High Anglican and Catholic Differences and Similarities

[alexsonofmatthew]

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 ?

Thank you

God bless

 

[PaladinValer]

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''.

They are not "subgroups".

One's personal Anglicanism can be best described in a double, perhaps even a triple axial expression based on two or three parameters: churchship, theological emphasis, and moral compass.

• Churchship is one's preference on liturgy and ceremony: high, broad, and low.
• Theological emphasis is one's preference on the nature of the Church without exclusion of the other: Anglo-Catholic, Middler/Latitudinarian, and Open-Evangelical.
• The third sometimes used is moral compass, which is position on moral issues: conservative, moderate, and liberal.

Thus, you can have a moderate high-church Latitudinarian or a liberal low-church Anglo-Catholic.


These aren't different "Anglicanisms" but how Anglicanism has been expressed.

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

High-church deals with churchship, not theology or morals. Since high-church enjoys use of optional rubrics, rich vestments, and an "elevated" liturgy, it can be identical or even more "traditional" than a typical Roman Catholic liturgy.

 

[Albion]

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 ?

Thank you

God bless

"High church Anglicans" favor more ceremony than Low churchmen--often more than Roman Catholics themselves engage in since the liturgical reforms of Vatican II.

And because they tend to think of themselves as a branch of the historic Catholic church (although the Roman Catholic Church doesn't return the favor), they usually are also "Anglo-Catholics." So, "High Church" refers to style; "Anglo-Catholic" to doctrine.

When a High churchman is also an Anglo-Catholic, and most are, he tends also to identify with or adopt the Roman Catholic views on certain matters such as Purgatory, prayer to the saints, seven sacraments, and a carnal view of Christ's presence in Holy Communion.

On the other hand, even Anglo-Catholics reject Papal Supremacy and Infallibility, the idea of only one denomination being "the one" that God approves of, the more extreme of the Marian dogmas familiar to Roman Catholics, Indulgences, and, in short, any doctrine that that is not held by all of the other "Catholic" churches (the Eastern Orthodox in particular).

 

[John Shrewsbury]

Don't confuse all High Church Anglicans with Anglo Catholics. Yes, some are both, but some are not.

 

[G19shooter]

"High church Anglicans" favor more ceremony than Low churchmen--often more than Roman Catholics themselves engage in since the liturgical reforms of Vatican II.

And because they tend to think of themselves as a branch of the historic Catholic church (although the Roman Catholic Church doesn't return the favor), they usually are also "Anglo-Catholics." So, "High Church" refers to style; "Anglo-Catholic" to doctrine.

When a High churchman is also an Anglo-Catholic, and most are, he tends also to identify with or adopt the Roman Catholic views on certain matters such as Purgatory, prayer to the saints, seven sacraments, and a carnal view of Christ's presence in Holy Communion.

On the other hand, even Anglo-Catholics reject Papal Supremacy and Infallibility, the idea of only one denomination being "the one" that God approves of, the more extreme of the Marian dogmas familiar to Roman Catholics, Indulgences, and, in short, any doctrine that that is not held by all of the other "Catholic" churches (the Eastern Orthodox in particular).

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[RileyG]

"High church Anglicans" favor more ceremony than Low churchmen--often more than Roman Catholics themselves engage in since the liturgical reforms of Vatican II.

And because they tend to think of themselves as a branch of the historic Catholic church (although the Roman Catholic Church doesn't return the favor), they usually are also "Anglo-Catholics." So, "High Church" refers to style; "Anglo-Catholic" to doctrine.

When a High churchman is also an Anglo-Catholic, and most are, he tends also to identify with or adopt the Roman Catholic views on certain matters such as Purgatory, prayer to the saints, seven sacraments, and a carnal view of Christ's presence in Holy Communion.

On the other hand, even Anglo-Catholics reject Papal Supremacy and Infallibility, the idea of only one denomination being "the one" that God approves of, the more extreme of the Marian dogmas familiar to Roman Catholics, Indulgences, and, in short, any doctrine that that is not held by all of the other "Catholic" churches (the Eastern Orthodox in particular).

Can you please explain what you mean in bold?

Thanks

 

[RileyG]

Don't confuse all High Church Anglicans with Anglo Catholics. Yes, some are both, but some are not.

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

I need to re-read the thread.

 

[Albion]

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

I need to re-read the thread.

Maybe so. Several of us explained that point.

 

[RileyG]

Maybe so. Several of us explained that point.

I just re-read your first two paragraphs and now it made more sense. Silly me.

So basically High Church Anglicans favor a "higher" Liturgy, and Anglo-Catholics adopt some (obviously not papal doctrines) RCC doctrines?

Correct?

 

[Albion]

Can you please explain what you mean in bold?

Thanks

Although there are a variety of beliefs about the nature of the Eucharist held among Anglicans, the "official" view is that Christ is really present but in a spiritual or heavenly manner. As you no doubt are aware, the Roman Catholic teaching is of "Transubstantiation," which postulates that the bread and wine are converted into Christ's very body and blood--his literal, physical body and blood--all the while the elements continue to appear, taste, smell, and feel like bread and wine.

 

[RileyG]

Although there are a variety of beliefs about the nature of the Eucharist held among Anglicans, the "official" view is that Christ is really present but in a spiritual or heavenly manner. As you no doubt are aware, the Roman Catholic teaching is of "Transubstantiation," which postulates that the bread and wine are converted into Christ's very body and blood, his literal, physical body and blood, all the while the elements continue to appear, taste, smell, and feel like bread and wine.

Yes....

Is what my understanding that the RCC and Anglicans almost held the same belief about the Eucharist but Anglicans just did not try to define a sacred mystery?

I would also add the RESURRECTED/Glorified Body and Blood because it's not like I am eating a finger or toe

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Albion]

I just re-read your first two paragraphs and now it made more sense. Silly me.

So basically High Church Anglicans favor a "higher" Liturgy, and Anglo-Catholics adopt some (obviously not papal doctrines) RCC doctrines?

Correct?

Basically. However, I would never say that it's a "higher liturgy." The liturgy is normally the same, taken from the same book and identical or nearly so in the wording in both cases. But High Churchmen prefer more elaborate vestments, gestures, postures and some other embellishments or options to be employed.

For a couple of quick examples, a High Church liturgy might begin with a processional featuring a lot of people. The Low Church liturgy might well see just the priest walking to the altar rail. The High Church priest would wear vestments like a Roman Catholic priest and chant some or all of the service. The Low Church priest might wear a cassock, stole, and alb only and speak all the parts. And so on.

 

[RileyG]

Basically. However, I would never say that it's a "higher liturgy." The liturgy is normally the same, taken from the same book and identical or nearly so in the wording in both cases. But High Churchmen prefer more elaborate vestments, gestures, postures and some other embellishments or options to be employed.

For a couple of quick examples, a High Church liturgy might begin with a processional featuring a lot of people. The Low Church liturgy might well see just the priest walking to the altar rail. The High Church priest would wear vestments like a Roman Catholic priest and chant some or all of the service. The Low Church priest might wear a cassock, stole, and alb only and speak all the parts. And so on.

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.

 

[Albion]

Yes....

Is what my understanding that the RCC and Anglicans almost held the same belief about the Eucharist but Anglicans just did not try to define a sacred mystery?

I think that's true but only a "quick" answer. Obviously, those who believe in a spiritual, heavenly presence (as the Articles of Religion and the Prayerbook, i.e. Mass Missal, put it) are believing in something that is not narrowly definable. What is a "spiritual" presence, in other words? What exactly is a "heavenly" presence at Mass? You see what I mean.

But on the other hand, those Anglo-Catholics who believe in a physical as well as spiritual presence--and are therefore similar in belief to Roman Catholics to that extent--do not agree with Transubstantiation, which is a very specific explanation of what happens at Mass. Many would also reject the idea that the bread and wine cease to exist. So, anyway, these Anglicans--no less than their Evangelical Anglican brethren--are right to say that the Real Presence is a mystery and we are not in the business of explaining it in a mechanical way.

 

[Albion]

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.

Well, that's a very good point. It's common for Catholics to speak of High Mass (or a Pontifical Mass, in some cases) as well as Low Mass. The first has a lot of ceremony and the latter has much less, but the "bones" of the liturgy remain about the same in both cases.

 

[alexsonofmatthew]

thank you for the answers. I hope more people will share their views.

What are the theological differences between High-Anglicans and Catholics?

 

[Albion]

thank you for the answers. I hope more people will share their views.

What are the theological differences between High-Anglicans and Catholics?

It's "High Church" Anglicans, alex.

Anyway, isn't this the same question you asked us in the OP ("What are the differences and similarities between High Anglican and Catholic beliefs")?

And, as Paladin Valer, John Shrewsbury, and I explained, High Church means elevated ceremony, not theology/doctrine.

We'll be happy to reply, but maybe you should reread posts 3 and 10 and clarify what additional matters you are interested in.

 

[PaladinValer]

thank you for the answers. I hope more people will share their views.

What are the theological differences between High-Anglicans and Catholics?

Please reread my reply.

 

[mark46]

But on the other hand, those Anglo-Catholics who believe in a physical as well as spiritual presence--and are therefore similar in belief to Roman Catholics to that extent--do not agree with Transubstantiation, which is a very specific explanation of what happens at Mass. Many would also reject the idea that the bread and wine cease to exist. So, anyway, these Anglicans--no less than their Evangelical Anglican brethren--are right to say that the Real Presence is a mystery and we are not in the business of explaining it in a mechanical way.

This is well-stated.

I just wanted to emphasize that Real Presence is a mystery (the Greek word translated into the Latin sacrament), as it is for Orthodox and for Methodists. We understand that we receive the body and blood of Jesus.

There is little need for explanation of the mechanics. I'm not even sure how important it is to understand whether the bread is still there. What we know is that Jesus is truly there.

 

[FireDragon76]

There's a minority of Anglicans that do not believe the Real Presence, or they reinterpret the concept in such a radically subjective way as to be very much at odds with Roman Catholic sentiments. Sydney Anglicans would be a classic example. But on the whole, I do not believe there's a lot of difference between the RC and Anglicans on this issue.

I've read some of the early Anglican Eucharistic theology. It's just not clear at all whether they were in substantial agreement with modern Roman Catholics, or not. They clearly were reacting to perceived carnal views of the Eucharist, but beyond that it's hard to say. Thomas Cranmer, much like Luther, was not a really systematic theologian on this subject, or many others (he was crazy about Predestination, though, as were many theologians at the time).

Huge amounts of ink and vitriol have been spilled among Protestants about the nature of the Eucharist. It's ironic that a sacrament that is supposed to make us all one has been such a battleground. I believe its due to the Western tendency to want to explain, reduce, or deconstruct. Even Roman Catholics did this to some extent with the very concept of transubstantiation.