Accused of Being 'Catholic'

[nsper7]

You know, nsper7, it sounds like the parts of the Episcopalian tradition that you like are the Catholic ones.

There are Anglican groups that are almost indistinguishable from Catholicism, and one big one in particular (the name escapes me at the moment) that is in talks right now about rejoining Rome.

Though, there are other Anglican groups, like the one that recently ordained a Muslim priest and is trying to redefine the Trinity, that have truly gone off the deep end. It would be to your benefit to investigate your chosen group to determine if it matches the calling of your conscience. There’s some wacky stuff out there, so it’s best to be informed.

Best of luck in your journey! We’ll all be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. I should mention the Anglican Communion does not really view itself as ‘Protestan’. Instead, we claim the ‘via media’ (middle road) between the Latin Rite (with some, such as our views on Eucharist, taken from the Orthodox Rites) and the Reformed Churches.

As mentioned earlier, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is the Primate of All England and the spiritual leader/primus inter pares of the Anglican Communion, can trace succession back to St. Augustine of Canterbury, who was made the first Archbishop of Canterbury by Pope Gregory the Great in 597. In fact, the Archbishop of Canterbury is said to be enthroned on the Chair of St. Augustine.

Further, with 77 million members, the Anglican Communion is the third largest ‘denomination’ behind Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox.

If one truly wants to know the Anglican theology, there are several key documents available. Although individual Bishops and Conventions, esp. in the Episcopal Church, have done certain highly questionable things (i.e. ordaining an open and avowed homosexual), that really should not define the Anglican Communion, anymore than the Crusades should define Roman Catholicism or Luther’s essay On the Jews and their Lies should define Lutheranism.

Our main documents are the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888 (which is primarily used to determine the fundamentals of overall Christianity and who the Anglican Communion is willing to work with through ecumenical discussion and the like), the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and the Anglican Catechism.

 

[cyberjacques]

Wow, good job! There are so many Christians, including a disturbing number of Catholics, that don’t know the first thing about their religion. It’s wonderful that you’ve done your homework, so to speak.

Though, I’d like to add that the crusades aren’t anything that the Church should have to apologize for. If they had been conducted the way that popular media portrays them, then that would certainly be something to apologize for, but they weren’t. So many people have been led to think that the crusades were just a bunch of greedy Christians who decided to go and massacre a bunch of innocent Muslims. Even the most cursory examination of the actual history will give lie to this myth. There’s a wonderful book that I encourage everyone to read, called “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades”. Same thing goes for the inquisitions. If more people followed nsper7’s example and did their homework, these myths would be cleared up in no time.

 

[nsper7]

Though, I’d like to add that the crusades aren’t anything that the Church should have to apologize for. If they had been conducted the way that popular media portrays them, then that would certainly be something to apologize for, but they weren’t. So many people have been led to think that the crusades were just a bunch of greedy Christians who decided to go and massacre a bunch of innocent Muslims. Even the most cursory examination of the actual history will give lie to this myth. There’s a wonderful book that I encourage everyone to read, called “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades”. Same thing goes for the inquisitions. If more people followed nsper7’s example and did their homework, these myths would be cleared up in no time.

If you’re interested in the Inquisition, James P. Holding of Tekton Apologetics Ministries give, to me at least, an excellent examination of the Spanish Inquisition: An Inquiry on the Inquisition

Also, he links to articles about the Crusades: FAQ by Dr. Helen Nicholson, a Professor of Medieval History in the UK
History of the Crusades by Prof. Thomas F. Madden

Certainly, it was perhaps not the best comparison to use the Crusades and Luther’s Anti-Jewish essay. And it was irresponsible to draw a comparison between those hateful writings and the actions of the Episcopal Church in ordaining an openly-homosexual bishop. Oops.

 

[Singinbeauty]

It’s funny… I have actually had catholics tell me that I am ‘more catholic than I realize’ with the tone that they think I will take that as an insult! :bigyikes:

I take it as a compliment! It means I am accomplishing my goal of respecting who they are and what they believe, even if I don’t agree…

 

[Singinbeauty]

It’s funny… I have actually had catholics tell me that I am ‘more catholic than I realize’ with the tone that they think I will take that as an insult! :bigyikes:

I take it as a compliment! It means I am accomplishing my goal of respecting who they are and what they believe, even if I don’t agree…

Ooh, did I kill the ‘everybody hates catholics’ vibe? Sorry…

 

[holdencaulfield]

Earlier today, something humorous happened. I am an unconfirmed Episcopalian who has been doing a little reading on Roman Catholic theology. I also am a college student and I bumped into a friend of mine who is a public evanglizer/campus minister and he was having a discussion with a Roman Catholic young woman.

Later, he and I spoke and he was telling me how the RCC is “Satanic”, “the largest cult in the world” and “sending so many people to Hell” and that they have a different Gospel, different Jesus, they “worship” Mary and pray to the dead and stuff. When I challenged him, actually repeating (and giving credit for the information of course) much of the apologetics used on this site, he accused me of getting too Catholic and getting sucked into their propaganda (or something like that) and he even gave me a blatantly Anti-Catholic tract (NOT Chick though); he also said the Episcopal Church might be putting Catholic ideas into my head or something.

Anyway, it was just kind of humorous to be accused of being too Catholic, even though I’m not Roman Catholic, because I was questioning the rhetoric he kept putting forth. He never really answered my questions in a filling way, he only pointed at that tract he had and went on about how bad the RCC is.

Accused of being ‘too Catholic’? Never thought that would happen.

That’s typical Protestant Extremism. They hate the Catholic Church so they make up lies about it, and tell them to people. Most Protestants don’t even read the Bible, even though that is one of their core beliefs. I would like to ask though Why Anglican? Why not Catholic?

 

[nsper7]

That’s typical Protestant Extremism. They hate the Catholic Church so they make up lies about it, and tell them to people. Most Protestants don’t even read the Bible, even though that is one of their core beliefs. I would like to ask though Why Anglican? Why not Catholic?

There are several reasons I like the Anglican Communion:

1. The guiding principle of being a ‘via media’ between the Roman Catholic (with some Eastern Orthodox rituals added, such as the congregational confession of sin in the Holy Eucharist service and an Anglicized description of the idea that the communion is a Mystery [although we don’t use the term ‘Mystery’, we have a similar recognition that the communion does not need to be fully understood by humanity to be effective, see John Donne’s **Divine Poems. On the Sacrament.]) and the Reformed Churches.
2. The history/legitimacy of Anglicanism, including our claims on Apostolic Succession. We can trace the Archbishop of Canterbury all the way back to St. Augustine of Canterbury was was made first Archbishop of Canterbury by Pope Gregory the Great. Although we have had, and continue to have, many great theologians, we have no ‘founder’ (i.e. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.), although one could argue the Church of England was indirectly founded by Pope Gregory the Great (remember that neither King Henry VIII nor Queen Elizabeth I founded the Church of England, except in changing its name to being called the ‘Church of England’).
3. Our foundational theology and statements, including the Nicene Creed, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, the Anglican Catechism and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral.
4. Our liturgy, including the two Sacraments (Baptism and Holy Eucharist), but also the five ‘Minor’ Sacraments (Confirmation [hopefully, I start Confrimation classes this March], Reconciliation of a Pentitent/Confession *, Matrimony [maybe someday, eh?], Holy Orders *, Anointing of the Sick [hopefully not for a long time]). By ‘minor’ Sacraments, I mean that as Anglicanism officially views them, they are not ordained by Christ in His Gospels, but still can convey grace to the partaker. For example, our view on Reconciliation/Confession is that it is not necessary for forgiveness of sins, but can convey a measure of grace and healing to the penitent. Also, I like the Lectionary, which ensures that the Bible is being used and no one part being concentrated on too much at the expense of other parts, and the Book of Common Prayer (we used the 1979 version, but the versions can be traced back to 1549 and was the first English prayer book to contain the liturgies Sunday and daily services within one volume…sort of goes under history as well).

Divine Poems. On the Sacrament. by John Donne:
He was the Word, that spake it:
He took the bread and brake it;
And what that Word did make it,
I do believe and take it.

 

[angelusm]

Earlier today, something humorous happened. I am an unconfirmed Episcopalian who has been doing a little reading on Roman Catholic theology. I also am a college student and I bumped into a friend of mine who is a public evanglizer/campus minister and he was having a discussion with a Roman Catholic young woman.

Later, he and I spoke and he was telling me how the RCC is “Satanic”, “the largest cult in the world” and “sending so many people to Hell” and that they have a different Gospel, different Jesus, they “worship” Mary and pray to the dead and stuff. When I challenged him, actually repeating (and giving credit for the information of course) much of the apologetics used on this site, he accused me of getting too Catholic and getting sucked into their propaganda (or something like that) and he even gave me a blatantly Anti-Catholic tract (NOT Chick though); he also said the Episcopal Church might be putting Catholic ideas into my head or something.

Anyway, it was just kind of humorous to be accused of being too Catholic, even though I’m not Roman Catholic, because I was questioning the rhetoric he kept putting forth. He never really answered my questions in a filling way, he only pointed at that tract he had and went on about how bad the RCC is.

Accused of being ‘too Catholic’? Never thought that would happen.

For me it doesn’t seem to be so humorous. Protestants hate us because they don’t know us. Anticatholicism is also very strong among Anglicans. They murdered thousands of catholics during the reformation and persecuted the CC until the XIX century. Even now the CC is oficially discriminated by the British law - a king or a queen cannot be catholic. If you haven’t noticed anticatholicism among anglicans, which is very surprising, you surely will.
The confirmation that you are about to receive will not be valid. It’s because there’s no priesthood in anglicanism. Bishops who abandonned Rome were apostates and could not validly ordain priests. There’s also no absolution in the “confession” and no real presence. Instead there are gay bishops and blessing gay couples. Well, anglicans don’t want to be “obsolete”…

 

[holdencaulfield]

There are several reasons I like the Anglican Communion:

1. The history/legitimacy of Anglicanism, including our claims on Apostolic Succession. We can trace the Archbishop of Canterbury all the way back to St. Augustine of Canterbury was was made first Archbishop of Canterbury by Pope Gregory the Great. Although we have had, and continue to have, many great theologians, we have no ‘founder’ (i.e. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.), although one could argue the Church of England was indirectly founded by Pope Gregory the Great (remember that neither King Henry VIII nor Queen Elizabeth I founded the Church of England, except in changing its name to being called the ‘Church of England’).

In all honesty I think you are sadly mistaken. The Anglican Church does have a founder. Although, I would say multiple founders is more correct.

1. King Henry VIII: (1527) He wants his marriage annulled, because he has “fallen in love” with someone else. He asks the Pope. Pope Clement VII doesn’t respond. Henry VIII wants to succeed.
2. Parliament: (1533) Issues The Act of Restraint of Appeals, this forbids appeals to the Pope. (1534) Issues The Act for Submission of the Clergy, this requires clergy to submit to the king. (1534) Issues The Supremacy Act, makes King of England head of the Church of England (Anglican Church).

So yes, you did have a founder. King Henry VIII in his insane want for power does away with the Roman Church. It seems more political then religious in my opinion.

By the way I am a former Anglican/Episcopal who is hoping to be Confirmed into the Catholic Church this September.

However, I am glad that you have accepted Christ. This is very great.

 

[Henry_Cornejo]

nsper7 and holdencaulfield,

I am beginning to admire the Anglican Church until holdencaulfield raised an opposing view. Let us not start a heated argument but I really needed more understanding.

One of the churches here, the Philippine Independent church is in full communion with the Anglican Church.

 

[nsper7]

Even now the CC is oficially discriminated by the British law - a king or a queen cannot be catholic.

Perhaps the King and Queen cannot be Catholic, but the Prime Minister can be. Compare it to how the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel could only be held by ‘clean’ (no handicaps, no issues, etc.) males in the line of Aaron. Does that mean women, non-Aaronites and those who were disabled were persecuted or viewed as inferior. In fact, the temporal King of Israel and the Messiah came not through the Aaronite line, non-Aaronites could serve as Nazarites and other ‘lay’ positions. Women, at several points, held considerable political (i.e. Deborah the Judge/Chieftain and the the mothers of Kings at several points seemed to have great influence) and spiritual (i.e. Miriam the Prophetess, Samuel’s mother, etc.) spiritual authority.

The governmental authority in the UK is the Prime Minister and Parliament.

If you haven’t noticed anticatholicism among anglicans, which is very surprising, you surely will.

I haven’t noticed anything like at the Chapel I attend. The people there, including our Chaplain/Priest (in fact, she once recommended that I should attend a Mass to see what it is like), seem to be strong in the idea of the ‘via media’.

Maybe there are some Anglicans are Anti-Catholic, but there are Catholics who are quite vehemently Anti-Anglican/Anti-Protestant (even going against your own Catechism to attack NCCs). Historically, there may have been persecution and violence, but I believe the RCC has persecuted Protestants and Anglicans, so why don’t leave the past behind us?

The confirmation that you are about to receive will not be valid. It’s because there’s no priesthood in anglicanism. Bishops who abandonned Rome were apostates and could not validly ordain priests.

So says the Roman Catholic Church. I hope you’ll understand when I take that with a grain of salt as to its truthfulness (I know the RCC claims this, but it doesn’t mean I believe it’s true).

There’s also no absolution in the “confession” and no real presence. Instead there are gay bishops and blessing gay couples.

The issue about the ‘real presence’ is an issue of RCC dogma that I may or may not agree with. Some Anglicans are transubstantiationists, but the standard view is more akin to the Eastern Orthodox idea of an unexplainable mystery.

Also, the ‘mainstream’ Anglican view is that Confession (technically, we call it Reconciliation of a Penitent) is not necessary for a person to receive forgiveness of sins, although it does potentially convey a certain amount of grace and healing to the penitent and grant, in my words, a level of finality to the penitent’s forgiveness from God.

1. King Henry VIII: (1527) He wants his marriage annulled, because he has “fallen in love” with someone else. He asks the Pope. Pope Clement VII doesn’t respond. Henry VIII wants to succeed.

1. Parliament: (1533) Issues The Act of Restraint of Appeals, this forbids appeals to the Pope. (1534) Issues The Act for Submission of the Clergy, this requires clergy to submit to the king. (1534) Issues The Supremacy Act, makes King of England head of the Church of England (Anglican Church).

So yes, you did have a founder. King Henry VIII in his insane want for power does away with the Roman Church. It seems more political then religious in my opinion.

He may have been the political founder of the Church of England, but I should that after King Henry VII (and Edward VI), the Church of England under Queen Mary I returned to communion with Rome. It should be noted that her persecution of Protestants earned her the pseudonym Blood Mary.

After Mary I was replaced by Elizabeth I, the CoE schismed from the RCC again. It should be noted that Elizabeth was the first person to hold the title of Supreme Governor, not Henry VIII or Edward VI. She also presided over the “Elizabethan Settlement” which set the CoE down the ‘via media’. The Church of England survived war with Roman Catholic states (i.e. Spain) and with Puritanical dissenters (i.e. Cromwell’s Revolution and the English Civil War).

 

[holdencaulfield]

nsper7 and holdencaulfield,

I am beginning to admire the Anglican Church until holdencaulfield raised an opposing view. Let us not start a heated argument but I really needed more understanding.

One of the churches here, the Philippine Independent church is in full communion with the Anglican Church.

I hope I have not offended anyone. I believe many of the things the Anglican Church teaches, just not all of them. However like it or not this is how the Church got it’s beginnings.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I haven’t noticed anything like at the Chapel I attend. The people there, including our Chaplain/Priest (in fact, she once recommended that I should attend a Mass to see what it is like), seem to be strong in the idea of the ‘via media’.

Maybe there are some Anglicans are Anti-Catholic, but there are Catholics who are quite vehemently Anti-Anglican/Anti-Protestant (even going against your own Catechism to attack NCCs). Historically, there may have been persecution and violence, but I believe the RCC has persecuted Protestants and Anglicans, so why don’t leave the past behind us?

Most are not. However In England and Ireland there has always been a strong feeling to dislike between the Irish Catholics and the English Anglicans.

He may have been the political founder of the Church of England, but I should that after King Henry VII (and Edward VI), the Church of England under Queen Mary I returned to communion with Rome. It should be noted that her persecution of Protestants earned her the pseudonym Blood Mary.

After Mary I was replaced by Elizabeth I, the CoE schismed from the RCC again. It should be noted that Elizabeth was the first person to hold the title of Supreme Governor, not Henry VIII or Edward VI. She also presided over the “Elizabethan Settlement” which set the CoE down the ‘via media’. The Church of England survived war with Roman Catholic states (i.e. Spain) and with Puritanical dissenters (i.e. Cromwell’s Revolution and the English Civil War).

This as well is true. The Anglican Church still continued to persecute Protestants after that though, because they did not like the more Protestant Protestants if you understand what I’m saying . Examples being: Anabaptists, Calvinists, ect.

 

[nsper7]

Most are not. However In England and Ireland there has always been a strong feeling to dislike between the Irish Catholics and the English Anglicans.

I believe the situation between the Irish and the British is mostly political (Britain views Ireland, esp. Northern Ireland, as a recalcitrant territory and the Northern Irish want independence from Britain; modern Ireland was partitioned in 1921 and there was a lot of violence before that). The religious issues may aggravate things somewhat, but this appears more political. And remember, the Irish Catholics have done there share of the violence (i.e. the IRA).

This as well is true. The Anglican Church still continued to persecute Protestants after that though, because they did not like the more Protestant Protestants if you understand what I’m saying. Examples being: Anabaptists, Calvinists, ect.

Was it persecution or was it trying to prevent a dangerous movement from infiltrating the Anglican Church? Remember that Oliver Cromwell, who actually overthrew the British monarch and killed him, was a Puritan and he, for several years, kept the Church of England from functioning fully (from 1645 to 1660, the Chair of St. Augustine was vacant). The Calvinist system (which was congregational) posed a major threat to the Church of England (and the Kingdom itself).

The Anabaptists were, prior to Mennos Simons pacifistic reforms, were quite violent and felt any group that practiced infant baptism (RCC, Anglican Church, Lutheranism, etc.) was heretical and needed to be overthrown in order to bring about the Millenium. I think it was in the Munster Rebellion where you had a RC bishop and a Lutheran working together to throw out the Anabaptists (who had seized Munster and proclaimed it the “New Jerusalem”).

In both these cases, is that persecution or defense?