EmpiricalGod

Who are more alike to the Catholic church? Eastern orthodox or Anglican churches?

I know that the East churched split away from the Catholic church in like the 4th century or close to. as aposed to to the Anglican church that split away around the 16th century. It would seem the Anglican would be closer to tradition with the Cathlic church , but what do you guys think?

Is there any comparisons charts available?

Ps sorry for mistakes in the heading.

DCHindley

Anglicans are by far closer to Roman Catholics than Eastern Orthodox are.

That's partly because the "Roman Catholic" church as we know it today did not exist in the time when Eastern Orthodoxy went its own way (only because the Western Roman empire collapsed, while the Eastern Roman empire remained intact for another 500 years). Western Christianity was forced to develop with little contact with its eastern counterparts, and each tradition developed their own peculiar rites and theology.

The Anglican split, on the other hand, was from a fully developed "RC" church. I was brought up an Episcopalian and my wife is RC. Believe me, the liturgy is almost identical, and the theology is also very similar, with the exception of a certain amount of reform theology.

If you were to ask me, I'd say the Eastern Orthodox resemble evangelical protestant churches more than the RCC. They tend to be conservative in social mores, have similar preferences for translations of the bible (preferring the KJV, in spite of it being based on Hebrew and the Received Text, although now they have the NET based on the Lxx and RT, or was that the Byzantine text?), and have similar fervor for their faith.

DCH

Buck Laser

Anglicans do not believe that the communion host contains the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ, which is expressed in the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. The Anglicans call it consubstantiation. I'm not sure what the Eastern Orthodox church believes on this matter.

The Eastern Orthodox liturgy is even more ritualized than almost any RC church. The music and pageantry are awesome to behold. I'd hesitate to compare them to evangelical Christians, whose worship is so different, but I do know a Russian orthodox priest in Austin who grew up a Southern Baptist. So I guess anything can happen.

mountainman

The thread of history of everything Christian
whether Catholic, Eastern, Western, Persian,
Indian, Anglican, Gallic, African, Ethiopian,
authodox and/or unorthodox passes through
"The Wall of Swords" aka Nicaea, 325 CE.

They all come back to this one common heritage
of Constantine, and whatever he did with the
eastern empire at this "Council" of Nicaea.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Roger Pearse

Hard to say. But it's worth remembering that no-one of any importance in the Anglican church actually believes in its supposed doctrines, and, as such, the actual practice of the organisation places it far away from both the other two.

Clouseau

After centuries of friction, reconciliation, more friction and disputes, the schism of eastern and western branches of the volkskirche established by Constantine finally occurred in 1204, when the pope’s crusaders sacked Constantinople and desecrated the Hagia Sophia. There was no hope of common cause after that. The separation was partly over what may be thought an abstruse theological issue, the filioque. It was, more materially, over disputed authority of the pope. The westerns claimed the right to decide in the east, the easterns said that the papacy had always been an honorary title only. There were also linguistic differences, differences in ritual, and the issue of clerical celibacy.

At hierarchical level, despite occasional spats, the two sides still regard each other as separated 'sisters', and make overtures to each other, and there is constant talk of re-unification. The papal authority problem seems to be the main sticking point, at theological level. But when Mr Wojtyla went to Greece in 2001, he was greeted with fierce opposition from demonstrating monks, priests and the general population, the response being that the man was ‘the Antichrist’ and "as great a heretic as it is possible to be". That perspective was made for the practical, historical reasons of 1204 that did not relate to the man personally, and presumably it still applies equally to his successor. So binding the two ‘halves’ together may be one thing on paper, altogether another on the ground.

However, the theological reality is that there is more that binds the two than divides them. They both put high value on their own traditions (which are largely common), making ‘Tradition’ more or less equal with the Bible. They both assert that mankind is justified, i.e. accounted righteous, by doing good works combined with faith. Those good works involve regular consumption of what they describe as ‘the Body and Blood of Christ’ that others say is bread and wine. They both claim that there are seven sacraments, and understand them in similar ways. They both use an OT that is said by Protestants to be augmented with extra-Scriptural books- though not with the same books.

Now for the relationship of Church of England. At the Reformation, every Reformer, including Anglicans, described the Pope as the Antichrist, so there was no question of papal validity in Anglicanism, honorary or otherwise. Moreover, the Reformers declared that only the Bible, the Bible that contained only the Hebrew OT at that, was to be used as final authority in spiritual matters, and that the rulings of councils and individuals were subordinate, and to be tested against the Bible. The CoE recognised only two sacraments, and those in a different sense from the view of ‘tradition’ churches. But the main Protestant creed of the time was sola fide; that the RCC was in grave error in stating that by works man could be justified. This belief in effect made priests redundant, because, simply by believing, the sinner was accounted as righteous as Christ himself, and had no need or desire for a human mediator. There was no need for ‘the Body and Blood of Christ’ that could be said to be merely bread and wine, dispensed exclusively by priests appointed by the state.

The CoE adopted the two main Reformation planks of sola fide and sola Scriptura, and incorporated them into their Articles of Faith. Rejection of papal authority had already been achieved by Henry VIII. However, the English government was still very much in control, as the ‘episcopal’ model of church polity of the Roman and Greek ‘heretics’ was perpetuated without much consideration of alternatives such as presbyterianism. James I declared, ‘No bishops, no king,” and he fully intended to control the populace via his own bishops.

So while both Lutheranism and Anglicanism firmly stated rejection of the ‘repugnant’ belief in transubstantiation, they retained a rather uncertain, though essential role for the bread and wine that could still be dispensed by government approved priests only.

So, on one level, the CoE is radically different from both Rome and the eastern bodies. However, there were many in England and Scotland and indeed in Germany who were to feel it was a case of ‘plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose’. In time, the English ‘non-conformist’ movement was to break down the rigid structures of the Tudors and Stuarts. Though even today, some are unsure how much progress has been made; house groups and independents are the growth area, at any rate.

The CoE today still bears the volkskirche hallmark and legacy of Constantine, being both established and attempting to be as inclusive as possible in a democratic age, under threat of disappearing altogether. What seems certain is that it will be evangelicals, those who still state faith in sola fide and sola Scriptura, who will save it, if any do, as it is they who make the greatest financial contribution. So, pragmatically, the old CoE may be said to be more like Methodism than either of the older Constantinian bodies. Others would say that there is little to choose between any of them.

Ray Moscow

The liturgy and ceremonies in the Anglican church are very close to the Catholic church, but theologically the two are pretty different.

The services in the Orthodox churches seem quite different to me -- much longer, for example.

Ray (former Anglican)

Ray Moscow

To pick out just one of Clouseau's many assertions above: this is not correct. The Anglican communion, including the COE, recognise seven sacraments, as do the Catholics. The difference is that the Anglicans say there are only two "essential" sacraments -- i.e., those commanded by Christ in the Bible -- baptism and Eucharist.

Ray

Clouseau

'Article XXV. Of the Sacraments.

... There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.'

Ray Moscow

Yes, I know the 39 articles. But that's not the current Anglican theology.