Anglican Catholic Church?

[Black_Knight]

I hope you don’t mind it, PRm, if I suggest that your posts are not brimful of good humour and fellowship.

https://24.media.tumblr.com/ff247186ca0d8ffc8e07635146124a04/tumblr_mwvn42GUTH1rlb1yfo1_500.gif

Aw c’mon…w/o humor like that she’s come off as a real hard case…like me. (At least she sort of smiled at ya.)

I like what St. Augustine said along the lines of this topic…

“All heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if anyone asks them where is the Catholic place of worship none would venture to point out his own.”

 

[aidanbradypop]

I like what St. Augustine said along the lines of this topic…

“All heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if anyone asks them where is the Catholic place of worship none would venture to point out his own.”

I am fine with being called a Evangelical Christian or Evangelical Protestant. I guess this heretic is different lol

 

[KjetilK]

You made a claim you can’t back up.

Perhaps. I’ll retract. Allow me, instead, to make a positive case. You state:

Just don’t claim to be part of my Church–the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church–and claim that they are independent of the jurisdiction of the Holy Father.

There is nothing in the word ‘catholic’ itself that says you have to be in communion with Rome. In fact, if we go back to the first instance of the word, as far as we know, in the Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, we see that the one thing needed for catholicity is to be in communion with one’s valid bishop:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

He binds catholicity to being in communion with one’s valid bishop. We find this also in Lumen gentium 21, which states that the Church is where the people gather around their bishop: “In the bishops, therefore, for whom priests are assistants, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Supreme High Priest, is present in the midst of those who believe.”

Now, the Roman Catholic Church recognises the validity of the ordination of orthodox priests and bishops (including archbishops and patriarchs). Following that recognition, and following St. Ignatius’ definition of catholicity, the Orthodox are catholic. And if the Orthodox are catholic, your assertion is wrong.

Are you suggesting St. Ignatius was wrong?

And note that Catholic is an adjective, albeit a very important one. But still an adjective. To capitalise it doesn’t change its meaning.

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps. I’ll retract.

That would be ideal.

There is nothing in the word ‘catholic’ itself that says you have to be in communion with Rome.

You are correct.

As I have already stated, if you want to say your church is “catholic”, knock yourself out. Have at it. Go for it.

It’s when you say your church is just another rite in MY Catholic Church that I say, not so fast.

It’s simply gaga lala nonsense to proclaim that there’s a group of Catholic churches who are subject to the Holy Father, and then there’s another group of Catholics who are not subject to the Pope.

That’s simply Protestantism dressed up under the name “Catholic”.

It is a lie.

 

[SteveVH]

And note that Catholic is an adjective, albeit a very important one. But still an adjective. To capitalise it doesn’t change its meaning.

Yes, it does change its meaning, very much. It is no longer an adjective, it is a proper noun which refers to a unique entity. Catholic is to catholic what Orthodox is to orthodox. I can call myself an orthodox Christian but I cannot call myself an Orthodox Christian. Why? Because I am Catholic, not Orthodox.

 

[PRmerger]

And note that Catholic is an adjective, albeit a very important one. But still an adjective. To capitalise it doesn’t change its meaning.

Oh, indeed it changes everything.

As I said, I am a witness for Jehovah.

But I am NOT a Jehovah’s Witness.

Note the difference made with the use of capitals.

It is of great import.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Sometimes truth makes a bloody entrance.

Maybe. Nonetheless it is not inappropriate to question whether it is proper for so much gore, and so much bile, to be expended on the subject of the word some people choose to describe themselves by.

 

[SteveVH]

Maybe. Nonetheless it is not inappropriate to question whether it is proper for so much gore, and so much bile, to be expended on the subject of the word some people choose to describe themselves by.

I guess that depends upon which side of the fence one is standing. Do you think it would be appropriate for me to pass myself off as Orthodox because I believe I am an orthodox Catholic, while not submitting to any Orthodox patriarch? No, because it simply isn’t true. The Catholic Church is a specific and unique Church which requires that it’s adherents be subject to the Bishop of Rome. If you are not subject then you are not Catholic.

 

[Novocastrian]

Two points.

As far as I’m aware, Augustine wouldn’t have distinguished between capital and lower-case letters in his fifth-century Latin orthography. I may, however, be wrong in this matter, and am open to correction.

Secondly, even if we do distinguish between ‘Catholic’ and ‘catholic’, the Orthodox, Anglicans, etc. will still claim to be the former, protesting that it is an error to reduce the meaning of the word Catholic to ‘in communion with and subject to the Roman Pontiff’ as you appear to do.

 

[SteveVH]

Two points.

As far as I’m aware, Augustine wouldn’t have distinguished between capital and lower-case letters in his fifth-century Latin orthography. I may, however, be wrong in this matter, and am open to correction.

Secondly, even if we do distinguish between ‘Catholic’ and ‘catholic’, the Orthodox, Anglicans, etc. will still claim to be the former, protesting that it is an error to reduce the meaning of the word Catholic to ‘in communion with and subject to the Roman Pontiff’ as you appear to do.

Should I expect, the next time I tell someone that I am Catholic, for them to respond: "And in what way do you mean “Catholic”? Everyone understands what one means when they say “I am Catholic”. So to use the word when one is not, is deceptive, pope or no pope.

 

[Novocastrian]

Should I expect, the next time I tell someone that I am Catholic, for them to respond: "And in what way do you mean “Catholic”? Everyone understands what one means when they say “I am Catholic”. So to use the word when one is not, is deceptive, pope or no pope.

Perhaps in English, and in the 21st century. I wonder if the same would be true in, say, Greece or Russia. Language is always contextual.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I guess that depends upon which side of the fence one is standing. Do you think it would be appropriate for me to pass myself off as Orthodox because I believe I am an orthodox Catholic, while not submitting to any Orthodox patriarch? No, because it simply isn’t true. The Catholic Church is a specific and unique Church which requires that it’s adherents be subject to the Bishop of Rome. If you are not subject then you are not Catholic.

If I were on your side of the fence (and I’m not on either, as it happens) I might agree with all you say except for your first sentence: I might, in other words, still hope to keep a sense of proportion.

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe. Nonetheless it is not inappropriate to question whether it is proper for so much gore, and so much bile, to be expended on the subject of the word some people choose to describe themselves by.

Oh, I agree. No one should spew gore and bile here.

Or anywhere else for that matter.

 

[SteveVH]

If I were on your side of the fence (and I’m not on either, as it happens) I might agree with all you say except for your first sentence: I might, in other words, still hope to keep a sense of proportion.

My first sentence? With what do you not agree?

 

[PRmerger]

Secondly, even if we do distinguish between ‘Catholic’ and ‘catholic’, the Orthodox, Anglicans, etc. will still claim to be the former, protesting that it is an error to reduce the meaning of the word Catholic to ‘in communion with and subject to the Roman Pontiff’ as you appear to do.

And here we are agreed, Novo.

I second your declaration that it’s an error to reduce the meaning of the word Catholic to “in communion with and subject to the Roman pontiff.”

Good thing no one is reducing Catholic to mean that.

But it’s still correct to say: it’s absurd to profess that there’s a group of Catholics subject to the Roman pontiff, and then another subset of Catholics who are immune to this obligation.

There is no “get out of jail free” card for Lutherans and Anglicans.

(And I do note the irony of the metaphor. Jail. Pope. I get it. Don’t read into it more than it’s meant.)

 

[SteveVH]

Perhaps in English, and in the 21st century. I wonder if the same would be true in, say, Greece or Russia. Language is always contextual.

I would imagine that in all languages people have figured out how to distinguish one who is Catholic from one who is not. I don’t think they run around confused as to which Church a “Catholic” attends.

 

[PRmerger]

I would imagine that in all languages people have figured out how to distinguish one who is Catholic from one who is not. I don’t think they run around confused as to which Church a “Catholic” attends.

 

[Picky_Picky]

My first sentence? With what do you not agree?

I don’t agree that one side of the fence or the other requires such a response to Anglicans or Lutherans saying they are Catholic. We all know why they say that. We all know why others might disagree. No point getting all ferocious about it.

It’s one with “My church dates back to the year dot.” — “No it don’t, it was my church then, your church is only 500 years old.” — “Nonsense, my church is is as old as the hills” — etc etc. These aren’t sensible discussions; there is no way they will lead to any sensible conclusion; if you can’t do better than this, as fellow Christians, you should seriously consider giving up.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t agree that one side of the fence or the other requires such a response to Anglicans or Lutherans saying they are Catholic. We all know why they say that. We all know why others might disagree. No point getting all ferocious about it.

It’s one with “My church dates back to the year dot.” — “No it don’t, it was my church then, your church is only 500 years old.” — “Nonsense, my church is is as old as the hills” — etc etc. These aren’t sensible discussions; there is no way they will lead to any sensible conclusion; if you can’t do better than this, as fellow Christians, you should seriously consider giving up.

You seem to have an impoverished understanding of how discourse works, esp here on a Catholic forum. And of apologetics.

One area of great import is the historicity of our Church.

In fact, it is one of the 4 great marks of the Church: one, holy, catholic and APOSTOLIC.

Apologia rises and falls on whether our Church is APOSTOLIC or not.

 

[SteveVH]

I don’t agree that one side of the fence or the other requires such a response to Anglicans or Lutherans saying they are Catholic. We all know why they say that. We all know why others might disagree. No point getting all ferocious about it.

I didn’t realize that I was getting “ferocious”. You made a statement basically saying that you wonder what all the hoopla is about. It may not seem like a big deal to one who wishes to co-opt the name, but it does matter to one who embraces “Catholic” as their identity. Being Catholic to me is everything. So yes, we are on different sides of the proverbial fence. I meant no offense to anyone with that statement.

It’s one with “My church dates back to the year dot.” — “No it don’t, it was my church then, your church is only 500 years old.” — “Nonsense, my church is is as old as the hills” — etc etc. These aren’t sensible discussions; there is no way they will lead to any sensible conclusion; if you can’t do better than this, as fellow Christians, you should seriously consider giving up.

And no one is forcing you to be part of the discussion if you are so taken aback.