Anglican's "Celtic Church" history idea

[AngloCatholic1]

Yes I HAVE TO attend an Anglo-catholic church unless I want to be screamed out by my husband on a daily basis for being a divider of the household which he says is worse than divorce. He HATES the Papacy. (notice the all caps hates that’s his passion)

defenderoftruth,

When your husband says he HATES the Papacy, tell him that he is being disobedient to the wishes and commands of Jesus Himself. Remind him that JESUS prayed for all of His followers to be ONE (John 17:21-23). Remind him that St. Paul taught that we are to be members of ONE BODY, and that each of us is to hold a different office within that body (Romans 12:4-5). An undivided body can only have ONE HEAD; it CANNOT have multiple heads. You MUST CHOOSE ONE HEAD. If he replies “I choose Christ!” then tell him he chooses correctly, but also that Christ gave PETER the Keys to the Kingdom (Matt. 16:18-19) in exactly the SAME manner as the Israeli Kings of old gave the “keys” to their Stewards when they were leaving on a journey away from the kingdom. We can’t have several Stewards holding several sets of keys! That’s DISUNITY. That’s “a divided kingdom which cannot stand” (Mark 3:24). That’s ANTI-CHRIST.

Sure, there have been very bad, bad, good and great Popes… just like there have been good, bad and terrible kings (Henry VIII was all three!), but that’s NOT the issue. The issue is Christ’s teaching of ONE CHURCH, ONE BODY and ONE HEAD.

 

[IowaJay]

We went through RCIA and were Confirmed at the Easter Vigil last year, and the rest is history. So the answer is I’M A ROMAN CATHOLIC with a deep love for all things traditionally Anglican!

The reason my handle reads “AngloCatholic1” is because I joined this forum before I became Roman Catholic, and I didn’t want to change my identity on the forum. Make sense?

I’ve read that the Vatican has said that members of the Anglican Ordinariates to be established soon may properly refer to themselves as “Anglican Catholics.”

 

[defenderoftruth]

I find the best thing is just to avoid the conversation unless he brings it up and to just pray for him. If he brings it up I will respond but if it starts getting heated I tell him that I don’t want to argue anymore and I’m done from that point till next time.

DoT

 

[AngloCatholic1]

I’ve read that the Vatican has said that members of the Anglican Ordinariates to be established soon may properly refer to themselves as “Anglican Catholics.”

Yes, the conservative Anglican Catholic Church we were with for a while was a member of the world-wide Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC). That’s the group that is currently coming into full communion with the Holy See. I guess the wife and I just got sick and tired of waiting. We wanted to be a part of the ONE Church so bad, we were willing to give up the richness of the traditional Anglican liturgy. Good for them though. I guess when the Pope tells us they’re officially ONE with us, then we might attend Mass there from time to time… to sing the litany, the ancient English hymns, and kneel at the communion rail. God bless St. Thomas More!

Hey, defenderoftruth, maybe THAT’S THE ANSWER to the issue between you and your husband. Get him into a TAC Church. If you live in the USA, that Church is called “Anglican Church in America” (note the word “in”, not “of” - different church). Here’s a link to their site if you want to find a parish:
acahomeorg0.web701.discountasp.net/

He gets traditional Anglican worship, while you get the peace of mind of knowing that you’re in full communion with the Holy See! It’s WIN-WIN.

 

[defenderoftruth]

yes but he is already calling them traitors and I know that if he were to attend an ACA church that goes in communion with Rome he’ll leave because “rome is evil”-his words. He doesn’t want to be in communion with Rome like that, he wants Rome to see the wishy washy Cont. movement as valid churches (it’s still wishy washy even though they are more conservative than the mainstream Anglicans) and let him take communion with them (RC) while he denies Transubstantiation and Purgatory etc. (he has the spiritual food/mystical real presence belief and says Transubstantiation is “gnostic”) that’s what he wants. As long as The Church says we are The Church and Anglicans etc. are in schism/heresy he’s not interested in ever having anything to do with The Church. He wants a “kuumbyahhh” (I’m in the church and so are you) full communion. Fact is The Church isn’t going to waiver on doctrine and allow false ecumenism to reign supreme-so he’ll remain a protestant Anglican until he realizes like me that the Catholic Church is THE CHURCH…

DoT

 

[gamewell45]

My father drifted into an agnostic/atheist of sorts, and about the closest he ever came to religion was joining the FreeMasons.

AngloCatholic, Freemasonry is not a religion, nor a substitute for religion. Those who become freemasons are made aware of this from the first time they set foot into the lodge.

Anyone who joins a lodge and expects to find religion there will be mildly disapointed.

Peace.

 

[gamewell45]

Yes I HAVE TO attend an Anglo-catholic church unless I want to be screamed out by my husband on a daily basis for being a divider of the household which he says is worse than divorce. He HATES the Papacy. (notice the all caps hates that’s his passion)

Defenderoftruth; I can’t tell you what to do, but if it was me, I’d take the yelling and screaming and attend the church of my choice no matter how much grief I got.

I’ll bet after a while he’d probably let up on you and accept you attending Mass.

 

[josie_L]

Has anyone ever heard of this? That the Anglican church is the descendant of the early Celtic Church and was not Roman before Augustine of Canturbury was sent by Pope Gregory the Great?

This idea (I’ve read contrary so I’m going to attempt to be “nice”) has been passed along by the Anglican priest at the church I HAVE to attend with my husband. (I’m only a little resentful )

I read something very compelling from Fr. Dwight Longenecker about this “idea”…

dwightlongenecker.com/Content/Pages/Articles/CelticCopticAnglicanismNew.asp

My husband buys the “henry just gave us back our independence that Rome bullied out of us” hook line and sinker because of the council of Arles in 314 A.D. (I believe that’s the correct date) Anyone have any other good links or info contrary to this “idea”?

DoT

Well, I found this quote from St. Irenaeus of Lyons (late 2nd century) that pretty much states the Celtic Church was part of the greater Church, i.e., the Catholic Church:

" Indeed, the Church, though scattered throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, having received the faith from the apostles and their disciples . . . .guards [this preaching and faith] with care, as dwelling in but a single house, and similarly believes as if having but one soul and a single heart, and preaches, teaches, and hands on this faith with a unanimous voice, as if possessing only one mouth. . . For though languages differ throughout the world, the content of the Tradition is one and the same. The Churches established in Germany have no other faith or Tradition, nor do those of the Iberians, nor those of the Celts, nor those of the East, of Egypt, of Libya, nor those established at the center of the world . . . The Church’s message “is true and solid, in which one and the same way of salvation appears throughout the whole world.”

God bless.

 

[AngloCatholic1]

Well, I found this quote from St. Irenaeus of Lyons (late 2nd century) that pretty much states the Celtic Church was part of the greater Church, i.e., the Catholic Church:

" Indeed, the Church, though scattered throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, having received the faith from the apostles and their disciples . . . .guards [this preaching and faith] with care, as dwelling in but a single house, and similarly believes as if having but one soul and a single heart, and preaches, teaches, and hands on this faith with a unanimous voice, as if possessing only one mouth. . . For though languages differ throughout the world, the content of the Tradition is one and the same. The Churches established in Germany have no other faith or Tradition, nor do those of the Iberians, nor those of the Celts, nor those of the East, of Egypt, of Libya, nor those established at the center of the world . . . The Church’s message “is true and solid, in which one and the same way of salvation appears throughout the whole world.”

God bless.

That’s a beautiful quote josie L. Where did you get it from?

You know, when I FINALLY started to investigated Roman Catholicism, one of the things that I found so WONDERFUL was the VARIETY of spiritual paths available within the “umbrella” of the Church. You have your Dominicans, Franciscans, Poor Clares, Jesuits, Charismatics, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum… and WE are all ONE Church, under ONE successor of St. Peter. Meanwhile, the various protestant chuches continue to segregate themselves from each other over (sometimes) the smallest of trifles! **And THEY have the nerve to label US “intolerant”! **

 

[josie_L]

That’s a beautiful quote josie L. Where did you get it from?

You know, when I FINALLY started to investigated Roman Catholicism, one of the things that I found so WONDERFUL was the VARIETY of spiritual paths available within the “umbrella” of the Church. You have your Dominicans, Franciscans, Poor Clares, Jesuits, Charismatics, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum… and WE are all ONE Church, under ONE successor of St. Peter. Meanwhile, the various protestant chuches continue to segregate themselves from each other over (sometimes) the smallest of trifles! **And THEY have the nerve to label US “intolerant”! **

Well, I read it in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (pg 53 and 54 if you have it). It was taken from St. Irenaeus of Lyons “Against Heresies”, or to be exact, "Adv. haeres. 1, 10, 1-2: pg 7/1, 549-552 " (as stated by the CCC).

p.s. I too marvel at the many ways that we can express our spirituality, I admit to being partial to the Salesian religious order (my parish priest is Salesian) because of their focus on youth (founder was St. Don Bosco).

 

[AngloCatholic1]

josie L

Thanks for the reference. The Catechism! Well, we can’t get much more official than that, can we? You know, many Catholics take the Catechism for granted, but I cannot begin to express the JOY I felt when this powerful document was first shown to me in RCIA. By then I had investigated umpteen Christian churches, and NONE of them had made any effort to carefully explain the Faith (as well as the reasons for the beliefs and rituals of the Church) the way the Roman Catholic Church has. Furthermore, it clearly shows that the teachings of the Church on any particular subject are made with the ENTIRETY of Scripture in mind, and not just a few passages. It’s pure GOLD.

St. Irenaeus died about A.D. 202. So the bottom line is that the “celtic” Church has been viewed as ONE with the Roman Catholic Church since the late 100’s A.D. So, defenderoftruth, tell your husband to put THAT in his pipe and smoke it!

King Henry VIII himself was an avid defender of Roman Catholicism. He publicly denounced Luther’s reforms, for which the Pope gave him the title “Defender of the Faith”. Later, Henry began to find fault with Rome only when the Church (rightfully) refused to dissolve his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. So the fact is, Anglicans were ripped out of the bossom of Holy Mother Church only by Henry’s lust, greed and hunger for power. The Anglican notion that this was “God’s doing” so that Englishmen could be freed from “the yoke of Rome” is pure sophistry!

 

[GKC]

josie L

Thanks for the reference. The Catechism! Well, we can’t get much more official than that, can we? You know, many Catholics take the Catechism for granted, but I cannot begin to express the JOY I felt when this powerful document was first shown to me in RCIA. By then I had investigated umpteen Christian churches, and NONE of them had made any effort to carefully explain the Faith (as well as the reasons for the beliefs and rituals of the Church) the way the Roman Catholic Church has. Furthermore, it clearly shows that the teachings of the Church on any particular subject are made with the ENTIRETY of Scripture in mind, and not just a few passages. It’s pure GOLD.

St. Irenaeus died about A.D. 202. So the bottom line is that the “celtic” Church has been viewed as ONE with the Roman Catholic Church since the late 100’s A.D. So, defenderoftruth, tell your husband to put THAT in his pipe and smoke it!

King Henry VIII himself was an avid defender of Roman Catholicism. He publicly denounced Luther’s reforms, for which the Pope gave him the title “Defender of the Faith”. Later, Henry began to find fault with Rome only when the Church (rightfully) refused to dissolve his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. So the fact is, Anglicans were ripped out of the bossom of Holy Mother Church only by Henry’s lust, greed and hunger for power. The Anglican notion that this was “God’s doing” so that Englishmen could be freed from “the yoke of Rome” is pure sophistry!

Henry got the Defensor Fidei title for a couple of reasons, not just for the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum. As I always do, I offer the story, if it is requested. Done it here 4-5 times, so far.

And he wasn’t looking to have his marriage dissolved. He was looking for a decree of nullity, a very common occurrence at the time, esp. amongst the ruling classes. His causa was not as strong as it could have been (he based it on the Levitical prohibitions, and there was a stronger case of an unresolved impediment of the justice of public honesty) but it was as strong as case as was usual at the time. But, unfortunately for Henry, the cases didn’t usually involve the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor.

Henry tried to play by the rules, and the rules then were a mixture of doctrine and politics, designed to allow the making and breaking of marriages for dynastic reasons, while allowing the Church to maintain control of matrimony as a sacrament. Hence the incredibly complicated system of impediments, dispensations and annulments, that eventually were taken in hand at Trent. In his case, politics won. He was, historically, a fascinating train wreck, and has been a hobby of mine for years.

GKC

 

[Hesychios]

Later, Henry began to find fault with Rome only when the Church (rightfully) refused to dissolve his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. So the fact is, Anglicans were ripped out of the bossom of Holy Mother Church only by Henry’s lust, greed and hunger for power.

Actually, break didn’t come at that time. Henry was a devout Catholic. There was something along the lines of impaired communion, which had happened before in church history.

(The local bishops gave him his annulment. Interestingly today it is the local dioceses that usually grant annulments in the Latin Catholic church.)

In other words, ordinary English people who traveled would have no trouble receiving communion in the rest of Europe (this is similar to the ‘Great Western Scism’ when there were three Popes.) and Europeans who entered England would be able to receive in England. This is unlike today, where one would need to clarify one’s affiliation. The problem was between the hierarchs of the church.

There is something similar going on right now in China. If a Chinese Catholic came to England or America they would not be refused communion (even priests and nuns from China come to the USA for studies and live in Catholic rectories and convents), although they may have been members and attended the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association. Similarly, a Catholic from anywhere traveling in China to may receive with no problem.

Under young king Edward things began to go awry in the church because Calvinist and Lutheran Protestant ideas were being widely tolerated. Queen Mary, older and just as Catholic as her father and mother, restored full communion from top to bottom and clamped down on the Protestantism spreading under her young brother’s reign.

Thus, it was when Elizabeth became Queen that the real break occurred, some forty years later (well, I’m not sure, I think it was about forty years). This was when she was excommunicated (she could not have been excommunicated unless she was in communion) and the Pope ordered faithful Catholics (who were still the majority of Britons at the time) to not obey the rule of Elizabeth. Essentially the bishop of Rome was trying to destabilize the government of England and overthrow her. I don’t have a link but the text of the document is available on the 'net.

This naturally made every faithful Catholic a potential traitor and unevenly split the Catholic community. The underground ‘recusant’ church was in the minority and continued to decline for the next 200 years. Some people attended both churches (when possible) but as the sympathetic priesthood dwindled and border controls were more effective the ‘middle of the road’ population shifted into the state supported church.

BTW, it didn’t help that Spain attacked England with the Pope’s blessing. The English people felt personally threatened by this and in the ‘propaganda’ (an interesting term) wars, or public discourse, the sympathy of the majority of Catholics in England went to their queen and country.

 

[Hesychios]

Later, Henry began to find fault with Rome only when the Church (rightfully) refused to dissolve his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. So the fact is, Anglicans were ripped out of the bossom of Holy Mother Church only by Henry’s lust, greed and hunger for power.

Actually, break didn’t come at that time. Henry was a devout Catholic. There was something along the lines of impaired communion, which had happened before in church history.

(The local bishops gave him his annulment. Interestingly today it is the local dioceses that usually grant annulments in the Latin Catholic church.)

In other words, ordinary English people who traveled would have no trouble receiving communion in the rest of Europe (this is similar to the ‘Great Western Scism’ when there were three Popes.) and Europeans who entered England would be able to receive in England. This is unlike today, where one would need to clarify one’s affiliation. The problem was between the hierarchs of the church.

There is something similar going on right now in China. If a Chinese Catholic came to England or America they would not be refused communion (even priests and nuns from China come to the USA for studies and live in Catholic rectories and convents), although they may have been members and attended the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association. Similarly, a Catholic from anywhere traveling in China to may receive with no problem.

Under young king Edward things began to go awry in the church because Calvinist and Lutheran Protestant ideas were being widely tolerated. Queen Mary, older and just as Catholic as her father and mother, restored full communion from top to bottom and clamped down on the Protestantism spreading under her young brother’s reign.

Thus, it was when Elizabeth became Queen that the real break occurred, some forty years later (well, I’m not sure, I think it was about forty years). This was when she was excommunicated (she could not have been excommunicated unless she was in communion) and the Pope ordered faithful Catholics (who were still the majority of Britons at the time) to not obey the rule of Elizabeth. Essentially the bishop of Rome was trying to destabilize the government of England and overthrow her. I don’t have a link but the text of the document is available on the 'net.

This naturally made every faithful Catholic a potential traitor and unevenly split the Catholic community. The underground ‘recusant’ church was in the minority and continued to decline for the next 200 years. Some people attended both churches (when possible) but as the sympathetic priesthood dwindled and border controls were more effective the ‘middle of the road’ population shifted into the state supported church.

BTW, it didn’t help that Spain attacked England with the Pope’s blessing. The English people felt personally threatened by this and in the ‘propaganda’ (an interesting term) wars, or public discourse, the sympathy of the majority of Catholics in England went to their queen and country.

 

[Hesychios]

That’s a beautiful quote josie L. Where did you get it from?

The full text can be read for free here. It would be helpful to anyone interested to read the entire passage.

For context the entire work is discussing gnostic heresies. He maintains that one can see the original Apostolic faith commonly expressed in each of the particular churches, and the origin of heresies can be traced to specific locations where they are strong, and in other places the unique beliefs are weak or non-existent. In cosmopolitan places people from all over come together and can easily observe that they were taught the same basic things, arriving heretics then stick out because they believe something no one else remembers being taught.

It is not exactly certain which Celts he was referring to here, they were tribal and all over Europe. The ecclesiology of the day was separate local/regional synodal churches which fully agreed in theology - that which is catholic (while electing their own bishops and Metropolitans), which is pretty much how he describes them here in his listing.

For an example one might look at the Mozarabic church of Spain, which is better documented than the other early regional churches in the west because it lasted longer.

There is no warrant in church history justifying different or new theologies in the various particular churches.

 

[GKC]

In Henry’s day, any diocesan was able to grant a decree of nullity, given an appropriate causa. Hank’s case wound up at the Rota, after a false start on His part, because Catherine appealed to Rome. As was her right. Eventually, after the formal split, the decree of nullity with respect to his marriage to Catherine was granted by Cranmer, as Archbishop of Canterbury. It was not recognized by Rome; his decree of nullity and remarriage being declared null in 1533. Hank himself had decrees of excommunication issued against him both by Clement and by Paul, but they were not implemented. There was always hope that the breach could be healed.

Henry’s Catholicity was firm, at the start of the break. He wavered a little, as he aged, both due to his own evolving beliefs, and for political reasons. But basically he considered himself a Catholic all his life.

It was indeed during Edward’s reign that the shift to the reformed side started. Edward was under the influence of Somerset and later Northumberland. Raised under their Protectorate, he had no independent views on the matter.

The Bull that finally excommunicated Elizabeth was Regnans in Excelsis catholicresearch.org/Decrees/RegnanasinExcelsis.html

History is complicated.

GKC

Actually, break didn’t come at that time. Henry was a devout Catholic. There was something along the lines of impaired communion, which had happened before in church history.

(The local bishops gave him his annulment. Interestingly today it is the local dioceses that usually grant annulments in the Latin Catholic church.)

In other words, ordinary English people who traveled would have no trouble receiving communion in the rest of Europe (this is similar to the ‘Great Western Scism’ when there were three Popes.) and Europeans who entered England would be able to receive in England. This is unlike today, where one would need to clarify one’s affiliation. The problem was between the hierarchs of the church.

There is something similar going on right now in China. If a Chinese Catholic came to England or America they would not be refused communion (even priests and nuns from China come to the USA for studies and live in Catholic rectories and convents), although they may have been members and attended the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association. Similarly, a Catholic from anywhere traveling in China to may receive with no problem.

Under young king Edward things began to go awry in the church because Calvinist and Lutheran Protestant ideas were being widely tolerated. Queen Mary, older and just as Catholic as her father and mother, restored full communion from top to bottom and clamped down on the Protestantism spreading under her young brother’s reign.

Thus, it was when Elizabeth became Queen that the real break occurred, some forty years later (well, I’m not sure, I think it was about forty years). This was when she was excommunicated (she could not have been excommunicated unless she was in communion) and the Pope ordered faithful Catholics (who were still the majority of Britons at the time) to not obey the rule of Elizabeth. Essentially the bishop of Rome was trying to destabilize the government of England and overthrow her. I don’t have a link but the text of the document is available on the 'net.

This naturally made every faithful Catholic a potential traitor and unevenly split the Catholic community. The underground ‘recusant’ church was in the minority and continued to decline for the next 200 years. Some people attended both churches (when possible) but as the sympathetic priesthood dwindled and border controls were more effective the ‘middle of the road’ population shifted into the state supported church.

BTW, it didn’t help that Spain attacked England with the Pope’s blessing. The English people felt personally threatened by this and in the ‘propaganda’ (an interesting term) wars, or public discourse, the sympathy of the majority of Catholics in England went to their queen and country.

 

[peary]

As for the so-called Celtic Christians -

Show me a group that marches to the beat of a different drummer…

and I’ll show you a group that has lost its parade.

 

[AngloCatholic1]

Regarding Henry VIII, a big thank you to Hesychios and GKC for weighing in on the matter. Always a pleasure to hear from you two. Yes, I know the history of England’s break with Rome is complicated. I didn’t mean to suggest that it wasn’t. It was only for the sake of brevity that I pinned the blame on Henry VIII. I’m quite well-versed on the political/religious intrigues of the day, and that, while the Crown wavered back and forth on the Reformation issue for a few decades, the vast majority of the common people remained faithful to their Roman Catholic conscience. However, the bottom line though is that Henry VIII allowed his lust, pride and greed (3 capital sins) to rule over his relationship with Holy Mother Church. By making himself supreme head of the Church in England, and by seizing Church lands, he paved the way for the protestant reformers who followed under Edward and Elizabeth.
**The point I was making is that for protestants to suggest that this was some act of “Divine Providence” to lead the English out of bondage to Rome is pure sophistry. Nevertheless, if you ask Anglicans and ultra-protestants, THAT’S what they will tell you about the matter! It’s crazy logic! Because, since then, Englishmen around the globe have further divided and subdivided the Church into hundreds, even THOUSANDS of irreconcilable factions. This is “Divine Providence”? Don’t make me laugh!!! Oooo… it hurts!!! **

 

[GKC]

Regarding Henry VIII, a big thank you to Hesychios and GKC for weighing in on the matter. Always a pleasure to hear from you two. Yes, I know the history of England’s break with Rome is complicated. I didn’t mean to suggest that it wasn’t. It was only for the sake of brevity that I pinned the blame on Henry VIII. I’m quite well-versed on the political/religious intrigues of the day, and that, while the Crown wavered back and forth on the Reformation issue for a few decades, the vast majority of the common people remained faithful to their Roman Catholic conscience. However, the bottom line though is that Henry VIII allowed his lust, pride and greed (3 capital sins) to rule over his relationship with Holy Mother Church. By making himself supreme head of the Church in England, and by seizing Church lands, he paved the way for the protestant reformers who followed under Edward and Elizabeth.
The point I was making is that for protestants to suggest that this was some act of “Divine Providence” to lead the English out of bondage to Rome is pure sophistry. Nevertheless, if you ask Anglicans and ultra-protestants, THAT’S what they will tell you about the matter! It’s crazy logic! Because, since then, Englishmen around the globe have further divided and subdivided the Church into hundreds, even THOUSANDS of irreconcilable factions. This is “Divine Providence”? Don’t make me laugh!!! Oooo… it hurts!!!

I’m an Anglican, and if you asked me, that’s not what I would reply.

I would include in the answer the fact that the relationship between the Crown and Rome, in England, had been a contentious one for centuries, and the struggle for authority over the Church in England, and that between the Crown and any outside authority, had been on-going since at least the First Statute of Westminster. What Henry wrought, for both personal and dynastic issues (and what he did was commonplace and really was trying to play by the rules, in the beginning), was something that, in some fashion, would have occurred eventually, even if Hank had produced a string of viable male progeny, and la Boleyn had never existed.

GKC

 

[Harpazo]

As for the so-called Celtic Christians -

Show me a group that marches to the beat of a different drummer…

and I’ll show you a group that has lost its parade.

Recently, Orthodox Christians in the ROCOR were given permission to use the Lorrha-Stowe Missal, which was Celtic Christianity.

In Christ,
Andrew