonder the AC is in difficulty.

[Albion]

So, yet another attempt to pidgeon-hole everyone into a particular slot is underway. Liberal, Conservative, Moderate, High Church, Broad Church, Low Church, Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical, Protestant, Calvinist are all just labels that divide us. It is no wonder the AC is in difficulty.

What a goofy conclusion. The topic is totally concerned with understanding the meaning of these terms. You're the first one to see some imaginary "attempts to pidgeon-hole," etc. in a pleasant exchange of information.

[JasonV]

I think what my brother longhair is trying to convey is the desire to see us all as Christians, without any other attending labels.

:)

[Albion]

I think what my brother longhair is trying to convey is the desire to see us all as Christians, without any other attending labels.

:)

I'm sure he does. Who among us does not? But what he said was that someone was intending (quote: "another attempt...is underway") merely by having this innocent discussion about what these labels mean, to sow discord. That's uncalled for and totally untrue. So as for the desire to see everyone as Christians, sure. As for accusing people who are not working against it of doing that, no.

[gtsecc]

The fact that scripture doesn't give any clear support to the idea of women priests matters,
I agree that there does nto seem to be anything directly related, but scripture does clearly tell us not to do things which cause disunity.

[Secundulus]

I agree that there does nto seem to be anything directly related, but scripture does clearly tell us not to do things which cause disunity.

In today's world, that only seems to work in one direction.

[AngCath]

what's the difference between Anglo-Catholicism and merely High-Church worship? How do you define Anglo-Catholicism?

The most rudimentary difference is that Anglo-Catholicism is a fundamentally a label regarding principles held (ie Anglicanism represents historic Apostolic Faith, high Sacramental theology, etc.) whereas High Churchmanship is a label regarding liturgical preferences (chanted liturgy, incense, bells, etc.).

[RadixLecti]

So, yet another attempt to pidgeon-hole everyone into a particular slot is underway. Liberal, Conservative, Moderate, High Church, Broad Church, Low Church, Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical, Protestant, Calvinist are all just labels that divide us. It is no wonder the AC is in difficulty.
Language is the way that humans communicate and understand each other. The fact that many people choose to self-identify with terms like "Anglo-Catholic" and "High Chuch" means that we cant completely understand those people's beliefs and values without understand the meaning of the terms they describe those values with with.

The labels don't divide us. The meanings of those labels, the belief systems behind them are more likely the source of division. An attempt to understand someone else's viewpoint is not an attempt to cause division.

I have found this to be a very informative thread, and I've appreciated all of the responses.

[Iosias]

The most rudimentary difference is that Anglo-Catholicism is a fundamentally a label regarding principles held (ie Anglicanism represents historic Apostolic Faith, high Sacramental theology, etc.) whereas High Churchmanship is a label regarding liturgical preferences (chanted liturgy, incense, bells, etc.).

You are possibly correct with respect to modern circumstances.

[Albion]

You are possibly correct with respect to modern circumstances.

Yes, that is correct. However, you are also correct to note that the terms have evolved somewhat. For example, and as I mentioned awhile ago, those who inspired the Anglo-Catholics of the late 19th century and 20th century, the "Tractarians," were Low Churchmen.

But at the same time, it probably would confuse the issue unncessarily to go back into such things when the main idea here has been understanding what these terms mean in our own experience and when people we know use them to describe themselves.

[AngCath]

You are possibly correct with respect to modern circumstances.
Yes, I probably should have specified that I meant in current usage as well as within the United States since I can not speak for Anglicans elsewhere.

[Camden202]

Hello fellow forum Christians...

It strikes me that Anglo-Catholics (High/Broad/Low Church) are "PRAYER BOOK ANGLICANS"....

The key feature (regarless of the level of richness in liturgy) is the use of the BCP, AAPB or English Missal.

Whether or not you go to a High Church Mass or a Low Church Mass... the liturgical elements remain constant.

The 'contrast' to this is what I had the misfortune to encounter where one Anglican Church (no names) had an overhead projector in the middle of the aisle and a rather large white screen comming off the sanctuary roof.

As a result I was sitting there waiting for the service to start (I was impressed because they had AAPB's in the pews)... but for which the main service of the day started by drawing down this HUGE white screen so that it obscured the view of the sanctuary. The the Band set up......and started playing.

I felt like I was on the set of Sale of the Century or Deal or No Deal..... waiting to be called up to meet 'Larry'.

So here I was, visiting an advertised service, found the AAPB... and what I got was an aweful experience. The service was ad hoc (by the seat-of-the-pants)...THEY EVEN HAD A BAPTISM would you believe!!!!! Again...ad hoc, no formality... no liturgy.... no worship.

I am still shocked and appauled when I think about it. I found it interesting that the Church which could easily fit 500+ people (built in the 1870's)... had 15 attending the main service (including me). This in a city with a population of in excess of 4 million and a local population of over 500,000.

I contrast this with my Anglo-Catholic parish.. where one has trouble FINDING a seat at High Mass on Sundays....

Regardless of your 'politics'.... the one thing that defines an Anglo-Catholic is their adherance to liturgy and 'prayer book'.

When I undertook theological study... one of my electives was "Prayer Book" OR "Christian Worship".... as a good Anglo-Catholic, I chose Prayer Book.

Just on a comment that Anglo-Catholics are Catholics without a Pope.... there are also other elements such as the emphasis on 'incarnational theology' as opposed to a more Roman Catholic emphasis on the Blessed Virgin (almost to extremes in some cases).

I was also shocked to visit one particular Anglo-Catholic High Mass (no names) where the Vicar used the Roman Missal (and so did the congregants)..... not the BCP.. AND offered prayers for the Pope and Roman Catholic Bishops of THEIR diocese!!!! . I remarked that the service was NOT Anglo-Catholic, but Neo-Roman.

Thankfully for me I knew the Catholic liturgy from my School days. But the experience was surreal being in an Anglican Church.

Just a few random thoughts.

God bless and keep you in his care.

[Albion]

I was also shocked to visit one particular Anglo-Catholic High Mass (no names) where the Vicar used the Roman Missal (and so did the congregants)..... not the BCP.. AND offered prayers for the Pope and Roman Catholic Bishops of THEIR diocese!!!! . I remarked that the service was NOT Anglo-Catholic, but Neo-Roman.

Unfortunately, that is not a rarity among Anglo-Catholics in my country, which is why I would disagree with the observation "that Anglo-Catholics (High/Broad/Low Church) are "PRAYER BOOK ANGLICANS" if it were speaking of the USA rather than Australia. Interesting, isn't it, that these things can work out totally differently depending upon one's country, even though we often speak of them as fixed viewpoints?

For Evangelical Anglicans, there really is no ready alternative here to the BCP as the Missal is for A-C's. I would agree that the use of the Roman Missal, as you reported, is far afield and very uncommon, but the use of the Anglican Missal or Knott's Missal or American Missal, is common.

All are worded so as to assert beliefs that are denied in the Articles and in the BCP.