Anglican Church? Really confused.

[GKC]

i’m not in favor of harsh authoritarianism, i just think it would be desirable if all catholics even nominal and incompletely formed ones had a proper understanding of, and respect for, the weight of the church’s teaching authority with respect to faith and morals. that desired clarity is not well served by, for example, allowing catholic universities sponsor workshops on contraception by planned parenthood!

food for thought. it seems like there’s no way to convince you that your “paper scheme” does a disservice to the reality of catholicism, but i will keep trying.

i’m reminded of a passage in chesterton’s “orthodoxy” in which he singles out the Church for straddling paradoxes (if that’s the right phrase): too peaceful for some, too warlike for others; too sexually restrictive for some, too pro-fertility for others. likewise i feel that some non-catholic christians accuse us of being simultaneously too centralized and authoritarian while others accuse us of lacking that same authority.

Though already beginning his journey to Rome (which would take until 1922) when he wrote ORTHODOXY, Chesterton was, at the time, still an Anglo-Catholic.

No, just an observation.

GKC

 

[tomarin]

Though already beginning his journey to Rome (which would take until 1922) when he wrote ORTHODOXY, Chesterton was, at the time, still an Anglo-Catholic.

good point, i had forgotten that.

 

[mgrfin]

Anglicanism is not our religion. Christianity is our religion. Anglicanism is the particular cultural tradition of Christianity to which we belong.

Edwin

I agree with you that Anglicanism is not your religion. Catholics, like me, have a hard time accepting that you consider yourselves ‘catholic’, with the same prayers, the same dogmas, the same liturgy.

To us, you are a protestant just as a lutheran or a baptist is. “A rose by any other name is still a rose” kind of thing.

Reading some articles on ‘Anglicanism being dead in England’, and that it is quite ‘chic’ to be a Catholic makes us Catholics wonder what is going on. Will the same lukewarmness overtake us as well, where God will want to puke?

I think I dont see any reason for Anglicanism continuing to exist, except for administrative reasons: property, titles - that sort of thing. But, considering that the property and titles once belonged to the Roman Catholic Church, I don’t see why the ‘whole crowd’ just doesn’t declare that they are joining Rome. I think ‘whole crowd’ would applaud since it takes the burden of conscience out of the whole decision.

And, we’d gain a few church historians to boot.

Maranatha

 

[Lepanto]

I’m in a bit of a hurry this morning, so only a brief observation. I find Henry a fascinating train wreck. But I’m guessing you don’t know a lot about his quest for a decree of nullity, or how the system of impediments, dispensations and decrees of nullity worked, in the early 16th century.

GKC

Actually, I am conversant on “how the system of impediments, dispensations and decrees of nullity worked, in the early 16th century.” (I’ve done my own reading, plus I had two college classes on the history of the Church in the modern period this past academic year.)

Regardless, even if I knew nothing about it, how would that change the veracity of what I said?

 

[tomarin]

I don’t think I’m confusing them–I think Catholics distinguish them artificially.

Authority is a living, active thing. If it’s just a paper procedure then shucks, we have authority too.

i don’t see how you can equate the catholic church’s authority with that of the church of england/anglicans/episcopalians when anglicans (i’ll just use the term anglican from this point on, if that’s ok) have such wide latitude to believe different things with regard to something as central as the real presence of jesus in the eucharist.

of course one of the defining characteristics of authority is that it is obeyed, and here i arrive at a paradox because we all know it is often reported that currently a minority of catholics believe in the real presence. but in my view this makes them defective catholics, it does not diminish the church’s rightful authority regarding her teachings on faith and morals.

i don’t know how these nominal catholics can be so misinformed as to not know about the real presence, or so negligent as to not recognize that they must believe in the real presence in order to receive the blessed sacrament. i tend to blame it on societal changes since the second world war – part of the post-christian condition which characterizes the west today – in which the role of god as master and believer as servant has curiously gotten itself reversed.

what is needed is a concerted effort on the part of orthodox clergy and laypersons to get the message out that the church’s “opinions” on faith and morals cannot be dismissed or ignored. i see this on ewtn and elsewhere and i think it is making a difference.

if the church survives it will not be because of nominal, misinformed or disinterested catholics. and i know that she will survive because jesus himself promised “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against her.

 

[GKC]

Greetings, Lepanto,

I’d say rather that knowing more about it would increase the accuracy of what you said.

Reading is a good thing. Helps get one deep into history. And Hank is one of my hobby areas. I recommend (if you haven’t read them) Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII and Kelly’s MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII, for details.

Henry was playing by the rules, as the rules went in those days. I’m still short of time, so I’m going to quote one of my favorite people: me. Herewith a c&p.

• By the 16th century, the Church system for managing the sacrament of marriage was incredibly complex, by design. It was intended to do two things: protect the sacrament, and simultaneously permit the making and unmaking of dynastic marriages, for political reasons. To do this, it had a system of courts, running up to the final court in Rome. And marriages were made and unmade, routinely and constantly, under this system.

Henry sought to do what was commonplace at the time. He sought a decree of nullity with respect to his marriage to Catherine, in order to make a marriage that would provide him with a legtimate male heir (a thing that had been worrying him for years) and also permit him to scratch an itch that he had recently acquired, re: Anne Boleyn. Seemed reasonable to him.

And, with respect to the system as it was worked in his day, it was not only reasonable, it was unexceptional. It happened daily. But to make it happen, Henry had to submit his case (causa) to the system, and wait for a decree of nullity, which he was fully justified in expecting to be forthcoming. Henry’s case was based on the concept of an impediment to his marriage to Catherine, arising from the prohibition in Leviticus against a man marrying his brother’s wife. This was what as generally known as an impediment of affinity (of which there were many kinds and degrees). Because of this impediment, Juluis II had issued a poorly worded dispensation (the other side of a decree of nullity, removing an impediment) permitting Henry to marry Catherine in the first place. Henry now maintained that the prohibition was Scriptural, God’s law, not positive Church law, and thus was beyond a Pope’s power to dispense. There are impediments like that; no one can dispense to permit a son to marry his mother for example an impediment of consanquinity in the first degree, direct). This meant that he was saying that Julius had made an error and the diispensation exceeded his authority (*ultra vires). *

While a reasonable case, it was not an exceptionally strong one. And Clement was not an exceptionally strong Pope. And for historical reasons that I pass over, the ruling was against Henry (hint: Charles V). But there was actually a stronger case lurking in Henry’s history (not that either case would have gotten him the decree of nullity; politics and military power trump canonical law). His stronger case, as Cardinal Wolsey saw, lay in a class of impediments called the justice of public honesty. Without getting into technical details, this meant that if a marrige was contracted and consummated between A and B, two actual types of impediments might arise for person C later wishing to marry A or B. That is, there was the potential for an impediment of affinity, which arose from the the consummation of the marriage, or of the justice of public honesty, which arose from the betrothal/marriage contract.

At the time, the rule was that if a valid marriage was contracted, and consummated, and later a dispensation was sought for some one who would have an impediment to marrying A or B, the dispensation need only specifically state that the affinity impediment was dispensed, and the impediment of public honesty was thereby dispensed, implicity. But, if the marriage was not consummated, as Catherine maintained all along, and as was likely true, then the justice of public honesty must be explicitly dispensed. Julius didn’t do that. And hence there was a good case for Henry.

He didn’t pursue that, and it didn’t really matter. Given the relationship between Clement and Charles, and Charles and Catherine, no way was Henry going to get a decree of nullity. An Emperor trumps a King. And an emperor controlling a Pope is stronger still. So Henry didn’t get his decree. He got a Church, instead. *

End of c&p. My points: Henry was doing what was commonplace (take a look at Charles XII, who received 2 decrees of nullity,and dispensations to marrige against impediments of affinity and consanquinity. Or Henry’s sister Maragret. That’s a beaut. It’s how the system worked, and was designed to work, until Trent reformed it. And Clement was forced into a political decision (not that unusual). Henry responded with a rather more unusual political decision. And here we are.

Any of that can be expanded on, even if it takes original typing this time, if you want.

Final and main point. Waving cardboard cutouts is not delving deep into history.

GKC

 

[mgrfin]

End of c&p. My points: Henry was doing what was commonplace (take a look at Charles XII, who received 2 decrees of nullity,and dispensations to marrige against impediments of affinity and consanquinity. Or Henry’s sister Maragret. That’s a beaut. It’s how the system worked, and was designed to work, until Trent reformed it. And Clement was forced into a political decision (not that unusual). Henry responded with a rather more unusual political decision. And here we are.

Any of that can be expanded on, even if it takes original typing this time, if you want.

Final and main point. Waving cardboard cutouts is not delving deep into history.

GKC

Excellent review of medieval canon law. Whether you are correct in your summation, it hardly matters.

The marriage to Catherine was ‘ratum’ since Henry had sought and received a dispensation to marry her. To say that it had been illegal to marry her, and in this case invalid, the Pope would have to have declared that his dispensation, rightly sought and signed for, was not rightly granted. Kind of like telling the Lutherans you are going to revoke the anathemas of the Council of Trent. It aint going to happen.

Now, the marriage to Catherine was ‘consummatum’. You sentence construct seems to imply that it was non-consummatum
'as Catherine maintained all along".

So what you have is a marriage, 'ratum et consummatum, plus the political ties of Catherine to Spain and the Pope, and Henry was just out of luck. That he would take the Church into schism, and eventual apostacy, I don’t believe anyone foresaw that. The ‘Defensor Fidei’ would never do that. But Henry had a lust problem, and he could have taken as many concumbines as was necessary to produce a male heir, albeit, bastard heir. But he needed that Papal approval for his conscience sake.

If it were nowadays, Henry could have gotten his annulment on psychological grounds, forget all those deriment impediments. But now was not then. He lost out, and rightly so. I don’t believe the Pope was wrong, or Henry was swindled, or that he didn’t get what every body else got. He got what he deserved, and what everyone in his situation got. Once he got his dispensation to marry Catherine, he was sunk.

Now is the time for the Anglican Church to come back to Rome, and stop aruguing about Henry’s poor state. He chopped off enough heads, and had enough wives. I pity the man, that he got the worst of all: he got what he wanted.

maranatha

 

[GKC]

Excellent review of medieval canon law. Whether you are correct in your summation, it hardly matters.

On that, we are agreed.

The marriage to Catherine was ‘ratum’ since Henry had sought and received a dispensation to marry her.

Actually, his father sought the dispensation.

To say that it had been illegal to marry her, and in this case invalid, the Pope would have to have declared that his dispensation, rightly sought and signed for, was not rightly granted.

Certainly, though it would have been Julius’ dispensation in question… Hence arguing that it was *ultra vires *was poking Clement in the collective Papal eye. Even if it was the case. But that’s not the argument made above. If the impediment from the justice of public honesty was not explicitly dispensed by Julius, then that impediment, diriment, if not dispensed; (but dispensable) remained. And the annulment Hank sought was proper, both from the Church’s rules, and from the custom of the day.

Kind of like telling the Lutherans you are going to revoke the anathemas of the Council of Trent. It aint going to happen.

Politics is politics.

Now, the marriage to Catherine was ‘consummatum’.

Said Hank. Catherine and her *duenna *said otherwise, and had said so since long before the annulment was raised. It was a factor in Henry VII’s quest for the remainder of Catherine’s dowry, from the Catholic monarchs. General consensus of historians I have read: non consummatum est". And so did Catherine’s supporters at the time. I don’t mean this was said because it mitigated against Henry’s causa re: the Levitical prohibition. It just seems to be true.

You sentence construct seems to imply that it was non-consummatum
'as Catherine maintained all along"

.

Yep. That’s what I said

So what you have is a marriage, 'ratum et consummatum, plus the political ties of Catherine to Spain and the Pope, and Henry was just out of luck.

As I said, the last part of this sentence is spot on. The first portions, not so.

That he would take the Church into schism, and eventual apostacy, I don’t believe anyone foresaw that. The ‘Defensor Fidei’ would never do that.

It was a culmination of a long process far predating Henry; the birth of nationalism by reducing the authority of the Church in England, and the authority of anyone outside England over the Church. A long list of acts and bills can be adduced to demonstrate. And it came to a head in just the wrong monarch.

Oh, and do you know why Henry had the title of Defensor Fidei? No, I mean precisely why?

But Henry had a lust problem, and he could have taken as many concumbines as was necessary to produce a male heir, albeit, bastard heir. But he needed that Papal approval for his conscience sake.

Henry had a dynasty problem, long before La Boleyn came on the scene. And he did have an illegitiamte heir. And worked the boy as hard as he could. It’s why he had him created Duke of Richmond and Earl Somerset. A long story I’ll go into, if necessary. Includes his daughter Mary.

If it were nowadays, Henry could have gotten his annulment on psychological grounds, forget all those deriment impediments. But now was not then. He lost out, and rightly so. I don’t believe the Pope was wrong, or Henry was swindled, or that he didn’t get what every body else got. He got what he deserved, and what everyone in his situation got. Once he got his dispensation to marry Catherine, he was sunk.

Once Charles was Emperor, he was sunk.Otherwise, he played the game as it was played. But his timing was bad.

Now is the time for the Anglican Church to come back to Rome, and stop aruguing about Henry’s poor state. He chopped off enough heads, and had enough wives. I pity the man, that he got the worst of all: he got what he wanted.

maranatha

I have enjoyed the discussion. IMO, I won. Henry, of course, lost.

GKC

 

[mgrfin]

On that, we are agreed.

Actually, his father sought the dispensation.

Certainly, though it would have been Julius’ dispensation in question… Hence arguing that it was *ultra vires *was poking Clement in the collective Papal eye. Even if it was the case. But that’s not the argument made above. If the impediment from the justice of public honesty was not explicitly dispensed by Julius, then that impediment, diriment, if not dispensed; (but dispensable) remained. And the annulment Hank sought was proper, both from the Church’s rules, and from the custom of the day.

Politics is politics.

Said Hank. Catherine and her *duenna *said otherwise, and had said so since long before the annulment was raised. It was a factor in Henry VII’s quest for the remainder of Catherine’s dowry, from the Catholic monarchs. General consensus of historians I have read: non consummatum est". And so did Catherine’s supporters at the time. I don’t mean this was said because it mitigated against Henry’s causa re: the Levitical prohibition. It just seems to be true.

Yep. That’s what I said

As I said, the last part of this sentence is spot on. The first portions, not so.

It was a culmination of a long process far predating Henry; the birth of nationaliosm by reduing the authority of the Church in England, and the authority of anyone outside England over the Church. A long list of acts and bills can be adduced to demonstrate. And it came to a head in just the wrong monarch.

Oh, and do you know why Henry had the title of Defensor Fidei? No, I mean precisely why?

Henry had a dynasty problem, long before La Boleyn came on the scene. And he did have an illegitiamte heir. And worked the boy as hard as he could. It’s why he had him created Duke of Richmond and Earl Somerset. A long story I’ll go into, if necessary. Includes his daughter Mary.

Once Charles was Emperor, he was sunk.Otherwise, he played the game as it was played. But his timing was bad.

I have enjoyed the discussion. IMO, I won. Henry, of course, lost.

GKC

I don’t believe it was politics in not removing the anathemas from (Luther’s claims. He was, and still is a heretic, and will remain so til eternity).

As for his father asking for the dispensation, this would have been odd. Henry was underage? The request for a dispensation to marry Catherine would have to be signed by Henry, and forwarded by the Papal Legal to Rome, probably thru Thomas Wolsey.

He was only the second monarch of the House of Tudor. If it weren’t for Elizabeth, his dynasty wouldn’t have lasted that long.

Yeah, I know why he had the title of “Defensor Fidei”, and his bastard son died when he was a teenager. Although the TV show had he die when he was about 3.

It was not politics for Henry not getting his annulment. The Church was put in a difficult position. The Church has his request for a dispensantion for his marriage to Catherine, and he got it. Once that happens, even today, When you ask for it, you usually get it, and going back is a tough row to hoe, and in marriage dispensations, like, never.

(we had a little miscommunication there on the ‘dispensation’. There was one for the marriage to Catherine, and one for the ‘dispensation’ from the marriage to Catherine (although that was a decree of nullity sought).

(Are you sure you are not Edwin in disguise?)

maranatha

 

[GKC]

I don’t believe it was politics in not removing the anathemas from (Luther’s claims. He was, and still is a heretic, and will remain so til eternity).

As for his father asking for the dispensation, this would have been odd. Henry was underage? The request for a dispensation to marry Catherine would have to be signed by Henry, and forwarded by the Papal Legal to Rome, probably thru Thomas Wolsey.

He was only the second monarch of the House of Tudor. If it weren’t for Elizabeth, his dynasty wouldn’t have lasted that long.

Yeah, I know why he had the title of “Defensor Fidei”, and his bastard son died when he was a teenager. Although the TV show had he die when he was about 3.

It was not politics for Henry not getting his annulment. The Church was put in a difficult position. The Church has his request for a dispensantion for his marriage to Catherine, and he got it. Once that happens, even today, When you ask for it, you usually get it, and going back is a tough row to hoe, and in marriage dispensations, like, never.

(we had a little miscommunication there on the ‘dispensation’. There was one for the marriage to Catherine, and one for the ‘dispensation’ from the marriage to Catherine (although that was a decree of nullity sought).

(Are you sure you are not Edwin in disguise?)

maranatha

Edwin is one of my oldest friends on line, but I am not he, I think. In fact, he was the 2nd person to whom I ever posted, about 50 years ago. He is smart and tricky. I hope he moves over the river, soon. He will do well there.

Underage is a tricky issue. Hank was about 11 when the negotiations got serious. This was after Henry VII had dallied with picking her up on the rebound, post Arthur, himself. When the dispensation was sought, Hank was about 12+. His pop and the dowry were the motivating forces. Henry once declared he was not a party to it, at all.

The fact that Hery was only the second in his line is precisely the point. A feeble grip on the throne could easily be broken, and an illegitimate heir was not the strongest successor. And it was only a generation back that the ground was covered with red and white roses, engaged in disputing the question of whose buttocks were going to grace the throne. Hank wanted none of that. And rightly so.

On Defensor Fidei, I’m talking about the whole story, not just the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum. Go ahead and ask, if it’s not all known to you. I can c&p it.

The Church was indeed in a tight spot. Clement wished Catherine would take the veil, contemplated the idea of sanctioning bigamy, hoped everyone concerned would die, anything so that it all would go away. But it wouldn’t. And, as the system was designed to do, it accomodated the political component. In this case, the strongest component, Charles. Hank was trumped and he was not the man to stand for it. And here we are.

Again, I can’t recommend too highly Scarisbrick’s bio of Henry. It is masterful (though Kelly, in his book, argues with him a little).

I greatly enjoy this (when time permits), and am willing to expand on this and that, as required. There is the case of Thomas, Duke of Clarence, and Margaret Holland, in 1410, for example. And how does that relate to Henry? Ah, history is complicated and fascinating.

GKC

 

[mgrfin]

Edwin is one of my oldest friends on line, but I am not he, I think. In fact, he was the 2nd person to whom I ever posted, about 50 years ago. He is smart and tricky. I hope he moves over the river, soon. He will do well there.

Underage is a tricky issue. Hank was about 11 when the negotiations got serious. This was after Henry VII had dallied with picking her up on the rebound, post Arthur, himself. When the dispensation was sought, Hank was about 12+. His pop and the dowry were the motivating forces. Henry once declared he was not a party to it, at all.

The fact that Hery was only the second in his line is precisely the point. A feeble grip on the throne could easily be broken, and an illegitimate heir was not the strongest successor. And it was only a generation back that the ground was covered with red and white roses, engaged in disputing the question of whose buttocks were going to grace the throne. Hank wanted none of that. And rightly so.

On Defensor Fidei, I’m talking about the whole story, not just the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum. Go ahead and ask, if it’s not all known to you. I can c&p it.

The Church was indeed in a tight spot. Clement wished Catherine would take the veil, contemplated the idea of sanctioning bigamy, hoped everyone concerned would die, anything so that it all would go away. But it wouldn’t. And, as the system was designed to do, it accomodated the political component. In this case, the strongest component, Charles. Hank was trumped and he was not the man to stand for it. And here we are.

Again, I can’t recommend too highly Scarisbrick’s bio of Henry. It is masterful (though Kelly, in his book, argues with him a little).

I greatly enjoy this (when time permits), and am willing to expand on this and that, as required. There is the case of Thomas, Duke of Clarence, and Margaret Holland, in 1410, for example. And how does that relate to Henry? Ah, history is complicated and fascinating.

GKC

Reading of the 16th century, and the lives of those people makes me want to cry. John Fisher and Thomas More were my favorites, since I’ve lived in parishes dedicated to each of them.

GKC is one of my favorites on the Reformation, and The Stripping of the Altars, and several others I can’t remember, off-hand.

I shouldn’t love the English so, since they killed and persecuted my ancestors. St. Oliver Plunkett was a distant relative. We forget, at times, that those were violent times in Merry Ol’.

maranata

 

[GKC]

Reading of the 16th century, and the lives of those people makes me want to cry. John Fisher and Thomas More were my favorites, since I’ve lived in parishes dedicated to each of them.

GKC is one of my favorites on the Reformation, and The Stripping of the Altars, and several others I can’t remember, off-hand.

I shouldn’t love the English so, since they killed and persecuted my ancestors. St. Oliver Plunkett was a distant relative. We forget, at times, that those were violent times in Merry Ol’.

maranata

GKC, as you might guess, is one of my favorites, too. I’ve been collecting him for about 42 years, have about everything he wrote.

But stripping of the altars? You mean Duffy’s book?

The English, as did all others, lived in accordance the mores of the times. Which, all too often, meant killing the “others”.

GKC

 

[mgrfin]

GKC, as you might guess, is one of my favorites, too. I’ve been collecting him for about 42 years, have about everything he wrote.

But stripping of the altars? You mean Duffy’s book?

The English, as did all others, lived in accordance the mores of the times. Which, all too often, meant killing the “others”.

GKC

Eamon Duffy, “The Stripping of the Altars”
Also, “The Reformation” by Diamond MacCulloch
“The Reformation” by Patrick Collinson
GKC How the Reformation Happened.

I’ve read the lives of the various English martyrs. Information available on line. Very gruesome, but spiritually inspiring.

peace

 

[BrewMax]

I am sure this has been brought up before, but I would like some quick thoughts on this.
Last nite I was at my Daughters Volley Ball game. My ex mother-in-law was there with her husband. She has been having some medical problems so I asked how she was doing…some small talk and so on. Then I told her I have been going to Mass on a regular basis, which she was shocked.

Then she told me she has been going to this angelican Church with her husband. What? I said. I thought you were Catholic, I said. Then her husband sat down next to me and started to basically try and recruit me.

They dont believe in the Assumption, they do not follow the Popes word and they preach mostly from the Bible. He also said they say the same prayers, have Communion and all the other things us Catholics do.

He talked to me the whole time at the game. Trying to get me to come to their Church. I said, but not recognizing the Pope and folowing the Catholic Catechism is a sin. He laughed.

Then he went on about Gay priests in the Episcopal Religion and how they left the Church…blah blah blah.

When I left that place, I was like totally confused. It was like they are Catholic but not. He wants me to come to their Church and said I will like it better.

I will not go. My faith is with the Roman Catholic Church and thats it. PERIOD Who are these people? Sorry for being so long winded.
Did they just decide to do what they want?

I have recently started going to church with my wife and my son in their church which is Anglican. They do not believe in ordaining those in same sex relationships to the priesthood or otherwise. Many cultural differences between them and Episcopalians.

 

[GKC]

Eamon Duffy, “The Stripping of the Altars”
Also, “The Reformation” by Diamond MacCulloch
“The Reformation” by Patrick Collinson
GKC How the Reformation Happened.

I’ve read the lives of the various English martyrs. Information available on line. Very gruesome, but spiritually inspiring.

peace

I don’t think I have the Collinson book, but I have MacCullough and Duffy. Both are quite good. What’s Collinson like?

However, HOW THE REFORMATION HAPPENED wasn’t Chesterton, it was Belloc. I collect Belloc, too. You might like his CHARACTERS OF THE REFORMATION. And I can’t recommend Scarisbrick too highly.

The story of what people have done to people, generally, can be quite gruesome, yes.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I have recently started going to church with my wife and my son in their church which is Anglican. They do not believe in ordaining those in same sex relationships to the priesthood or otherwise. Many cultural differences between them and Episcopalians.

Do you know what Anglican jurisdiction they are part of?

GKC

 

[mgrfin]

I don’t think I have the Collinson book, but I have MacCullough and Duffy. Both are quite good. What’s Collinson like?

However, HOW THE REFORMATION HAPPENED wasn’t Chesterton, it was Belloc. I collect Belloc, too. You might like his CHARACTERS OF THE REFORMATION. And I can’t recommend Scarisbrick too highly.

The story of what people have done to people, generally, can be quite gruesome, yes.

GKC

Ooops. Hilaire. Sorry.

Collison is the smallest book. But it has an index and a chapter of reference material. Very fair to the Catholic position. An early chapter is entitled: “Reformation? What Reformation?”

Take it from there. It oozes Trinity College, Cambridge. I liked it a lot, and would like to read it again.

peace

 

[Contarini]

I don’t think I have the Collinson book, but I have MacCullough and Duffy. Both are quite good. What’s Collinson like?

Collinson is one of the major experts on the Puritans (no wonder you don’t have him!). I am not familiar with his general book on the Reformation, but I would expect it to be good.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

i’m reminded of a passage in chesterton’s “orthodoxy” in which he singles out the Church for straddling paradoxes (if that’s the right phrase): too peaceful for some, too warlike for others; too sexually restrictive for some, too pro-fertility for others. likewise i feel that some non-catholic christians accuse us of being simultaneously too centralized and authoritarian while others accuse us of lacking that same authority.

That’s an extremely valid point and one I have often thought about.

However, that’s not the point I’m making. I’m not particularly criticizing the Catholic Church’s practice for being too strict or not strict enough. I’m simply pointing out that the reality on the ground is complex and confused–which is to say, it’s much like every other aspect of reality. The Catholicism people are advocating on this board is largely a paper Catholicism. In some ways it may be better than the real Catholicism, and in others not, but the one clear way in which it is inferior is that it does not exist.

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You’re right. It doesn’t make sense. But if that weren’t enough Anglicans will tell you that their approach is very near to the Catholic Church. They will tell you that their prayers and ceremonies are like many prayers and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, that their Creed is the Apostle’s Creed. But, in principle, they are far off. They profess to believe in one Church, which has, unfortunately, become more than one; in unity, which ceased to exist long ago, for want of a center; in authority, which nobody needs to obey, because it has lost the power to teach; in God’s presence with the Church, which does not keep her from errors; in Divine promises, which were made only to be broken; in a Divine constitution, which needs to be periodically reformed; in a mission to teach all nations, while she is unable to teach even herself; and in the sanctity of truths which their own sect has defiled, and which are profanely mocked to this very day by its bishops, clergy, and people.

How does this not tell against us Catholics though ? We are liable to most of these objections too.​

It simply is not true that Anglican bishops do not teach - the ecclesiology is different fromthe RC one, but that does not make it wrong, or chaotic; it makes it non-identical.

A Church with the record of heresies, schisms & scandals like the CC is surely not in the best position to rebuke the Anglican Church. That’s the problem with having a long history - one can’t edit out the nasty bits without falsifying the past.

A lot of the criticisms Christians make of Churches they don’t belong to are founded on passing problems - & the same goes for the strengths that Churches boast of. Neither the C of E nor Catholicism was in the best of health in 1750 - but the 19th century, by contrast, was a great age of missionaries & martyrs for both.

If we look at the filth in other Churches, & only that, we are going to be blind to to the grace of God’s action in them. Sometimes, there is no work for the devil to do - he can take a rest from “accusing [the] brethren day and night”, because we do his work for him. For Christians to do that is positively bizarre.