Anglican Church? Really confused.

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Oooh, so anglicans dont have the common christian diseased mentality of “we are the only true church”. Awright!

“Anglicans do not believe that God has all people to be Anglicans” is not a claim to be “the only true church” - it’s a recognition that Anglicanism does not claim to be the OTC.​

God calls some to be Anglican - & others, to be some other kind of Christian. This claim is much easier theologically for Anglicanism than for Catholicism or Orthodoxy, because Anglicanism does not claim to be co-extensive with the Church on earth, as Catholicism tends to, & Orthodoxy does (AFAI understand Orthodox ecclesiology; apologies for any errors). Quite what Rome’s position is in these matters, I find very hard to understand.

 

[mark_a]

He said that there is no record of the Assumption in the Bible and that it was pronounced in the 1800’s by the Pope. They dont believe in it.

It’s just natural for people who convert from Catholicism to have a theological bone or two of contention concerning faith, but deep down their problems have more to do with Catholic moral theology.

 

[GKC]

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

Thank you, sir. I might look for him, then. Knowing things is good.

GKC

 

[GKC]

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

A very Chestertonian turn of phrase, that last.

GKC

 

[mgrfin]

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

Paper Catholicism? I’ll remember that the next time when I’m "standing around’ during the Sacrifice of the Mass.

It’s tough living up, or living down to the image people have of our faith and practice. But, it is as real as reality gets.

peace

 

[Contarini]

Paper Catholicism? I’ll remember that the next time when I’m "standing around’ during the Sacrifice of the Mass.

It’s tough living up, or living down to the image people have of our faith and practice. But, it is as real as reality gets.

peace

I know that. I am not talking about the Mass. I am not talking about parish life. I am not talking about devotions to the saints. I am not talking about any of that.

I am *only *talking about the claims Catholics make based on a theoretical model of how authority is supposed to work in their Church, as divorced from how it actually functions.

A reasonable reading of my previous posts would have told you that.

Edwin

 

[mgrfin]

I know that. I am not talking about the Mass. I am not talking about parish life. I am not talking about devotions to the saints. I am not talking about any of that.

I am *only *talking about the claims Catholics make based on a theoretical model of how authority is supposed to work in their Church, as divorced from how it actually functions.

A reasonable reading of my previous posts would have told you that.

Edwin

Yes, Edwin, I’ve read your posts, and I am well aware of what you are talking about.

You are saying it all doesn’t live up to expectations, and I am saying it can far extend past expectations, or at least be, as expected.

I believe I have had more contact with the Catholic Church, on very high levels, than you. Canon Law operates pretty much as it says it does.

If you need something from the Federal Government, it helps to know someone, politically, to get what you want. In the Church, it doesn’t seem to work that way for people like me - I get (got) what it says I will get, regardless of who I am. And I am more or less nobody - just a plain Joe trying to make my way to heaven.

We could ask Henry VIII. He didn’t get anything more than he deserved, and he was well connected.

Sure there is political corruption somewhere in the Church, but nowhere where I’ve been. The reality may not live up to the promise, but, in our case, the promise is very great.

I know that this doesn’t help much in your connundrum. I will fulfill the mission Providence has set for me, “for we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good.” I wish the same good for you.

peace

 

[GKC]

“We could ask Henry VIII. He didn’t get anything more than he deserved, and he was well connected.”

But Charles was better connected.

I’m intruding into a conversation here, but I don’t think corruption is what Edwin is talking about. Nor was I, re: Henry.

GKC

 

[mgrfin]

“We could ask Henry VIII. He didn’t get anything more than he deserved, and he was well connected.”

But Charles was better connected.

I’m intruding into a conversation here, but I don’t think corruption is what Edwin is talking about. Nor was I, re: Henry.

GKC

Youre not intruding. Generally, I don’t know what Edwin is talking about. I’m just a grave-digger’s son from Brooklyn.

peace

 

[GKC]

Youre not intruding. Generally, I don’t know what Edwin is talking about. I’m just a grave-digger’s son from Brooklyn.

peace

Somehow, that reminds of an Irish song, that I can’t remember.

GKC

 

[tomarin]

Yes, Edwin, I’ve read your posts, and I am well aware of what you are talking about.

You are saying it all doesn’t live up to expectations, and I am saying it can far extend past expectations, or at least be, as expected.

I believe I have had more contact with the Catholic Church, on very high levels, than you. Canon Law operates pretty much as it says it does.

If you need something from the Federal Government, it helps to know someone, politically, to get what you want. In the Church, it doesn’t seem to work that way for people like me - I get (got) what it says I will get, regardless of who I am. And I am more or less nobody - just a plain Joe trying to make my way to heaven.

We could ask Henry VIII. He didn’t get anything more than he deserved, and he was well connected.

Sure there is political corruption somewhere in the Church, but nowhere where I’ve been. The reality may not live up to the promise, but, in our case, the promise is very great.

I know that this doesn’t help much in your connundrum. I will fulfill the mission Providence has set for me, “for we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good.” I wish the same good for you.

peace

he’s not saying the church is corrupt; he’s saying that orthodox catholicism is not real catholicism as it is lived by most catholics. they use birth control, don’t receive the blessed sacrament in a properly disposed state, support legal abortion, etc. in direct contradiction to the church’s teachings about such things.

because a large number or even majority of american catholics allow their own personal authority to supercede that of the church on matters of conscience, contarini believes that it follows that these people define catholicism as a lived reality, not the minority of orthodox or the church hierarchy who practice the religion according to its own rules. the church’s authority is only theoretical, not real because it is widely disobeyed.

i cannot accept this view of church authority because i believe that the church’s authority is of divine origin, that it was established by christ himself when he gave peter (and his successors) the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose on earth and heaven. this makes the church’s authority over the conscience of catholics qualitatively different from that of other, earthly institutions like nation-states or man-made religions.

a child may disobey their parent’s authority, but that doesn’t mean the parent forfeits their authority by virtue of being disobeyed, it means the wayward child needs discipline. this is how i see the relationship of the church to its wayward members.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It’s just natural for people who convert from Catholicism to have a theological bone or two of contention concerning faith, but deep down their problems have more to do with Catholic moral theology.

Not always true, & an example of the fallacy of poisoning the well - if that sentence means that former Catholics are said to be using theology as a cloak for moral failure.​

As for the position that the Assumption is “in the Bible” - it’s hard to see how that position can be sustained; & it is not clear that it it needs to be in the Bible in any sense anyway.

 

[Subrosa]

Subrosa, I think we’ve been through this before. The monarch of Great Britain is the titular head of the Church of England. The Queen has nothing to do with the other 37 self-governing provinces of the Anglican Communion. In the Episcopal Church, USA, for example, the bishops are elected, without reference to any agency or personage outside the Episcopal Church.

I know Anglicanism is complicated. But take my word for it. The Queen is the supreme governor of the Church of England, nothing else.

GKC

I gotta say when you’re right, you’re right!

Here’s a BBC article…bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/05/19/faith_protestantlondon_feature.shtml

At the Head of the Church of England is the Queen, who is Supreme Governor. Her tasks involve the appointing of archbishops, bishops and deans of cathedrals, she is helped in this duty by the Prime Minister who advises her.

Subrosa

 

[GKC]

I gotta say when you’re right, you’re right!

Here’s a BBC article…bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/05/19/faith_protestantlondon_feature.shtml

At the Head of the Church of England is the Queen, who is Supreme Governor. Her tasks involve the appointing of archbishops, bishops and deans of cathedrals, she is helped in this duty by the Prime Minister who advises her.

Subrosa

Yep.

GKC

 

[tomarin]

contarini, if you’re still reading this, and if you have time, i wonder what you would make, if anything, of this article (catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=218 by jeff mirus of catholicculture.org defending the church’s unique claim to authority?

here’s an excerpt:

Now you can argue that God did not send agents of revelation; or that He did not confirm any revelation with compelling signs and wonders; or that He did not establish a Church; or that He did not give Peter and Peter’s successors authority to properly interpret the content of the Faith. But you cannot believe any part of this structure of Divine Revelation without recognizing at least a very strong case for the other parts, and you cannot claim to believe the entire package while at the same time rejecting or ignoring the claim to authority it imposes—or pretending that the successful exercise of this authority doesn’t really matter. Throughout the entire process of Revelation, God has said repeatedly that our very lives depend on it, and upon Him.

 

[manualman]

Edwin, I too cry foul on your attempts to comingle disciplinary failures with authority failures. As a catholic, I CAN choose to do nearly anything I want and find a rationalization for it, true. I probably could live my whole life and never be rebuked for it either. But said rationalization requires me to ignore Scripture, Tradition, the Catechism, the current guidance of the Holy See on said matters and (probably) the teaching of my priest . If I REALLY want to know the teaching of Christ, it really isn’t hard to figure it out since I know where to look to.

An Anglican who desires to delude himself on a moral issue must also rationalize past Scripture and Tradition, but THEN what? If in the Anglican tradition no bishop has any higher authority than any other, then who is Joe Schmoe supposed to to turn in the face of hermeneutic arguments about Scripture and intellectual attempts to turn Tradition into traditions? I find it unlikely that a God who chose fishermen to be his apostles would create a church in which the more you learn, the less certain you can be.

Seems to me that a perfectly just God would establish a Church in which the teachings and mysteries were complex enough to satisfy a lifetime of genius contemplation, and simple enough to be grasped by an illiterate. Coincidentally (!?), such is the case with the Catholic Church.

 

[mark_a]

Not always true,​

Correct.

if that sentence means that former Catholics are said to be using theology as a cloak for moral failure.

That’s exactly what I mean. Maybe not 100% of ex-Catholics, but a majority. Ask any revert that knew the faith before they left.

As for the position that the Assumption is “in the Bible” - it’s hard to see how that position can be sustained; & it is not clear that it it needs to be in the Bible in any sense anyway.

Correct.

 

[mgrfin]

Correct.

That’s exactly what I mean. Maybe not 100% of ex-Catholics, but a majority. Ask any revert that knew the faith before they left.

Correct.

The Assumption doesn’t have to be in the Bible. It has to be in the Deposit of Faith. The Assumption is an easy one. It would have happened during the life time of some of the Apostles, and disciples, and they knew of it.

peace

 

[Contarini]

he’s not saying the church is corrupt; he’s saying that orthodox catholicism is not real catholicism as it is lived by most catholics.

No, I’m not saying that either. Whatever is done by Catholics is real. Period. “Orthodox” Catholicism as defined on this board is clearly real. In other words, many Catholics believe and practice Catholicism that way. What is not real is the “visible Catholic Church” consisting only of what people on this board consider to be “orthodox Catholics.” There is no such Church. The Church is mixed. I don’t think this is a bad thing. I think it is good in some ways and bad in others, but more importantly it’s real.

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Correct.

That’s exactly what I mean. Maybe not 100% of ex-Catholics, but a majority. Ask any revert that knew the faith before they left.

Correct.

Maybe I should be relieved I didn’t attribute to you a meaning you didn’t intend :juggle: - but we’re going to have to disagree on the subject of motivation. Still, two agreements out of three is better than none. ​