A challenge to Anglicans who believe this.

[mercygate]

Hmm. There was much to do about the politics of the situation giving rise to King Henry VIII, but the creation of the Anglican church by Henry? I don’t think so. The Celtics were there long before Roman missionaries came. This should say something very prominent to the subject.

But they don’t. The testimony of the supposedly flourishing pre-Roman Church in Britain is largely the fantasy of the New Age. Much of the Christian remnant Augustine discovered was undoubtedly descended from Roman Soldiers.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

But they don’t. The testimony of the supposedly flourishing pre-Roman Church in Britain is largely the fantasy of the New Age. Much of the Christian remnant Augustine discovered was undoubtedly descended from Roman Soldiers.

…not from Rome.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t understand this point of view.

I don’t either. It has nothing to do with kindness. Obviously there are kind and unkind ways of stating the Catholic position. But the position itself is neither kind or unkind. The question is whether it is true or false.

Edwin

 

[ibkc]

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

Coming in a few days late on this, but … this is a really ridiculous argument. ‘Celt’ is pronounced with a hard ‘c’. Period. Part of this is the fact that the soft ‘c’ is rare or nonexistent in Celtic languages - it doesn’t exist in the Irish or Scots Gaelic languages, or Manx - the other part is that the Celts entered history via ancient Greek references to the Keltoi, which should give us a clue as to how the word is properly pronounced. Calling the ancient European tribes the “Seltics” is nothing less than flat-footed ignorance.

 

[nonjuror]

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.
**A

=================================================
Which might even be true, the trouble is it isn’t mentioned in Holy Scripture or the Holy Tradition and it certainly not proved by anyone on this board.( If wishes were currency I’d be a millionaire.) The question of S.Peter even being in Rome has a question mark over it?. I believe he was there, but that is because Holy Tradition tells me so. But the base line is scripture and tradition. Further the Holy Fathers do not mention it either at least if you teach The Consensus of the Fathers, as Lerins teaches us. So where does it come from?

Head of the Catholic Church?
If I had to put money on the matter, I would put mine on James, the Bishop of Jerusalem! At least he is the scriptural spokesman at the Jerusalem Council and it is the Councils that are the Magisterium for the Catholic Church and at this point we have James saying , “It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us”, Not a peep about Peter. This gives me the impression that the Head of the Catholic Church on earth at that time was James of Jerusalem.

As for the initial authority in Britain? Again the received opinion is for it to stem from that part of the Church we now refer to as the Orthodox or the East.

It was at Whitby, that the Catholic Church in Britain got involved with Rome, or the Latin Church as the Anglo Catholics do say! Somewhat later we accepted a Greek Christian as the Archbishop of Canterbury. As late as William the Usurper it would seem that the Bishops were anti-Roman, history tells us that the pope financed William and that is why he in turn got rid of orthodox Bishops and substituted Latin ones.

 

[SIA]

But they don’t. The testimony of the supposedly flourishing pre-Roman Church in Britain is largely the fantasy of the New Age. Much of the Christian remnant Augustine discovered was undoubtedly descended from Roman Soldiers.

Non matter how hard you try, you cannot create the fantasy that Rome encompasses all. The Apostles, the Early Christian Church and Jesus himself were not Roman Catholic. To make the claim that the RCC came from the Early Church and The Apostles and such is one thing, but to say that the RCC IS the Early Church and the Apostles etc. just doesn’t give creedence to sense or proof.

 

[SIA]

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.

Anglicans consider Catholic bishops and priests bonafide bishops and priests. Catholics on the otherhand do not consider the same of Anglicans. These are the held beliefs of the Catholic magisterium yes but in my opinion they are not cordial and do not lend themselves to meaningful dialogue between the churches.

 

[chris_molter]

To make the claim that the RCC came from the Early Church and The Apostles and such is one thing, but to say that the RCC IS the Early Church and the Apostles etc. just doesn’t give creedence to sense or proof.

Would you say, then, that the “Early Church” no longer exists? Was it some sort of ‘denomination’ whose teachings have been lost to time and/or human corruption?

Catholics see the Church as one continuous body; developing, certainly, but with the same authority to teach and proclaim today as she had at Pentecost. Obviously to call the Early Church the Roman Catholic Church (a misnomer anyway) is imputing history in reverse, however, the same body of believers that was the genesis of the Church at Pentecost grew into the Catholic Church, whose visible head was Peter and his successors.

(At which point we can bring in the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox to argue about who dropped the ball first, and when)

 

[chris_molter]

Anglicans consider Catholic bishops and priests bonafide bishops and priests. Catholics on the otherhand do not consider the same of Anglicans. These are the held beliefs of the Catholic magisterium yes but in my opinion they are not cordial and do not lend themselves to meaningful dialogue between the churches.

Yes, it’s not ‘nice’ to say that we don’t see Anglican orders as valid, but that’s what we believe is true. Of course, I’m of the opinion that things have changed a bit since Apostolicae Curae and that some day Rome will have to take another look at what’s happened to Anglican Orders since Pope Leo.

Also, I don’t think Rome’s going to start such an undertaking until things within Anglicanism become more stable and conducive to ecumenical dialogue. It’s hard to have 50 different discussions at once with each group claiming to be the “real” Anglicans.

I think once you guys get to that point, we can tackle the question of orders once again and we’ll have a much better shot at meaningful dialogue.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Coming in a few days late on this, but … this is a really ridiculous argument. ‘Celt’ is pronounced with a hard ‘c’. Period.

Well, I guess Rome has spoken.

Part of this is the fact that the soft ‘c’ is rare or nonexistent in Celtic languages - it doesn’t exist in the Irish or Scots Gaelic languages, or Manx

but it’s the rule in English, and that’s what we are speaking (well, writing ).

• the other part is that the Celts entered history via ancient Greek references to the Keltoi, which should give us a clue as to how the word is properly pronounced.

Yes, in Greek it’s pronounced, and SPELLED, Keltoi (actually, now it is pronounced Kelti, but that’s a difference issue).

Calling the ancient European tribes the “Seltics” is nothing less than flat-footed ignorance.

I find Celtic pronounced “Keltic” is pretentious.
When philosphy is pronounced with aspirated p’s, I buy the arguement.
And btw, I still say Peking, except when speaking Chinese.

 

[SIA]

Would you say, then, that the “Early Church” no longer exists? Was it some sort of ‘denomination’ whose teachings have been lost to time and/or human corruption?

So glad you asked. The Early Church was the Church founded by our Lord with authority of it given to Peter. Was that authority handed down over the generations yes, but in my belief the doctrines and practices of the early Church became distorted and mixed with other traditions and doings. I believe that when Christ founded his Church, he did so knowing well that men would change, corrupt and in cases destroy his legacy for us, his believers. The Othodox church lays the same claim as you do. What about them? Many Evangelicals lay claim that Jesus inspired them. Do they have merit there? I think that denominations are the creation of man. Imperfect, riddled with scandal, error and corruption over the generations. Anglicans included there. Where then is THE Church?? Is it lost? No. Paul said that we are saved by grace through Faith in Christ. That’s it. No other way. The Church is not an institution. Chist’s people will never be forgotten or left. His people are in many different denominations. The pillar of truth is the Church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Anglicans consider Catholic bishops and priests bonafide bishops and priests. Catholics on the otherhand do not consider the same of Anglicans. These are the held beliefs of the Catholic magisterium yes but in my opinion they are not cordial and do not lend themselves to meaningful dialogue between the churches.

Might bring that up with Jesus in His meaningful dialogue with the Pharisees and Sadduccees.

This is what is wrong with the Anglican ideal. Compromise, not going to offend anyone, put Calvinists and Catholics under one big tabernacle tent, look the other way at real differences (like women clergy), cover them up with fuzzy non-specific language that won’t include anyone,…

Bridge to nowhere.

Would you rather that the Vatican lie to the Anglicans?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Yes, it’s not ‘nice’ to say that we don’t see Anglican orders as valid, but that’s what we believe is true. Of course, I’m of the opinion that things have changed a bit since Apostolicae Curae and that some day Rome will have to take another look at what’s happened to Anglican Orders since Pope Leo.

Also, I don’t think Rome’s going to start such an undertaking until things within Anglicanism become more stable and conducive to ecumenical dialogue. It’s hard to have 50 different discussions at once with each group claiming to be the “real” Anglicans.

I think once you guys get to that point, we can tackle the question of orders once again and we’ll have a much better shot at meaningful dialogue.

I’m afraid that by time, should it ever come, there won’t be much left of the Anglicans, and most will have been dialogued into the Western Rite Orthodox and Anglican Usage, if not into the Eastern Orthodox and Latin rite outright.

 

[SIA]

I’m afraid that by time, should it ever come, there won’t be much left of the Anglicans, and most will have been dialogued into the Western Rite Orthodox and Anglican Usage, if not into the Eastern Orthodox and Latin rite outright.

where did you purchase your crystal ball?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

where did you purchase your crystal ball?

Matthew 16:3.

 

[SIA]

Matthew 16:3.

oh boy, if you view this Scripture as the destruction and separation of Anglicanism, then who in their right mind would want to take your interpretation of Scripture as rightful and Catholic?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

oh boy, if you view this Scripture as the destruction and separation of Anglicanism, then who in their right mind would want to take your interpretation of Scripture as rightful and Catholic?

The Orthodox (rightful) and Catholic.

 

[SIA]

The Orthodox (rightful) and Catholic.

Oh yes I forgot your Immenense.uch:

 

[nonjuror]

Anglicans consider Catholic bishops and priests bonafide bishops and priests. Catholics on the otherhand do not consider the same of Anglicans. These are the held beliefs of the Catholic magisterium yes but in my opinion they are not cordial and do not lend themselves to meaningful dialogue between the churches.

=================================================
I am not going to get in to a row about our Bishops! As Anglicans we hold to the Faith once delivered to the Saints,we hold to the seven ecumenical councils and we have preserved the Deposit intact! We hold to the Catholic Creeds and Scriptures and have Catholic orders.

Luckily our Catholicity doesn’t depend on our separated or even our weaker bretheren’ s say so.

But I find it rich coming from people whose church stems from the Council of Trent in 1564. This is when the Roman See led a coup and their supporters in Europe allowed their responsibilities to be usurped by the Bishop of that See,Rome.

 

[mercygate]

=================================================
I am not going to get in to a row about our Bishops! As Anglicans we hold to the Faith once delivered to the Saints,we hold to the seven ecumenical councils and we have preserved the Deposit intact! We hold to the Catholic Creeds and Scriptures and have Catholic orders.

Luckily our Catholicity doesn’t depend on our separated or even our weaker bretheren’ s say so.

But I find it rich coming from people whose church stems from the Council of Trent in 1564. This is when the Roman See led a coup and their supporters in Europe allowed their responsibilities to be usurped by the Bishop of that See,Rome.

What branch of Anglicanism are you in?