A challenge to Anglicans who believe this.

[Isa_Almisry]

I never said Augustine was surprised or that Rome was. The facts are that Rome(the empire, not the church) had abandoned the whole area because they just couldn’t maintain it. There was a period with no roman rule at all there. Yes, the Germanic tribes were still pagan at the time, but from the way I understand it, they were left alone for a reason instead of forced to become Christian through power, which is how the Roman church tended to do things at the time. The empire conquers a people, the church converts them.

That gets away from the original topic though, which is basically when the Anglican church began. My opinion, which I should have stated clearly before is that it began way before Augustine stepped foot there.

That’s only if you see some continuity between the Celtic Church and the Anglicans, which I would think would interest the Irish.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Book of Common Prayer of Thomas Cranmer and the 39 Articles of Faith of Queen Elizabeth I change the Faith’s essence in it’s teaching, which the Church cannot do.

But the Act of Supremacy had already created the Anglican Church before then. Cranmer was ordained by the hands of the Vatican as the successor of Augustine at Cantebury, as the Vatican proclaimed Henry “Defensor Fidei.”

The Sacred Deposit of the Faith is taught by our Lord through the Church’s teaching authority - the Holy Father in union with the Bishops.

Well that Holy Father made Cranmer bishop of Cantebury, just as it sent Augustine to the exclusion of the Celtic Church.

The Church of England called Purgatory a “Romish doctrine… vainly invented.”

Wasnt’ a dogma at the time of Augustine.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

How did the Celtics become Christian in the first place? …perhaps because of their earlier conversion by the Catholic Church?

Yes, both Latin -and Coptic!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

SIA, I have been reading many of your posts. I write this without any sarcasm. I respect you. You are like a prize fighter who keeps getting knocked down and keeps getting up again.

You are in my prayers that you will realize that this is a fight that you don’t need to be in. (The fact that you stick around here gives me hope that the Holy Spirit is keeping you here)

Don’t you think that the missionaries came from Rome?

Actually Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria sent a few.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y103/nicanfhilidh/LarryBird.jpg

And they totally dominated basketball until those dang Romans started swarming all over the place with their newfangled Nike shoes!

(pssst. It’s Celts, pronounced with a hard ‘c’. It is not Celtics as in the Boston NBA team or the Scottish football team.)

Then either a) Speak classical Latin, or b) spell it Kelt.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Rome.

Actually among them were Egyptians. And there were Christians there while it was part of the Empire: Constantine’s Father was proclaimed emperor in Britain, and he came from the Balkans, were a lot of the army corps was coming from, and which was already very Christian.

 

[TLara]

I agree, but I do not believe that the ONE church is solely the RCC of today. I do not believe that the ONE church is the Anglican Communion alone either.

of course you don’t becouse if you did you would be one with them. For you to be where you are, you have to adhere to the thinking that, there is no visible church.

 

[SIA]

of course you don’t becouse if you did you would be one with them. For you to be where you are, you have to adhere to the thinking that, there is no visible church.

I am an Anglican who believe that Christ’s people can be found in many churches including the Roman Catholic church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

They came largely from Roman nobility who resided in Britain during Roman occupation.

Of course, that wouldn’t have been the only source of mission work to Britain.

Rome ruled and occupied Britain for several hundred years from the time of Claudius on. It is possible that Christianity came to Britain via multiple routes, but since Britain was part of the Roman Empire, and Christianity was popular among Roman soliders from about the second century on, it is highly likely (and AFAIK, generally accepted) that the spread of Christianity in Britain was largely due to the Roman occupation. The Celts did retain their own culture and that included the development of their own expression of Christianity.

I think what these knee-jerk anti-Catholic people like SIA get hung up on is the idea of the Roman church having absolute control over places like Britain in ancient times. But, it isn’t an all-or-nothing proposition, you see. If Christianity came to Britain from Rome, it still doesn’t necessarily follow that Rome had a lot of power over British Christianity or that Rome was responsible for the development of the unique expression of Christianity in Britain. It’s only the people consumed with hate for anything “Catholic” that can’t conceive of any good coming from “Rome.”

I agree with your sentiments here, generally. Good points. I think generally what people forget is that Rome essentially ruled the world at this point in history. It’s only logical that the largest number of missionaries would’ve been from that region.

It might be useful to bring up the fact at this time Roman didn’t mean from the city of Rome, but a member of the empire. At the time the bulk of the “Roman” army was from the Balkans.

This has been discussed on this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=257771

 

[Isa_Almisry]

It may be that Joseph of Arimathea went to Britain. If memory serves me correctly, however, that is one of the “truths” that Dan Brown of the DaVinci Code and the book Holy Blood Holy Grail pushed. That in itself makes me somewhat skeptical. However, I am by no means an expert…

The legend of St. Joseph predates Dan Brown: I can attest that from personal memory (that it was discussed decades before Dan Brown’s book that is ). So have no fear.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The problem is that you are defining “the Church of England” as “a body not in union with Rome.” To many Anglicans, this seems like an incidental characteristic of the Church of England for the past five centuries.

One of the most misleading ideas Catholics have about non-Catholics is that we are all obsessed with being non-Catholic–i.e., not in communion with Rome. This is true of fundamentalists and of some ultra-conservative confessional Protestants. Since these are the Protestants most likely to behave obnoxiously to Catholics, and since conversions to Catholicism also tend to come disproportionately from those sections of Protestantism (and when they come from other sections, they by definition involve a period of deep concern with the question of union with Rome), it’s understandable that Catholics on boards like this would believe this. But it simply isn’t true. Most Protestants, and certainly most Anglicans, don’t see their relationship to the See of Rome (or lack thereof) as key to their identity.

The plain historical fact is that the See of Canterbury was founded by St. Augustine, and that the current Archbishop is the successor of St. Augustine. For Christians in communion with Rome, it’s natural to see the break with Rome as marking a radical break in the identity of Christians associated with the See of Canterbury. For Anglicans this is less significant. Anglicans believe that after the break with Rome, as before it, the Church of England was part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Edwin

A perceptive analysis.

If Queen Elizabeth and Archbishop Rowan submitted to Rome tommorrow, and Parliament agreed (England IS an example of Caesaropapism), Rowan would still be the successor of Augustine, just perhaps with a cardinal’s hat. He wouldn’t be the successor of Newman. For one thing, by British law, all non-Anglican bishops cannot have historic Sees in the British Isles, only Anglicans can (the Cardinal for England, for instance, is the bishop of Westminster, NOT London or Cantebury).

For those who have submitted to the Vatican, they claim their Apostolic succession from before the submission. For instance in Antioch, the Melkite Patriarch Gregory III claimes to be the 172nd Melkite Patriarch
angelfire.com/ex/st.joseph/patriarchate.html
The Syriac Patriarch in Antioch under the Vatican made a similar claim (he’s retired now). The Maronite Patriarch of Antioch Nasrallah Boutros (Peter) makes a similar claim, along with the claim that it has never been out of communion with Rome (history shows otherwise).

Since the issue of union with Rome was part of the OP, I’ll point out that all of the above (and the Eastern Orthodox Ignatius IV and the Syriac Orthodox Ignatius Iyas) claim to succeed St. Melitius Patriarch of Antioch, and not his rival Paulinus, whom Rome recognzied (and ordained St. Jerome). That line died out. This is not a problem for the Vatican’s version only in Antioch: St. John Chrysostom of Constantinople and St. Basil of Cappodicia received ordination from St. Meletius and remained in communion with him, and St. Gregory Nazianzus of Constantinople had St. Meletius convene Constantinople I: so the Creed was written by a “schismatic” council. But I digress.

Of course the problem with the Anglican view that “the Church of England was part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” is that after the Act of Supremacy it was not in communion with Rome, did not return into communion with Constinonple, Alexandria, Antioch or Jerusalem (nor Moscow, etc.) and was not even in communion with the Church of Sweden (the only other one in the West to claim Apostolic succession). So it was in essence, in communion with itself, which is not very Catholic.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I have attended eucharist at several Episcopal churches…and one thing that struck me was they prayed for their bishops including the bishop of Rome. I, in my very limited understanding of such things, saw a continuity between the Anglican communion and Rome…even though Rome may not have believed it to be there…they were still praying for all bishops, including the bishop of Rome.

That would be a new thing, praying for the bishop of Rome (did they say that?). In another day it could have gotten them drawn and quartered.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You certainly will not find this kind of genuine kindness from Catholics. They don’t even believe that Episcopalian bishops are even bishops.

that’s not an issue of kindness.

The issue is who you are in communion with. And if the Apostolic succession has been maintained. Better the ugliest truth than the lovliest lie.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

TLara;4121457:

There are many Catholics who care deeply about the Anglican Commune. I may have not been so nice towards my views of the Anglican Church, but those views have nothing to do with the Christian who make up the commune. At my Church there is a group of us who pray constantly for the union of the Anglican Church and Rome. QUOTE]

Their LEADERS had their chance long before and during the Lambeth conference when Rome asked them to decide- Catholics or Protestants? They blew it!
Not only the approval by the CofE to consecrate women bishops made the road towards unity become impossible but that also affirmed the position of the RCC regarding the validity of the Anglican Orders.
No matter how much we try we cannot mix Catholicism and Protestantism and have unity, mix truths and untruths and have peace of mind. It is difficult but we must accept it- the Holy Spirit will not allow that to happen.
Their LEADERS can only make ‘counterfeit truths’ with the true Catholicism as their model so they can deceive many.
Pray for the innocent souls….too many are misled!

I have to say I was just thinking about this, from the Orthodox perspective. I think any talk of applying economia towards Anglican Orders should be buried. Any validation of transmission through what the Anglican episcopacy has become would be a scandal that the Orthodox could not take. The time for akirvi, vigor and exactness, I’m afraid Lambuth has forced on us.

 

[nonjuror]

The Catholic Church doesn’t recognize them as Bishops because Henry the VIII, as has been discussed, promoted himself as head of the Church of England. The Church of England went on to incorporate Protestant beliefs in the ‘Low Church’, or evangelical tradition which includes the Consubstantative/Lutheran definition regarding Holy Communion. Add to that the modern errors of the acceptance of contraception, women priests, a practicing homosexual bishop (Gene Robinson) and you get a church which John Henry Cardinal Newman, as an Anglican before his conversion, would have wept over if such modern errors existed in his time. I therefore don’t believe lying is ‘genuine’ - ‘diplomatic’ perhaps, but not based on the truth. The Traditional Anglican Communion would agree with me, which is why they are regarded as a schism by mainstream Anglicans, and why they are in serious dialogue with Pope Benedict.

===============================================

**Henry the V111 promoted himself as the Head of the Church?

**

Henry was allowed the title with the addition Head of the Church** so far as the Law of God allows!**
You missed an important bit out friend!
And are you sure that Cardinal Newman would have wept over Gene Robinson? Would even Newman’s friend have wept a single tear?

Just what were the Low Church or Evangelical ideas that were incorporated in to the Church in England at the time of the Reformation, or indeed later? Do not forget that Historians claim that at the Council of Trent, where the modern Roman Church evolved from, at least a third of the Bishop delegates voted for Lutheran inspired motions at the first votes. (Kidd.)

Further, the English Church set or re-affirmed its standards of belief in 1536 when it claimed the seven ecumenical councils as the basis of our belief. This was reasserted in 1542 and 1561 as well as 1572. All this at the time of an upsurge in the Calvinist attack on the Catholic Church in England. What were the followers of the papacy doing at this time when Christ’s Body was under attack? Going in to schism and plotting a political coup against Elizabeth!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Catholic Church doesn’t recognize them as Bishops because Henry the VIII, as has been discussed, promoted himself as head of the Church of England. The Church of England went on to incorporate Protestant beliefs in the ‘Low Church’, or evangelical tradition which includes the Consubstantative/Lutheran definition regarding Holy Communion.

Actually this has nothing to do with Low Church or evangelical in the fundamentalist meaning. They recognzie no real presence. Period. Btw. the Lutheran Church of Sweden has a similar history as the Anglicans as regards the episcopacy, except the Swedes did things out in the open and so have less uncertainty about their orders (though I don’t know if either the Vatican nor the Orthodox primates have commented on them).

Add to that the modern errors of the acceptance of contraception, women priests, a practicing homosexual bishop (Gene Robinson) and you get a church which John Henry Cardinal Newman, as an Anglican before his conversion, would have wept over if such modern errors existed in his time. I therefore don’t believe lying is ‘genuine’ - ‘diplomatic’ perhaps, but not based on the truth. The Traditional Anglican Communion would agree with me, which is why they are regarded as a schism by mainstream Anglicans, and why they are in serious dialogue with Pope Benedict.

That’s the problem with the Church of England: it is forever in “serious dialogue,” including with herself.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Was this Churchmanship of British antiquity seperated from the Pope?

If you mean did it come to Britain other than via him, yes.

Did they claim independence from the Holy See?

Augustine was an imposition from Rome on Britain. But then Rome consecrated Cramner as his successor.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Henry may have retained many Catholic beliefs, however, he did undermind the Pope and thus excommunicated himself. I would argue that they became Protestant as soon as this Protestation against the Pope began. The road to officially incorporate foreign beliefs outside the Church from Protestant sources ensued from Henry’s decision on the remarriage issue against the Holy Father’s decree.

On that we are agreed, but they were not such in his lifetime that we can say they were disconnected. After all, with his daughter Mary, things were restored rather quickly. But yes, the seeds had been sown.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I am an Anglican who believe that Christ’s people can be found in many churches including the Roman Catholic church.

and where can His Church be found?

 

[nonjuror]

Regarding the question of Anglican Churchmanship!
The Faith came to Britain from the East. Robert Parsons, the Elizabethan Jesuit, who was a pain in the back of the Anglican Church and English state, said so. At least twice to my knowledge it was put to Parliament and to the Convocation by Cardinal Pole, a man who played a part in your founding Council,Trent. Polydore Virgil, a Roman Scholar 1470/1555 wrote “BRITAIN, PARTLY THROUGH JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA WAS OF ALL KINGDOMS THE FIRST THAT RECEIVED THE GOSPEL.” Alford, a most respected Romanist scholar in his book, Regia Fides, tells us ,"It is perfectly certain that before S.Paul had come to Rome Aristobulous was absent in Britain.