G
- Status
FWIW - Anglicanism has a hierarchy - it even has archdeacons, just as we did until the Reformation. It also has canon law, ecclesiastical courts, synods, plenty of that kind of thing; just like the RCC. Naturally enough, the “machinery” that helps it function does not get much coverage in the news - but then, courts of first instance tend not to attract attention either
Is this a result of its being Christian - or of its being specifically the kind of Christian Church it is ?
O
outfctrl
Guest
I had no idea this thread would get this deep. I tried to read everyones response and it just seems to go deeper and deeper.
Why so many splits from our Mother? Why is that. Is it because the Roman Catholic Faith is too demanding on us and people look for an easier way out?
Granted, we have our faults, but it only makes us stronger to overcome them. Do you become an outcast, leaving the Church for another? Are you in mortal sin by following another faith?
If so, why would you leave?
Why so many splits from our Mother? Why is that. Is it because the Roman Catholic Faith is too demanding on us and people look for an easier way out?
Granted, we have our faults, but it only makes us stronger to overcome them. Do you become an outcast, leaving the Church for another? Are you in mortal sin by following another faith?
If so, why would you leave?
T
tomarin
Guest
i understand. you are merely following your dictum of being a nominalist about other people’s religions, and a realist about your own. that’s all well and good for you.
but every catholic living in the modern era has to make a stark choice about whom she or he trusts more, the authority of the church regarding her sacred tradition or her own authority. why on earth would anyone trust her own authority? what claim to authority could she possibly have that would match that of the church herself?
M
manualman
Guest
That’s not how it looks from here! If I’m an Anglican, how do I know if women can be priests or not? Kind of an important question when the local parish is presided over by a woman and the worldwide hierarchy is split on the matter. Same issue is developing in the matter of practicing gay priests: is sodomy inherently sinful or not? Is Scripture inerrant or not? I hear you on the eclessiastical structures in which these issues are supposed to be addressed, but from here they look more like decayed vestiges of the past than active organs of the present.FWIW - Anglicanism has a hierarchy - it even has archdeacons, just as we did until the Reformation. It also has canon law, ecclesiastical courts, synods, plenty of that kind of thing; just like the RCC. Naturally enough, the “machinery” that helps it function does not get much coverage in the news - but then, courts of first instance tend not to attract attention either
Is this a result of its being Christian - or of its being specifically the kind of Christian Church it is ?## Anglicanism certainly has that complexity & depth-with-simplicity
IMHO, this comes from its being Christian: specifically, from the fullness of Christ which it, like other Churches, receives from Him. This fullness is that mentioned in their different ways by St. Paul & St.John - it’s not primarily a quality of a Church, but a quality of the self-revelation of the Father in His Son. AFAICS anyway
In short, I think there is some dodging of the point going on here. When somebody WANTS to know the ACTUAL teachings of the catholic church, it is quite easy to determine what they are. The numbers of chaff growing amongst the wheat is irrelevant. Speaking of the visible Church is not a claim to a purity of its members, but the clarity of its teaching. When a christian community devolves to the point where someone genuinely seeking the truth cannot easily figure out what the core beliefs of said group are… Well, if it doesn’t already bother you I don’t know what else to say!
G
GKC
Guest
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
That depends on where one is loooking from.
No, no dodging.
My own experience is that there is considerable confusion in Catholic teaching. For example - how many books are there in the Catholic canon of the Bible ? Roman Rite Catholics have 72 (or 73, if Baruch 6 is reckoned as a separate book) - various Byzantine Catholic Rites include Three & Four Maccabees, & Psalm 151. Who is right ? Both canons are used in Churches united with Rome. Again: are the Ecumenical Councils held in the West ecumenical ? There is some division on the matter among Catholics. Anglicanism is a model of clarity in comparison - the disputes arise on different issues from the disputes among Catholics; that doesn’t mean Catholicism is in reality any clearer or less divided.
A lot of Catholics seem very keen on mentioning the “chaff” - they never say anything constructive: they attack Anglicanism - but the possibility, or rather the fact, that Anglicanism is not totally a mass of corruption receives no attention at all.
Catholics seem to pay no attention to the very different official attitude of the RCC - yet it at least is clear enough. Which only shows that Catholics ignore Rome when it suits them to do so - on ecumenism, as much as on other matters. The boasting of Catholics about the certainty & clarity of Catholic doctrine is useless in practice, if they ignore it when it suits them. Catholics are not better than Protestants, & cannot afford to boast as though they were superior - Catholics, & the CC, are as defective & sinful & divided as anyone else; so there is no place for any kind of superiority complex.The two are not the same, nor is either one reducible to the other. There is much more to the visibility of the Church than its clarity (or want of it) in teaching. What good is teaching, without Christian conduct ?
It bothers me, definitely: Rome is as double-tongued as Tony Blair; & that is not a compliment 
M
manualman
Guest
I think you misinterpret me rather badly. Chaff refers not to anyone in Anglicanism, but the fact that the pews (and not a few rectories) of the CATHOLIC church certainly contain easily their fair share of people who claim the title christian, but really aren’t. It is uncharitable in the extreme to try to identify individuals as such, but it is necessity to discern in general that this is a fact. To ignore it is to implicitly accept the lukewarmness that Christ said he will spit out.That depends on where one is loooking from. ## No, no dodging. ## My own experience is that there is considerable confusion in Catholic teaching. For example - how many books are there in the Catholic canon of the Bible ? Roman Rite Catholics have 72 (or 73, if Baruch 6 is reckoned as a separate book) - various Byzantine Catholic Rites include Three & Four Maccabees, & Psalm 151. Who is right ? Both canons are used in Churches united with Rome. Again: are the Ecumenical Councils held in the West ecumenical ? There is some division on the matter among Catholics. Anglicanism is a model of clarity in comparison - the disputes arise on different issues from the disputes among Catholics; that doesn’t mean Catholicism is in reality any clearer or less divided. ## A lot of Catholics seem very keen on mentioning the “chaff” - they never say anything constructive: they attack Anglicanism - but the possibility, or rather the fact, that Anglicanism is not totally a mass of corruption receives no attention at all.
Catholics seem to pay no attention to the very different official attitude of the RCC - yet it at least is clear enough. Which only shows that Catholics ignore Rome when it suits them to do so - on ecumenism, as much as on other matters. The boasting of Catholics about the certainty & clarity of Catholic doctrine is useless in practice, if they ignore it when it suits them. Catholics are not better than Protestants, & cannot afford to boast as though they were superior - Catholics, & the CC, are as defective & sinful & divided as anyone else; so there is no place for any kind of superiority complex. ## The two are not the same, nor is either one reducible to the other. There is much more to the visibility of the Church than its clarity (or want of it) in teaching. What good is teaching, without Christian conduct ? ## It bothers me, definitely: Rome is as double-tongued as Tony Blair; & that is not a compliment
You imply that I and perhaps others like me reject Catholic teaching on ecumenism. Not so at all. I merely reject definitions of ecumenism that are identical to the definition of nominalism. True ecumenism as idealised in VII calls for the recognition and emphasis of things we have in common with other christians, not the pretense that the things in which we disagree don’t matter.
On page 8 of a thread, I hardly think it unecumenical to frankly discuss the genuine differences between the Anglicans and Catholics in clear, blunt terms. Differences matter. (And I’m not a scholar of the Eastern Rites enough to respond to the issues you raise. But I doubt any text you mention results in genuine differences in revealed truth. Is that the best you can do as an example of confused Catholic teaching?)
If you mean what I think you do about the forked tongue, you had better be sure you are right. Certain pharisees called Jesus the devil over his teachings too and the bible called it the unforgiveable sin (seeing the work of God and calling it of the devil).
I’ve read a fair number of your posts and appreciate the obvious scholarly perspective. Reminds me of the Jerome Bibical Commentary. You decide if that is a compliment or not.
K
kotek
Guest
Actually there is a way in Anglicanism to find out what is "orthodox"and what is not. Some call it the “five finger” idea.
- One Canon
- Two Testaments, Old and New
- Three Creeds; Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian
- Four Ecumenical Councils
- Five centuries of Church Fathers and Tradition
Also Anglicans hold three standards, Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.
So using these criteria it is obvious that there are to be no Women “Priests” or “Bishops” and it is wrong to ordain practising homosexuals as clergy.
M
mgrfin
Guest
Gottle of Geer;**2913613My own experience is that there is considerable confusion in Catholic teaching. For example - how many books are there in the Catholic canon of the Bible ? Roman Rite Catholics have 72 (or 73 said:
I am not aware of ‘considerable confusion’ as you say, in Catholic teaching. There may be some differences of opinion among on some issues, where certain issues have not been defined de fide, but that is only healthy. When it comes to the Canon of the Bible that was defined for us at the Council of Trent. The Book of Baruch 6 (The Epistle of Jeremiah) has always been recognized by the Church as an inspired work, whether it is part of 1 Baruch, or considered in itself.
An interesting post, especially if coming from a Roman Catholic. I suspect that you may be more an “Anglican Catholic”, rather than a Roman Catholic. The world seems always to look to ‘experts’. However, you don’t reflect my living of the Christian life, and you claim to know that all Catholics seem to be living in this cafeteria, where we pick and choose what we like. Christians have been doing this since the time of St. Paul, so you get no marks for saying we don’t live up to the ideal. Try not to be so universal in your opinions, and I will feel a lot better about what you have to say.
We never said we were better than anyone else, and in the U.S.A., I don’t see a lot of anti-Anglicanism going on. My experience of Anglicans on this site is that they claim to know all about us, how we live, how we think, how we believe, and how we live the life of Christ present among us in the Catholic Church, that the reality does not live up to the ideal. The topic of this thread is the confusion existing in the Anglican Church. If they can’t figure out homosexuality, and sodomy as something against the Ten Commandments, where are they going? Pop your concerns there, on the topic. Their priesthood has no validity, and their Eucharist is of no value. Why are we attacking ourselves, and you leading the charge? Your concern about whether Catholic believe that the Synod of Pisa was ecumenical or not is not a burning issue, and does not diminish our beliefs one iota.
How about taking the high road? Preach to us about living the sacramental life of the Church to the full. Tell us that our prayer life is wanting, that we spend not enough of our selves loving our neighbor as ourselves. Tell us how to meditate, and to read the Scriptures to find Christ. Move us towards our devotions to the Blessed Mother and the Saints, and how to aid our neighbors in need as the way to heaven. Show us how to be more involved when we are ‘standing around’ at the altar during the eternal Sacrifice. “Credo… in unam, sanctam, apostolicam Ecclesiam…”
Today is our Feast Day. Let us rejoice in it, and enjoy.
maranatha
G
GKC
Guest
“We never said we were better than anyone else, and in the U.S.A., I don’t see a lot of anti-Anglicanism going on. My experience of Anglicans on this site is that they claim to know all about us, how we live, how we think, how we believe, and how we live the life of Christ present among us in the Catholic Church, that the reality does not live up to the ideal. The topic of this thread is the confusion existing in the Anglican Church. If they can’t figure out homosexuality, and sodomy as something against the Ten Commandments, where are they going? Pop your concerns there, on the topic. Their priesthood has no validity, and their Eucharist is of no value. Why are we attacking ourselves, and you leading the charge? Your concern about whether Catholic believe that the Synod of Pisa was ecumenical or not is not a burning issue, and does not diminish our beliefs one iota.”
Oh, come on, mgrfin. Universal in opinion? I’m an Anglican on this site. What I know all about is Henry and his times, and the rules of the game as they were then played. And about the theology, logic, history and personalities surrounding *Apostolicae Curae * And lots of other stuff, not specified, possibly including Anglicanism in general. Including that the validity of Anglican orders requires some nuancing. And the Eucharist, likewise. I’m fairly well up on the RCC, but that’s not me you’re describing universally, above. Distinquo is a better approach.
GKC
Oh, come on, mgrfin. Universal in opinion? I’m an Anglican on this site. What I know all about is Henry and his times, and the rules of the game as they were then played. And about the theology, logic, history and personalities surrounding *Apostolicae Curae * And lots of other stuff, not specified, possibly including Anglicanism in general. Including that the validity of Anglican orders requires some nuancing. And the Eucharist, likewise. I’m fairly well up on the RCC, but that’s not me you’re describing universally, above. Distinquo is a better approach.
GKC
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
No Catholic Rite in communion with the See of Peter includes 3 or 4 Maccabees or Psalm 151 in the Canon of Scripture. Some Orthodox congregations give them some degree of recognition, but no Catholic (or Protestant) groups do. The specific status of the books is listed in the Oxford Annotated Bible (I’m not near my copy at the moment).
And Episcopalian confusion, it seems, continues. Yesterday, a prominent (and heretical) Episcopal Bishop, Charles Bennison of Pennsylvania was charged with conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy, and inhibited by the TEC presiding bishop.
One wonders what the status of his invitation to the Lambeth Conference now becomes.
Blessings,
Gerry
And Episcopalian confusion, it seems, continues. Yesterday, a prominent (and heretical) Episcopal Bishop, Charles Bennison of Pennsylvania was charged with conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy, and inhibited by the TEC presiding bishop.
One wonders what the status of his invitation to the Lambeth Conference now becomes.
Blessings,
Gerry
G
GKC
Guest
Up to the last sentence you were doing well (though I know Anglicans who hold to 7 Councils). But the Articles are not binding
on any Anglcain, in any fashion whatsover, with 2 (I used to be aboe to say 1, but there has been a small change in an Anglican jurisdiction if Africa) exceptions: Ordinands of the Church of England, due to the Erastian nature of the CoE, and one (in the last few years) Anglican jurisdiction in Africa, which adopted langauage affirming them. Any other Anglican is free to affirm, deny, or laugh at the articles, as he/she choses . They are history, how Elizabeth I chose to govern her fractious Church, theology as statecraft. In general, Anglicanism is Creedal, and not confessional, and I know parishes who cut the XXIX from the Prayer Books and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter.
Bottom line: The Articles are not normative or definitive for Anglicanism. Almost nothing is (which is part of the problem.
GKC
Anglicanus Catholicus
G
GKC
Guest
Good question. Of course, “heretical” is a flexible term within TEC. And generally the only thing that can get one univited from the Lambeth port fest is rampant and shameless orthodoxy, so, in that sense, Charlie’s is ok.
GKC
M
mgrfin
Guest
GKC;2915324 said:
And lots of other stuff, not specified, possibly including Anglicanism in general. Including that the validity of Anglican orders requires some nuancing. And the Eucharist, likewise. I’m fairly well up on the RCC, but that’s not me you’re describing universally, above. Distinquo is a better approach.
GKC
“Distinguo” is not in my classical Latin dictionary, but it is in my mind. My ‘problem’ is my ‘shameless’ Roman Catholic orthodoxy, which is an easy thing, for it takes away the difficulties you face. I don’t have to weigh opinions and prejudices, and arguments, Christ gives me peace cause I follow what the Vicar of Christ says. You should have some of this ‘shameless and rampant orthodoxy’.
Henry got what he deserved. His problem was in his extremities, not in his scruples to get his marriage declared null. He searched Europe with bribe money to get Universities to back him in his appeal to the Church. Give the Pope credit. His Church was crumbling around him, and he was a virtual prisoner of the Emperor, yet, he stood fast against England even though Germany and Switzerland would fall. Henry’s bribes would not be enough. If his life were lived out with Anne Boleyn, instead of cutting off heads, and taking wife and wife to himself, he would have gotten a lot more sympathy.
I am not privy to the times of “Apostolicae Curae”, and all the theology, logic, history and personalities involved. Not many decisions of the Holy See on any issue have been the unanimous opinions of those contributing to the conclusions. I am sure there were arguments and dissenters on the Immaculate Conception, but after all was said and done, it is a defined dogma of faith. Heavy is the decision of the papacy on Anglican Orders, but Rome has spoken.
I don’t have to nuance. Our stance on the Anglican Eucharist follows on our decision of Anglican Orders. If there are Anglican priests out there believing their orders are valid, and in the Real Presence of their Eucharist, they are in denial of the final decision on the matter by the RCC. They may not care. That’s ok, too.
And no, GKG, I don’t belief you are overtly universal in your opinions
G
GKC
Guest
It’s “I distinguish” (i.e., make a distinction). If it isn’t, don’t tell my daughter I said it was.
Your post is not out of order for a RCC member. Historically and logically, it is not completely accurate, but it is not overly offensive and, for the most part, what a RC should affirm. You understand that Anglicans differ, in part, of course.
But it’s the last sentence I was driving at.
BTW, why is your RC orthodoxy “shameless”? You’re not in the Anglican diocese of Pennsylvania, are you?
GKC
Anglicanus Catholicus
G
GKC
Guest
M
manualman
Guest
For the record, I reread a lot of this and have concluded that my tone at times was rather smug. For that I sincerely apologize.
On the other hand, it IS hard to witness ones catholic faith appropriately in matters of contention such as this. I have no basis to be smug since none of catholic teaching is MY idea. In no way am I superior because I was graced enough to stumble across the Bride of Christ! Nonetheless, I am convinced of the truth of her claims. If that certainty offends some others, its not intended as an offense; it’s merely my conviction and one that I’d like others to experience the joy of!
On the other hand, it IS hard to witness ones catholic faith appropriately in matters of contention such as this. I have no basis to be smug since none of catholic teaching is MY idea. In no way am I superior because I was graced enough to stumble across the Bride of Christ! Nonetheless, I am convinced of the truth of her claims. If that certainty offends some others, its not intended as an offense; it’s merely my conviction and one that I’d like others to experience the joy of!
- Status