Anglican Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catechesis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually your falling for the fallacy that it didn’t when in fact it did. The church never had to defend it. That’s why councils are called. This is demonstrated with the Orthodox who only accept 7 councils which just so happened to require a pope to approve of yet after that they reject the concept. So If I were living anywhere from 33AD-the 6th centuries I would have never given it a thought since it was always known.
I’m not really sure to what or whom you’re responding here. Perhaps this is evidence that I’ve misunderstood your argument with regard to universality. Perhaps you could set it out?
 
Straw man! HA that’s funny!

I love how that comes up when people are done debating and can go no further.

Fact universal or (catholic) means universal and when applied to faith that would mean a body of people who all believe EXACTLY the same this across the whole world. You may think it means something else but certainly that’s not how the word was used in practice for 16 centuries! It doesn’t take away the fact that literally nothing you do as far as practice or belief is anywhere remotely close to universal. So straw man all you want.
Often that is how it comes up. But it also sometimes comes up when little straw men are presented to be knocked down.

Nobody on this thread, as far as I’m aware, is a doctrinal relativist.

16 centuries? Tell that to the Greeks.

Also, just because my hyperbole alarm is ringing:
doesn’t take away the fact that literally nothing you do as far as practice or belief is anywhere remotely close to universal.
“Jesus is Lord.” There.
 
why does the Roman Catholic Church call themseves the catholic Church in the English version of the Roman Canon,
Source, please?
Well, you can find it above, in the post you brushed away as a ‘non sequitur.’ But here it is. In the Te igitur (the first prayer of the Roman Canon, following the sanctus), the English text says:

To you therefore, most merciful Father, we make humble prayer and petition through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord: that you accept and bless + these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unblemished sacrifices, which we offer you firstly for your holy catholic Church. Be pleased to grant her peace, to guard, unite and govern her throughout the whole world, together with your servant N. our Pope and N. our Bishop, and all those who, holding to the truth, hand on the catholic and apostolic faith.

Source: The Roman Missal (Third Typical Edition, Chapel Edition, Chicago, IL: Liturgy Training Publications, 2011): 635

This English translation faithfully preserves the capitalisation of the Latin text: “…in primis, quæ tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica…” (“…which we offer you firstly for your holy catholic Church”…). Now, answer the question: If capitalisation is used to distinguish between meanings of the same word – e.g. Catholic vs. catholic – which is not true for Norwegian, and not true for either German or Latin in terms of adjectives, and this is very important in that it for some reason distinguishes between those who capitalise it (presumably Roman Catholics) and those who do not, why does the Roman Catholic Church call themseves the catholic Church in the English version of the Roman Canon, and Ecclesia catholica in the Latin text? And furthermore, are you actually suggesting that there is a difference between the english adjective Catholic and the Latin adjective catholicus?

And no, I’m not going to change my religious affiliation to ‘assemblies of God’ or some such, because the four marks of the Church is her oneness, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity.
 
You may have mentioned it earlier, but it also goes to say, at least as regards the hagiography of the Latin Church, that the Latin Church considers St. Seraphim of Sarov and St. Maria Skobtskova (St. Maria of Paris) to be canonized saints (although, not doctors of the church, obviously).
Source, please!
 
Well, you can find it above, in the post you brushed away as a ‘non sequitur.’
Kj, is it ever possible for something to be a nonsequitur first, and then a source of info later?


But here it is. In the Te igitur (the first prayer of the Roman Canon, following the sanctus), the English text says:
To you therefore, most merciful Father, we make humble prayer and petition through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord: that you accept and bless + these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unblemished sacrifices, which we offer you firstly for your holy catholic Church. Be pleased to grant her peace, to guard, unite and govern her throughout the whole world, together with your servant N. our Pope and N. our Bishop, and all those who, holding to the truth, hand on the catholic and apostolic faith.
Source: The Roman Missal (Third Typical Edition, Chapel Edition, Chicago, IL: Liturgy Training Publications, 2011): 635
Ah. The answer is because here “catholic” refers to “universal”.

That’s why the distinction of capitalization is of such great import.
 
Kj, is it ever possible for something to be a nonsequitur first, and then a source of info later?
I honestly have no idea what that’s supposed to mean.
Ah. The answer is because here “catholic” refers to “universal”.

That’s why the distinction of capitalization is of such great import.
But that’s what Catholic mean - with or without capitalisation. And you haven’t adress the Latin point. In Latin - which is the official language of the Roman Catholic Church - the word catholicus isn’t capitalised. No adjectives are. How would you distinguish between ‘Catholic’ and ‘catholic’? You have already conceded that it’s OK for Christians outside of communion with the Roman Pontiff to use catholic with a small c.
 
I’m not really sure to what or whom you’re responding here. Perhaps this is evidence that I’ve misunderstood your argument with regard to universality. Perhaps you could set it out?
the discussion turned to the usage of the word catholic in its proper name format Catholic Church and in its common usage “universal”. Im sure you have been reading and participating in this back and forth. I have seen a number of folks now who are Lutherans or otherwise using the name catholic and doing so by reasoning that the way the Catholic Church utilizes the word isn’t exactly right and they are catholic too. I was simply explaining that in either sense it means universal and that NO protestant church can claim the term either way in proper form or the common usage since really each “church” is divided into many denominations which believe Some common things but much of everything else is up to the personal touch of each individual pastor…hence the literally thousands of denominations, synods and independent non-denomination denominations 😃

Universality is just that meaning the same across the whole world. In a religious context it means the exact same thing. There is only one church I know of who can even remotely claim that and its the Catholic church united in Rome in union with the Pope. In this context is how the term catholic had been used for 16 centuries before the Protestant revolt. To be fare the Orthodox cant even claim “catholic” because of their nationalistic approach and well obvious lack of theological underpinnings (7 councils). So what I’m getting at here is NO you cant use the term catholic or universal or Catholic. That would just be a lie. So the Pope and Rome having an authority with a doctrine and dogma centered and resting on it that truly teach the exact same thing world wide in every church is truly universal. I’m sorry to say that Jim bobs backyard Methodist church (no offence my moms Methodist…converting on Saturday thank God) is not universal. Ill be willing to bet anything that the Methodist church down the street is teaching something different and across America.

So if you want to use the term catholic you are free to do that this is a free society but in reality those that do are not truly universal and literally cant be. Protestantism doesn’t allow for it not one bit. 👍
 
It seems I’ve found a* great deal *of consistency in the teachings and public proclamation of the Gospel as contained in the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod. The same message is preached in Virginia as it is in Florida as it is in Pennsylvania. I’ve also seen what I consider some variance in the emphasis between a Catholic parish in the Diocese of Arlington and one in the Diocese of Richmond. One is quite laudably conservative and one is mind- bogglingly liberal. The LCMS has been Scriptural and Confessional all the way.
The Catholic *Magisterium *is the same in the parish in Arlington and in Richmond. Or in Africa same as in Asia. Or for this individual as it is for that individual. The Magisterium is what is consistent. Individual Catholics (and Protestants!) vary in adherence to the Magisterium, just as they vary in terms of how much holiness they accept through the Church, though the Church is equally holy for all. It (through the Magisterium) is an equally reliable channel of truth for all. Actually the Magisterium indirectly influences the LCMS. What you credit as “confessional” to some extent means the LCMS reflects - in part - the template set by the Magisterium for “orthodoxy”.

If you say the LCMS or the Anglican Catholic Church is faithful to Christian Tradition, keep in mind some visible human agency (authority) examined lots of Christian traditions, threw out 99% of them as not really reliable or inspired, and “canonized” 1% as Tradition.
When churches are following that pattern, relying on the 1%, we call them orthodox, or confessional. When churches abandon the 1%, the Magisterium’s def of Tradition, and draw Tradition from what the Magisterium calls the unreliable 99%, we (Catholics and Protestants)call some of them them cults, and the others we call modernists, or mainline liberals.
 
The Catholic *Magisterium *is the same in the parish in Arlington and in Richmond. Or in Africa same as in Asia. Or for this individual as it is for that individual. The Magisterium is what is consistent. Individual Catholics (and Protestants!) vary in adherence to the Magisterium, just as they vary in terms of how much holiness they accept through the Church, though the Church is equally holy for all. It (through the Magisterium) is an equally reliable channel of truth for all. Actually the Magisterium indirectly influences the LCMS. What you credit as “confessional” to some extent means the LCMS reflects - in part - the template set by the Magisterium for “orthodoxy”.

If you say the LCMS or the Anglican Catholic Church is faithful to Christian Tradition, keep in mind some visible human agency (authority) examined lots of Christian traditions, threw out 99% of them as not really reliable or inspired, and “canonized” 1% as Tradition.
When churches are following that pattern, relying on the 1%, we call them orthodox, or confessional. When churches abandon the 1%, the Magisterium’s def of Tradition, and draw Tradition from what the Magisterium calls the unreliable 99%, we (Catholics and Protestants)call some of them them cults, and the others we call modernists, or mainline liberals.
In the beginning of the Reformation era Luther did not want to leave the church or start his own Denomination. He was determined that the Catholic Church think about some of the corrupt activities at that time.

Later, he changed of course, but he did not change the basic order of the Mass in the Lutheran churches.
 
I honestly have no idea what that’s supposed to mean.
sigh!
But that’s what Catholic mean - with or without capitalisation.
No. Catholic with a capital “C” means a member of the Church that professes these things here as the “sure norm for teaching the faith”:

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Catholic with a small “c” means: universal.

So my Catholic Church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
And you haven’t adress the Latin point. In Latin - which is the official language of the Roman Catholic Church - the word catholicus isn’t capitalised. No adjectives are. How would you distinguish between ‘Catholic’ and ‘catholic’?
You have to look at the context. If you can replace “universal” whenever “catholic” is used, then you know it’s the synonym.

#nottoohardtofigureout 🤷
You have already conceded that it’s OK for Christians outside of communion with the Roman Pontiff to use catholic with a small c.
Yes. Knock yourself out.
 
But seriously, if you mean Rome alone, then I’m just going to point at Alexandria and Antioch.
No. I never mean Rome alone whenever I refer to my Church. My Church is Rome plus all the bishops in union with the vicar of Christ.
 
In the beginning of the Reformation era Luther did not want to leave the church or start his own Denomination. He was determined that the Catholic Church think about some of the corrupt activities at that time.

Later, he changed of course, but he did not change the basic order of the Mass in the Lutheran churches.
That’s exactly it. The Evangelical order of the Mass was retained using Christ’s Institution. Luther actually appealed for a council, but the powers that were were so intent on shutting him up, they didn’t even want to consider what he had to say. How tragic, really, is sharing the Word with people in their own language? Why shouldn’t Leo X have used his own money in building St. Peter’s and for that matter, why couldn’t he simply declare everybody absolved and return to the simplicity of Christ? That’s what St. Francis of Assisi tried to do, return to Christian simplicity, he showed that it could work, why not Leo X? Luther retained everything not forbidden by Scripture. Where does Scripture countenance praying to anybody but Our Triune God? When the Holy Spirit descended on Pentecost, he descended on* all *the disciples, although Peter was their spokesman. Luther didn’t want to be excommunicated, or be outlawed and hunted for the better part of his life. He did everything he could to appease both the Pope and the Emperor until they cast him out. They tried to lure him to Rome, but he wasn’t going to blithely ride to his death. People will say, " what about the hundreds of years of tradition before Luther?" He kept most of those. He even revered the Blessed Mother, although he maintained that prayer should be made only to God. Only to God! He kept Absolution in the Evangelical churches and he had made the Scriptures available to everybody. He also did and said some very stupid things about the Jews and the peasants.
 
Not Protestant, Anglican.
From the wiki:

The Church of England is the officially-established Christian Church[3][4][5] in England and the mother church of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

[Queen Elizabeth II, like Henry VIII and the intervening monarchs has the title of ‘Supreme Governor’ - not the Pope.]
 
That’s exactly it. The Evangelical order of the Mass was retained using Christ’s Institution. Luther actually appealed for a council, but the powers that were were so intent on shutting him up, they didn’t even want to consider what he had to say. How tragic, really, is sharing the Word with people in their own language? Why shouldn’t Leo X have used his own money in building St. Peter’s and for that matter, why couldn’t he simply declare everybody absolved and return to the simplicity of Christ? That’s what St. Francis of Assisi tried to do, return to Christian simplicity, he showed that it could work, why not Leo X? Luther retained everything not forbidden by Scripture. Where does Scripture countenance praying to anybody but Our Triune God? When the Holy Spirit descended on Pentecost, he descended on* all ***the disciples, although Peter was their spokesman. Luther didn’t want to be excommunicated, or be outlawed and hunted for the better part of his life. He did everything he could to appease both the Pope and the Emperor until they cast him out. They tried to lure him to Rome, but he wasn’t going to blithely ride to his death. People will say, " what about the hundreds of years of tradition before Luther?" He kept most of those. He even revered the Blessed Mother, although he maintained that prayer should be made only to God. Only to God! He kept Absolution in the Evangelical churches and he had made the Scriptures available to everybody. He also did and said some very stupid things about the Jews and the peasants.
The angels and saints intercede for us, and we see a long tradition in the Litany of the Divine Liturgy (Mass). We should call on them.**Job 5:1 **

Call now, if there be any that will answer thee, and turn to some of the saints. [DRC]

Call now! Will anyone respond to you? To which of the holy onesa] will you turn? [NABRE]
**Catechism of the Catholic Church
**958 Communion with the dead. “In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and ‘because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins’ she offers her suffrages for them.” 500 Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective.

500 LG 50; cf.* 2 Macc* 12:45.

2827 “If any one is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him.” 110 Such is the power of the Church’s prayer in the name of her Lord, above all in the Eucharist. Her prayer is also a communion of intercession with the all-holy Mother of God 111 and all the saints who have been pleasing to the Lord because they willed his will alone:
It would not be inconsistent with the truth to understand the words, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” to mean: “in the Church as in our Lord Jesus Christ himself”; or “in the Bride who has been betrothed, just as in the Bridegroom who has accomplished the will of the Father.” 112
110 Jn 9:31; cf. 1 Jn 5:14.
111 Cf. Lk 1:38,49.
112 St. Augustine, De serm. Dom. 2,6,24:PL 34,1279.

 
From the wiki:

The Church of England is the officially-established Christian Church[3][4][5] in England and the mother church of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

[Queen Elizabeth II, like Henry VIII and the intervening monarchs has the title of ‘Supreme Governor’ - not the Pope.]
Henry’s title was Supreme Head. Elizabeth I had it changed to Supreme Governor. The term relates to the Church of England, per Parliamentary Acts, and is not connected to Anglicanism in general.

GKC
 
From the wiki:

The Church of England is the officially-established Christian Church[3][4][5] in England and the mother church of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

[Queen Elizabeth II, like Henry VIII and the intervening monarchs has the title of ‘Supreme Governor’ - not the Pope.]
Of course Henry VIII was rather more of an intervening monarch than Elizabeth II is. 🙂
 
It’s rather odd. I know that the internet is by no means a good judge of relations between religious communities. Frankly, I just don’t see this sort of thing at our parish or the numerous Latin and Byzantine Catholic Churches in town, thank God.
 
The angels and saints intercede for us, and we see a long tradition in the Litany of the Divine Liturgy (Mass). We should call on them.**Job 5:1 **

Call now, if there be any that will answer thee, and turn to some of the saints. [DRC]

Call now! Will anyone respond to you? To which of the holy onesa] will you turn? [NABRE]
**Catechism of the Catholic Church
**958 Communion with the dead. “In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and ‘because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins’ she offers her suffrages for them.” 500 Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective.

500 LG 50; cf.* 2 Macc* 12:45.

2827 “If any one is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him.” 110 Such is the power of the Church’s prayer in the name of her Lord, above all in the Eucharist. Her prayer is also a communion of intercession with the all-holy Mother of God 111 and all the saints who have been pleasing to the Lord because they willed his will alone:
It would not be inconsistent with the truth to understand the words, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” to mean: “in the Church as in our Lord Jesus Christ himself”; or “in the Bride who has been betrothed, just as in the Bridegroom who has accomplished the will of the Father.” 112
110 Jn 9:31; cf. 1 Jn 5:14.
111 Cf. Lk 1:38,49.
112 St. Augustine, De serm. Dom. 2,6,24:PL 34,1279.

This, of course, would be the Lutheran response… Augsburg Confession, Article 21 :
AC XXI: Invocation of the Saints

Our churches teach that we are to remember the history of the saints so that our faith may be strengthened when we see how they experienced grace and how they were sustained by faith. Even more, their good works are to be an example for us, each of us in his own calling. Accordingly, his Imperial Majesty may follow the example of David [2 Samuel] in waging war to drive the Muslim invaders from our land. For both are kings.

However, it cannot be proved from the Scriptures that we must call on the saints or seek their help. “For there is one mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus” [1 Timothy 2:5], who is the only Savior, the only high priest, advocate, and intercessor before God [Romans 8:34]. He alone is to be prayed to. He has promised that He will hear our prayer [John 14:14]. The worship that He approves above all other is this: That we call on Him in all afflictions. “If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father” [1 John 2:1].
sothl.com/2014/07/20/augsburg-confession-article-21/
That comes directly from that Confession that most directly defines a Lutheran.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top