Anglicanism vs. Catholicism

[Paul_Rimmer]

But, this is one of the concerns which is most easily rectified, if man’s spirit is willing. Christ did not leave us orphans, and if reasonable doubt exists as to validity, then could not a conditional ordination, as with Baptism, be performed? My mother received conditional baptism shortly before her death - a death which arrived with great peace.

For the sake of unity and peace, is this not worthy of consideration?

Absolutely. I’m all for this sort of solution.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I would be interested in learning of these RCs, and the works with the NO and Imprimatur. Apostolicae Curae is a hobby of mine; this would be good to know. If it’s Fr. J. J. Hughes two excellent books you have in mind, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID does not have the NO/Imprimatur, STEWARDS OF THE LORD does. Are you thinking of others?

Those are the ones (and I think you were the one who suggested them to me).

Absolutely Null and Utterly Void does have the Nihil Obstat (from John M. T. Barton, STD) and Imprimatur (from John Cardinal Heenan). At least the library copy I have does.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Please clarify what you mean right here, Paul? Thanks.

Also, some of the issues you list aren’t issues at all for Anglicans who confess the thirty-nine articles (most of whom are, sadly, outside the so-called Anglican Communion).

 

[GKC]

Those are the ones (and I think you were the one who suggested them to me).

Absolutely Null and Utterly Void does have the Nihil Obstat (from John M. T. Barton, STD) and Imprimatur (from John Cardinal Heenan). At least the library copy I have does.

Odd. My 1968 first printing of ABSOLUTELY NULL doesn’t have one at all. Good to know.

GKC

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Please clarify what you mean right here, Paul? Thanks.

All Anglicans who can say the Thirty-Nine Articles and mean them. Many can’t even really get through the Creed.

This mostly includes movements like the Anglican Provence of America, the Anglican Catholic Church, some African (and other) communities still in the Anglican Communion, and probably some Anglican-Use Catholics. This also probably includes the current Archbishop of Canterbury (who has much more in common with the current Bishop of Rome than with many other bishops nominally in communion with him now).

 

[po18guy]

Numbers aren’t the point.

Certainly, the numbers do not matter, but its ability to evangelize the entire earth does.

One of the reasons I don’t become Orthodox is that the Orthodox model is basically “our way or the highway.” I think their way is very good indeed–the thing that keeps me from becoming Catholics is that I think the Western Catholic model of Christianity is seriously flawed, just less so than Protestantism. But Orthodoxy doesn’t seem to have room for acknowledging the good in other Christian traditions–Catholicism does, or at least may. And that bishop of Rome thing is kind of important there–it gives a focus of unity that is personal and organic rather than consisting of exact conformity to a set of doctrines and practices. Unfortunately many traditional Catholics (whose power appears to be growing) have the same model as the Orthodox but without as good a basis.

I understand, perhaps wrongly, that the Orthodox have no structure or authority to call a universal Council. If so, this is huge. I hesitate here, but must say that my impression of the Orthodox is that they are arbitrarily frozen in time, and in place. If they object to the post-schism doctrinal development in Catholicism, why did they embrace it only to the point of the schism? Did they repudiate any doctrines so developed to the point of the schism?

 

[GKC]

All Anglicans who can say the Thirty-Nine Articles and mean them. Many can’t even really get through the Creed.

This mostly includes movements like the Anglican Provence of America, the Anglican Catholic Church, some African (and other) communities still in the Anglican Communion, and probably some Anglican-Use Catholics. This also probably includes the current Archbishop of Canterbury (who has much more in common with the current Bishop of Rome than with many other bishops nominally in communion with him now).

I get through the Creed, fine.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But what does this have to do with re-unification between Anglicans and Catholics?

All Anglicans who can say the Thirty-Nine Articles and mean them. Many can’t even really get through the Creed.

This mostly includes movements like the Anglican Provence of America, the Anglican Catholic Church, some African (and other) communities still in the Anglican Communion, and probably some Anglican-Use Catholics. This also probably includes the current Archbishop of Canterbury (who has much more in common with the current Bishop of Rome than with many other bishops nominally in communion with him now).

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I get through the Creed, fine.

Me, too. I just found that, at least here in the States, the Creed had become somewhat optional. On Trinity Sunday, for example, at a local Episcopal Church, the congregation was allowed to sit down during the parts of the creed about which they disagreed. The pastor sat down on the mention of the virgin birth.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

But what does this have to do with re-unification between Anglicans and Catholics?

I think those are the groups who would really be interested in unity with Rome, under realistic conditions.

Unless Rome ceases to be Catholic, or the rest of the Anglicans return to the Catholic faith, I don’t see them as the real focus of efforts for unity. I may be wrong (and I’d love to be surprised about this).

 

[GKC]

Me, too. I just found that, at least here in the States, the Creed had become somewhat optional. On Trinity Sunday, for example, at a local Episcopal Church, the congregation was allowed to sit down during the parts of the creed about which they disagreed. The pastor sat down on the mention of the virgin birth.

Which, among other things, is why I’m not an Episcopalian.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[CDNowak]

The term ‘Roman Catholic’ was an invention of the Anglicans because, they considered themselves the Catholic Church in England and so used the term to differentiate the foreign Catholics (as they saw it) to themselves. The term is illogical (since Catholic means universal) and has never been accepted by Catholics.
I recall a dispute, years ago in a small English town where both the Anglican and Catholic churches had signs saying ‘Catholic Church’. The Anglican vicar insisted that his was the (English) Catholic church and the other was a Roman Catholic church so the priest should change his since his was a foreign Catholic Church operating in England.

for NineTwo:

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a rather convoluted article (giving references) on the term. If I am reading it right “A Deliberat Answere” by one Robert Crowley 1588 among the early known occurrences of the term.

 

[GKC]

for NineTwo:

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a rather convoluted article (giving references) on the term. If I am reading it right “A Deliberat Answere” by one Robert Crowley 1588 among the early known occurrences of the term.

That might be what I was not remembering. The date is about right.

GKC

 

[Cranmer2010]

But, the fulness of God’s revealed truth resides only under one roof. If I do not believe this, I have no right to call myself Catholic. All other Churches have a lack. The converts tell us that. Even if the Catholic Church is losing numbers, and we expect that, she is gaining in fervency. Amen.

Under one roof?? I don’t believe that you could prove that because it isn’t true. Where in Scripture does Jesus say that his Church is exclusively one institution?

 

[Cranmer2010]

JL: I think you are mistaken, I didn’t post on “Was/Is Mary the ark”, so you couldn’t have quoted me after my post. Since you indicate you know where this quote is, could you please give me my post number, from which you took this quote. I am unable to find it, I think you may have been QUOTING Dokimas

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dokimas
Originally posted by Jlhargus on “If Mary was the mother of God” thread.

Any more comments or questions?

As for me, I don’t think so. Looking at Hebrews 9 a little closer, I don’t think it’s possible unless there’s more than 2 arks.

my apologies.

 

[Nine_Two]

Rather, it has to do with the Anglicans being required to drop a core belief to commune with the Orthodox.

Really? Catholics are always arguing the filioque is just discipline. Now you say it is doctrine?

But, what keeps it common? What if one Patriarch wants to go a different direction? Is there control that can be exerted to discipline a wayward Patriarch?

We do what we did when the Patriarch of Rome went wayward. Sadly this only increased his arrogence.

But, I see absolutely no Orthodox outreach or attempts at unity. They may be there, but I don’t see them. Love Rome or hate her (and most hate her), she is seeking unity.

And therefore the Catholic Church is the One True Church… because it is willing to compromise on its beliefs… or is it that it demands everyone else to compromise their beliefs? Because that’s the sense I get between your first statement about the filioque, and this last one.

 

[Nine_Two]

Certainly, the numbers do not matter, but its ability to evangelize the entire earth does.

I understand, perhaps wrongly, that the Orthodox have no structure or authority to call a universal Council. If so, this is huge. I hesitate here, but must say that my impression of the Orthodox is that they are arbitrarily frozen in time, and in place. If they object to the post-schism doctrinal development in Catholicism, why did they embrace it only to the point of the schism? Did they repudiate any doctrines so developed to the point of the schism?

You are indeed understanding wrongly, partially because an Ecumenical Council is recognized as such in hindsight (with one exception), and second because the Orthodox have held many councils, two of which in particular have a great following that calls them “ecumenical” (and before you say that Rome can call a council to be immediatly recognized as ecumenical, keep in mind that Trent took a long time before people accepted it, or its commands began to be implimented, it wasn’t seen as anything special right away.)

 

[Nine_Two]

for NineTwo:

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a rather convoluted article (giving references) on the term. If I am reading it right “A Deliberat Answere” by one Robert Crowley 1588 among the early known occurrences of the term.

Interesting, thank you. I don’t have time to read it all now but I did read enough to see there is a basis.

I do wish CE would do the decent thing and make all the spelling modern. My eyes!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think the folks who subscribe to the 39 Articles would be the LEAST likely candidates to go to Rome? Normally the Anglicans who are most loyal to the Articles are the evangelicals. They embrace the Articles tightly because much of the Articles is Calvinist. The Eucharistic experience is receptionist and spiritual at best in the Articles, Adoration is forbidden, intercession of saints, devotion to Mary, works of supererogation, elevating the Eucharist, reserving the Eucharist, mandatory celibacy of priests, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, all of these things are chided and considered counterproductive to the spiritual life and to being a Christian according to the Articles.

Evangelicals are closer to Calvinism and TULIP in Anglicanism than they are Catholicism. The Anglo-Catholics are far more likely and better candidates to becoming Catholic as they (ask GKC) largely consider the content of the Articles to be Protestant and heterodox, a poor expression of the faith. They largely reject them or ignore them. They affirm the Creeds, believe in the priesthood, you name it. They are one step away from Catholicism.

So that’s why I’m confused as to why you’d think pro-39 Article Evangelicals would be more apt to bite the pope’s fish hook ordinariates or steps toward reconciliation.

I think those are the groups who would really be interested in unity with Rome, under realistic conditions.

Unless Rome ceases to be Catholic, or the rest of the Anglicans return to the Catholic faith, I don’t see them as the real focus of efforts for unity. I may be wrong (and I’d love to be surprised about this).

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

There are those who understand them in the spirit of Blessed John Newman. Tract 90 makes for excellent reading on this matter.

I am of the opinion that, if you don’t take the 39 articles seriously (whether you agree with them or not), you aren’t really Anglican anymore. You’re something else. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

I think the folks who subscribe to the 39 Articles would be the LEAST likely candidates to go to Rome? Normally the Anglicans who are most loyal to the Articles are the evangelicals. They embrace the Articles tightly because much of the Articles is Calvinist. The Eucharistic experience is receptionist and spiritual at best in the Articles, Adoration is forbidden, intercession of saints, devotion to Mary, works of supererogation, elevating the Eucharist, reserving the Eucharist, mandatory celibacy of priests, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, all of these things are chided and considered counterproductive to the spiritual life and to being a Christian according to the Articles.

Evangelicals are closer to Calvinism and TULIP in Anglicanism than they are Catholicism. The Anglo-Catholics are far more likely and better candidates to becoming Catholic as they (ask GKC) largely consider the content of the Articles to be Protestant and heterodox, a poor expression of the faith. They largely reject them or ignore them. They affirm the Creeds, believe in the priesthood, you name it. They are one step away from Catholicism.

So that’s why I’m confused as to why you’d think pro-39 Article Evangelicals would be more apt to bite the pope’s fish hook ordinariates or steps toward reconciliation.