A challenge to Anglicans who believe this.

[Contarini]

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.

Just because sixteenth-century people thought St. Joseph of Arimathea came to Britain doesn’t mean that he did.

There needs to be a name for the fallacy you’re committing: something like “the fallacy of contrary bias.” I.e., you assume that if you can find some Catholic somewhere who made a claim contrary to the argument made by Catholics here, then you have disproved their position. You haven’t. What matters is the evidence, not whether Catholics may have thought something to be true that goes against their bias.

Whether the first British Christians came directly from the East, or from Rome or Gaul, is impossible to determine at this point. And I can’t see that it’s important.

Certainly the See of Canterbury was founded (after the Saxon invasions, which destroyed Romano-British civilization in much of what is now England) as a mission from Rome. That cannot be denied. Again, whether it is of huge significance in Anglican-Catholic debate I doubt, except that we Anglicans certainly owe honor to Rome as the mother Church of our own primatial See.

Edwin

 

[nonjuror]

Just because sixteenth-century people thought St. Joseph of Arimathea came to Britain doesn’t mean that he did.

There needs to be a name for the fallacy you’re committing: something like “the fallacy of contrary bias.” I.e., you assume that if you can find some Catholic somewhere who made a claim contrary to the argument made by Catholics here, then you have disproved their position. You haven’t. What matters is the evidence, not whether Catholics may have thought something to be true that goes against their bias.

Whether the first British Christians came directly from the East, or from Rome or Gaul, is impossible to determine at this point. And I can’t see that it’s important.

Certainly the See of Canterbury was founded (after the Saxon invasions, which destroyed Romano-British civilization in much of what is now England) as a mission from Rome. That cannot be denied. Again, whether it is of huge significance in Anglican-Catholic debate I doubt, except that we Anglicans certainly owe honor to Rome as the mother Church of our own primatial See.

Edwin

========================================================== **Anglicans certainly owe honour to Rome as the mother Church of our own primatial See.
**
That is a matter of history and my reading of it challenges yours. We owe respect and understanding to all our fellow Christians whether Catholic or Protestant, but just what we owe to Rome beyond that is still being discussed. As far as I can see the jury is still out!

Regarding S.Joseph of Arimathea?

The reason for quoting Romanist sources is simply to show that Romans as well as Anglicans believed in the presence of the early Church in this country. British Bishops were present at the Early Councils, Nice, Sardica and Arles. This showed that the Church in Britain was no hole and corner affair but a body that took its place in the life of the Church and was involved in formulating the basic teaching of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

There is I should think,however, as much support in Catholic Tradition for the presence of Arimathea in Britain as there is for Peter in Rome!
But that isn’t the point, the question being, was the Church in Britain in the early years a free and independent member of The Body of Christ? Independent and free standing and orthodox holding the Faith once revealed, or was it tied to a heresy?

By the way, the fact that Rome is the See of the Patriarch of the West is the gift of the Church there’s nothing in scripture, history or tradition that places it at Romes feet.

 

[GKC]

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

**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!

Man. Leave town for 5 days, and this place catches fire.

The Supreme Head Act of 1534 did not include the restraining language “as far as the law of God alllows”. That compromising wording had been in the 1531 response of the Clergy to Henry’s accuasation of a breach of Praemunire.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[GKC]

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.

Not exactly. If that had been the case, the Anglican bishops would be considered illicit, not invalid. The logic behind the labelling of Anglican orders as null and void is found in the 1896 Bull of Leo XIII Apostolicae Curae, and is based, not on Henry’s assuming the “headship” of the Church in England (which is mwerely a casue for a judgement of schism), but on the supposed deficiency of form in the Edwardine Ordinal, and a deficiency of intent on the part of those who composed it, and used it in the consecration of Archbishop Parker, in 1559.

It’s a long a sad story. I’ve been discussing it around here somewhere.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[GKC]

I don’t think so. My church broke from TEC and joined with the Diocese of Uganda which is led by Archbishop Orombi who was a member of GAFCON along with Archbishop Venibles from the Southern Cone Diocese of South America. We have heard much from other conservative Bishops in the Anglican Communion over the past year or so but never one time have I ever heard it spoken that there are dialogues surfacing that are concerning uniting Anglicans with Rome.

Not all Anglican, or even all traditionally minded Anglicans. He means specifically the group known as the Traditional Anglican Communion, under Archbishop Hepworth. In the US, it’s the Anglican Church in America. Now, it is, anyway.

GKC

 

[nonjuror]

Man. Leave town for 5 days, and this place catches fire.

The Supreme Head Act of 1534 did not include the restraining language “as far as the law of God alllows”. That compromising wording had been in the 1531 response of the Clergy to Henry’s accuasation of a breach of Praemunire.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

I thank you for correcting my mistake. The fact remains
Henry was supreme head only as far ,“as the law of Christ
will allow,” and this by the English Church’s permission.
Interestingly was there any such restriction in the papal states do you think? It is as well to remember that the various popes also were head of states!

 

[GKC]

I thank you for correcting my mistake. The fact remains
Henry was supreme head only as far ,“as the law of Christ
will allow,” and this by the English Church’s permission.
Interestingly was there any such restriction in the papal states do you think? It is as well to remember that the various popes also were head of states!

The omission of the words from the Supreme Head Act was significant. When Henry brought action against the clergy, under
the Act of Praemunire, he allowed them to escape the proscribed punishment by paying a fine of 100,000 pounds, and acknowledging him as “Protector and Supreme Head of the English Church and clergy” The fine was no particular problem, but the other was, for them. Rewording that to say Henry was the “Singular Protector, only and supreme Lord, and, as far as the law of Christ allows, even Supreme Head”, was both a carefully worded face-saving compromise and an attempt to save their own principles. It angered Henry, but he let it pass, for the time. When the formal Surpreme Head Act was written the caveat was not included. No escape clause. Permission was not what the English Church had given, in 1531 or 1534. They had no choice, either time.

Obviously, whatever was the wording or the fact, both the Church, and Henry, and the Papacy, in its own system, assumed that whatever authority was held by anyone, in any realm, was true and legitimate only “as far as the law of Christ allowed”. But the Papacy and Henry had different ideas of how far that was. In Rome’s eyes, the Pope had that authority, and the law of Christ allowed it to be absolute over the universal Church, and there was no question about it. Henry said the law allowed him to hold that position, within the Church in England.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

========================================================== **Anglicans certainly owe honour to Rome as the mother Church of our own primatial See.
**
That is a matter of history and my reading of it challenges yours. We owe respect and understanding to all our fellow Christians whether Catholic or Protestant, but just what we owe to Rome beyond that is still being discussed. As far as I can see the jury is still out!

If you think that my very mild statement is controversial, then I think you need to see further. I agree that beyond what I said there’s room for a lot of disagreement. But clearly we owe Rome the same sort of honor that, for instance, Moscow owes Constantinople (which if you follow Orthodox church politics is not very much). It shouldn’t be controversial that when one church sends missionaries to found another, that church owes a certain honor and respect to the mother church. That’s the way Christians have always thought. If you care about traditional ways of thinking at all, this should be a no-brainer. (And if you don’t, why on earth are you resurrecting medieval legends about St. Joseph of Arimathea?)

Regarding S.Joseph of Arimathea?

The reason for quoting Romanist sources is simply to show that Romans as well as Anglicans believed in the presence of the early Church in this country.

Right. And there is no controversy about this–no one thinks that Christianity first came to Britain with St. Augustine. However, the legend of St. Joseph coming to Britain does not go back beyond the 9th century as far as I know, and is not a solid foundation for a historical argument, no matter what people of any confessional allegiance in the 16th century believed.

There is I should think,however, as much support in Catholic Tradition for the presence of Arimathea in Britain as there is for Peter in Rome!

That is a completely untenable claim. According to Wikipedia, the Carolingian theologian Rabanus Maurus says that Joseph of Arimathea went to Britain. The passage quoted in the Wikipedia article does not mention Britain, and Wikipedia doesn’t claim that the Glastonbury legend occurs in Rabanus. The more common claim I’ve heard (see the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, for instance) is that the legend originated in a 13th-century addition to the 12th-century historian William of Malmesbury’s history of the church at Glastonbury. But let’s say it goes back to the 9th century. That’s in contrast to second-century claims of Peter’s presence in Rome, generally (though not universally) accepted by historians (while the Arimathea legend is universally rejected by modern historians as far as I know). There’s no comparison here. I would love to think that the Arimathea legend is true, and I keep my mind open to the possibility. But there’s no solid historical basis for the story. There is on the other hand plenty of reason to think that St. Peter was martyred in Rome, if you have any confidence in Irenaeus and other early Fathers.

But that isn’t the point, the question being, was the Church in Britain in the early years a free and independent member of The Body of Christ?

The phrase “independent member of the Body of Christ” is a heretical oxymoron.

Independent and free standing and orthodox holding the Faith once revealed, or was it tied to a heresy?

I’m not sure what you mean by that. Pelagius came from Britain, but I don’t think anyone claims that the British Church as a whole was Pelagian. The 16th-century concept of independent national churches is heretical (and idolatrous), but I know of no evidence that anyone in the early Church believed it–certainly not anyone in Britain!

By the way, the fact that Rome is the See of the Patriarch of the West is the gift of the Church there’s nothing in scripture, history or tradition that places it at Romes feet.

There is a very ancient tradition saying that Sts. Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome, and the tradition of the Church uniformly links apostles (and other saints) to the cities where they were martyred.

Edwin

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I thank you for correcting my mistake. The fact remains
Henry was supreme head only as far ,“as the law of Christ
will allow,” and this by the English Church’s permission.

Actually, Parliament.

Interestingly was there any such restriction in the papal states do you think? It is as well to remember that the various popes also were head of states!

Including the present one.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

If you think that my very mild statement is controversial, then I think you need to see further. I agree that beyond what I said there’s room for a lot of disagreement. But clearly we owe Rome the same sort of honor that, for instance, Moscow owes Constantinople (which if you follow Orthodox church politics is not very much). It shouldn’t be controversial that when one church sends missionaries to found another, that church owes a certain honor and respect to the mother church.

Honor and respect. But not to be treated like a child in perpetuity.
As we Arabs say “when your son grows up, treat him like a brother.”

The phrase “independent member of the Body of Christ” is a heretical oxymoron.

LOL. It makes the Church of Christ sound like its epileptic.

I’m not sure what you mean by that. Pelagius came from Britain, but I don’t think anyone claims that the British Church as a whole was Pelagian.

I have seen this used as a device to separate the Celtic Church from Rome, and Orthodox Christianity.

The 16th-century concept of independent national churches is heretical (and idolatrous), but I know of no evidence that anyone in the early Church believed it–certainly not anyone in Britain!

No, but the canons specify that the ranking of sees follows the secular order, and that is what we see (except for Jerusalem) in the early Church.

 

[nonjuror]

The omission of the words from the Supreme Head Act was significant. When Henry brought action against the clergy, under
the Act of Praemunire, he allowed them to escape the proscribed punishment by paying a fine of 100,000 pounds, and acknowledging him as “Protector and Supreme Head of the English Church and clergy” The fine was no particular problem, but the other was, for them. Rewording that to say Henry was the “Singular Protector, only and supreme Lord, and, as far as the law of Christ allows, even Supreme Head”, was both a carefully worded face-saving compromise and an attempt to save their own principles. It angered Henry, but he let it pass, for the time. When the formal Surpreme Head Act was written the caveat was not included. No escape clause. Permission was not what the English Church had given, in 1531 or 1534. They had no choice, either time.

Obviously, whatever was the wording or the fact, both the Church, and Henry, and the Papacy, in its own system, assumed that whatever authority was held by anyone, in any realm, was true and legitimate only “as far as the law of Christ allowed”. But the Papacy and Henry had different ideas of how far that was. In Rome’s eyes, the Pope had that authority, and the law of Christ allowed it to be absolute over the universal Church, and there was no question about it. Henry said the law allowed him to hold that position, within the Church in England.​

According to my sources, Moorman,plus Wakeman and finally Collier, Henry was acknowledged as,

“Singular Protector, only and Supreme Lord and as far as the Law of Christ allows,even Supreme Head.”

I do not consider that this does anything other than confirm the status quo in every other monarchy in Europe including the Papal States.

GKC

 

[Howman]

One Thing about the Celtic Church pre St Augistine is the Fact that the Celts who became Christian received thier region from Romans who were Christian. In a nutshell they became Roman Catholics!!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

One Thing about the Celtic Church pre St Augistine is the Fact that the Celts who became Christian received thier region from Romans who were Christian. In a nutshell they became Roman Catholics!!

Only problem.
At the time, those Romans didn’t come from Rome.

 

[SIA]

One Thing about the Celtic Church pre St Augistine is the Fact that the Celts who became Christian received thier region from Romans who were Christian. In a nutshell they became Roman Catholics!!

I don’t think so.

 

[GKC]

nonjuror:
I use Moorman and Wakeman, inter alia, too. You are reading it incorrectly. Such language was only in the submission of the clergy to the accusation of violation of the Acts of Praemunire, as they replied to the charge in 1531. See Moorman, ps. 166 and 168.

No, the Pope’s claim was of a different order than any secular rulers.

Remember, I’m an Anglican

GKC

 

[nonjuror]

If you think that my very mild statement is controversial, then I think you need to see further. I agree that beyond what I said there’s room for a lot of disagreement. But clearly we owe Rome the same sort of honor that, for instance, Moscow owes Constantinople (which if you follow Orthodox church politics is not very much). It shouldn’t be controversial that when one church sends missionaries to found another, that church owes a certain honor and respect to the mother church. That’s the way Christians have always thought. If you care about traditional ways of thinking at all, this should be a no-brainer. (And if you don’t, why on earth are you resurrecting medieval legends about St. Joseph of Arimathea?)

Right. And there is no controversy about this–no one thinks that Christianity first came to Britain with St. Augustine. However, the legend of St. Joseph coming to Britain does not go back beyond the 9th century as far as I know, and is not a solid foundation for a historical argument, no matter what people of any confessional allegiance in the 16th century believed.

That is a completely untenable claim. According to Wikipedia, the Carolingian theologian Rabanus Maurus says that Joseph of Arimathea went to Britain. The passage quoted in the Wikipedia article does not mention Britain, and Wikipedia doesn’t claim that the Glastonbury legend occurs in Rabanus. The more common claim I’ve heard (see the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, for instance) is that the legend originated in a 13th-century addition to the 12th-century historian William of Malmesbury’s history of the church at Glastonbury. But let’s say it goes back to the 9th century. That’s in contrast to second-century claims of Peter’s presence in Rome, generally (though not universally) accepted by historians (while the Arimathea legend is universally rejected by modern historians as far as I know). There’s no comparison here. I would love to think that the Arimathea legend is true, and I keep my mind open to the possibility. But there’s no solid historical basis for the story. There is on the other hand plenty of reason to think that St. Peter was martyred in Rome, if you have any confidence in Irenaeus and other early Fathers.

The phrase “independent member of the Body of Christ” is a heretical oxymoron.

I’m not sure what you mean by that. Pelagius came from Britain, but I don’t think anyone claims that the British Church as a whole was Pelagian. The 16th-century concept of independent national churches is heretical (and idolatrous), but I know of no evidence that anyone in the early Church believed it–certainly not anyone in Britain!

There is a very ancient tradition saying that Sts. Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome, and the tradition of the Church uniformly links apostles (and other saints) to the cities where they were martyred.

Edwin

===============================================Regarding Rome and honour due to her!

Anglicans, owe to the Bishop of Rome all respect due to a Successor of the Apostles. We owe him also the respect due to to the Patriarch of the West. But, in this latter honour we have to remember that the title,is not organic as it were, but was given by the Church! We have to remember the undoubted efforts made by Rome in such matters as evangelisation and spreading the faith. But there is a down turn to all this, Rome is the origin of the biggest and longest schism in Catholic History. The whole of the ,“Seamless Garment of Christ” (Mulvany) has , been rent asunder by the collective pride of the papacy and its supporters.
The Catholic Faith in this country has been under assault from the time of the Reformation by the supporters of Rome. The defence of both the Church and Faith has been weakened by the defection of the Donatists at the time of Elizabeth.
I have every unfettered respect for my Orthodox bretheren.For Rome it needs to be thought over.
It needs thinking about.

I explained why the matter of S.Joseph of Arimathea came in to the act, if you do not wish to accept it, I do not mind, the choice is yours! I have to say that I am not going to be side tracked in to byways however and I will not be addressing the matter of this subject (Arimathea,) again.

Regarding Wiki? There are three units I do not use in my discussions 1. Wikipedia. 2. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.3,The Catholic Encyclopedia. All of which I believe to be on the educational level of ,'Billy’s Weekly Liar

 

[nonjuror]

I use Moorman and Wakeman, inter alia, too. You are reading it incorrectly. Such language was only in the submission of the clergy to the accusation of violation of the Acts of Praemunire, as they replied to the charge in 1531. See Moorman, ps. 166 and 168.

No, the Pope’s claim was of a different order than any secular rulers.

Remember, I’m an Anglican.​

I have twice made the statement, once with an apology.

I know at what time the word was written down, it doesn’t make a slight bit of difference to my mind.
The fact remains that The Clergy in Convocation made the statement and as far as I understand it still sticks.

You should get hold of Collier’s Book. He was Primus of the Non juror’s.

GKC

 

[Howman]

Only problem.
At the time, those Romans didn’t come from Rome.

From St Peter on there has been a Pope who was Head on Earth of the Catholic Church. It may not have been someone send by the Pope at the time who converted the Celts to Christianity but His authority was there in that it was the heirachary of the same Church.
There can be only One Church which was Started by Jesus Christ.
At present there is about 37000 different protestant churches around the world. If you cannot say that the church you belong to is not the One True Church then you are in the Wrong Church

 

[GKC]

nonjuror:
I would love to get Collier’s book, as I love to get any book. It’s been my hobby for 50 years What’s the title? I’ll give it a shot.

The Clergy, in Convocation, made the statement as an attempt to mitigate what Henry demanded they do, in 1531. Parliament, in the Act in 1534, as the representatives of Henry, (the only power which mattered), made sure that this small verbal scruple was not made a part of the law of the land, as noted in Moorman loc cit. Thus, history. Henry was the Supreme Head not from any act of Convocation, but from Act of Parliament (as Elizabeth became Supreme Governor, as the monarch now remains), and as described by that Act, with let or hinderance. Save, of course, as I stated, that anyone would say that their policy was legitmate and true, as far as it conformed to the law of God.

GKC

 

[Suudy]

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

I don’t understand this point of view. Must I accept Anglican bishops as having the same authority as Catholic bishops, or otherwise be unkind? Certainly, Anglican bishops are bishops in their own sense, using their own orders. But there is disagreement whether they can also be considered bishops in the Catholic sense.

As outlined in this article, there is evidence “that the Holy See judged these [Anglican] orders to be invalid”.

It is not unkind to disagree. And stating that one thinks Anglicans do not have the same authentic orders as Catholics, is not unkind.