In a previous post, I reproduced the complaint of Colin Lindsay (a former Anglican who became Catholic in the 19th century) about how Anglicanism is split over the nature of the Eucharist:
It should not be surprising, considering the history of Anglicanism, that there are other “Catholic” aspects to certain segments of the denomination. Commenting on Anglo-Catholicism, Wiliam J. Whalen noted:
In contrast to the positions of most of their Episcopalian brethren, the Anglo-Catholics stress the Catholic heritage. Anglo-Catholicism is aggressive and articulate, which may lead some Roman Catholics to overestimate its strength within the Protestant Episcopal Church . . . Anglo-Catholics emphasize the seven sacraments, the Real Presence, fast and abstinence, auricular confession, prayers and requiem Masses for the dead, retreats, invocation of the saints. They say the rosary, make the sign of the cross, genuflect, address their priests as “Father.”
The papalist Confraternity of Unity . . . is “composed of members of the Anglican communion who believe that the See of Rome is the Center of Unity for all churches . . . Members are asked to pray daily for reunion with the Holy Apostolic See.”
The Guild of All Souls promotes the celebration of requiem Masses and prayers for the dead. The American chapter of the Living Rosary of Our Lady and St. Dominic encourages Episcopalians to recite the rosary while the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ directs the attention of Anglicans to the Real Presence. (William J. Whalen, Separated Brethren: A Survey of Protestant, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox and other Denominations in the United States [rev ed.; Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 1979], 54, 55)
Such are not minor differences within the Anglian communion—whether or not the Eucharist itself is a propitiatory sacrifice; whether it is proper or not (and if not, it is idolatrous!) to pray the rosary and pray to Mary and the other saints; whether the See of Rome has a special primacy, etc are central theological tenants. Such highlights the importance of having a source of authority external to inscripturated revelation, something that Latter-day Saints and others who reject Sola Scriptura have, but Anglicans and others do not (though many Anglicans have a higher view of “tradition” than many other Protestants, it should be noted).
For a full refutation of Sola Scriptura, see:
If the name of “William Whalen” sounds familiar to readers of this blog, he authored a particularly dreadful book, The Latter-day Saints in the Modern World (rev ed.; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1967). I reviewed his arguments against the Book of Mormon in two posts: