Anglican's "Celtic Church" history idea

[AngloCatholic1]

GKC,

England’s break with Rome “inevitable”? I disagree. It would not necessarily have “occurred eventually” at all. And even if you COULD prove that, you can’t say dividing Christendom was necessarily the “right” thing to do! Not anymore than you can say Eve’s succumbing to the serpent was the “right” thing to do (Mormons please stay out of this!).

In any case, all English monarchs since A.D. 1066 have owed their claim to the throne on a very Catholic practice in the first place; **it well known that William the Conqueror’s claim to Kingship was based on the fact that Harold Godwinson had sworn on a chest of saints bones to give the Crown to William after the death of Edward the Confessor! **Godwinson reneged on the deal, and this lead to the Battle of Hastings… and the rest, as they say, is History.

**The Communion of Saints, brother! Turn your back on the Saints, and you are LOST, LOST, LOST. England now has more “protestant” churches than they have soccer fields, and each claims to be the “real” Christian church! When was it last called “Merry ole England”? Before the Reformation, that’s when! **(and I dare say, the Catholic Church has since done a much better job keeping Ireland Irish than the Church of England has done trying to keep England English! )

I rest my case!

 

[GKC]

Nope. Can’t prove it. But looking back at history, post William, of the rise of nationalism, considering the on-going struggles between the Crown and Rome, the point of which was to increase the authority of the Crown over the Church in England and decrease the influence of any entity (say, Rome) over the country as a whole, I can conclude it. Ref: the First Statute of Westminster, the Statute of Mortmain, the writ *Circumspecte agatis
*, the Statute of Carlisle, the two Statutes of Provisors, ditto those of Praemunire. All of these were steps on the road which culminated in Hank’s acts: Submission of the Clergy and Restraint of Appeals, the Ecclesiastical Appointments Act, the Dispensations Act, the Supreme Head Act, and the Succession Act. Henry’s problems were the precipitating point, the occasion for what had been growing for a long time. If not then, eventually.

Nothing said about any of this being the right thing. Doubtless wrong things were done in a lot of places, Rome and London, over the years. But this was the period when all such things were an admixture of politics and theology, Henry’s Great Matter being the exemplar. What was driving here was politics, on both sides.

GKC,

England’s break with Rome “inevitable”? I disagree. It would not necessarily have “occurred eventually” at all. And even if you COULD prove that, you can’t say dividing Christendom was necessarily the “right” thing to do! Not anymore than you can say Eve’s succumbing to the serpent was the “right” thing to do (Mormons please stay out of this!).

In any case, all English monarchs since A.D. 1066 have owed their claim to the throne on a very Catholic practice in the first place; it well known that William the Conqueror’s claim to Kingship was based on the fact that Harold Godwinson had sworn on a chest of saints bones to give the Crown to William after the death of Edward the Confessor! Godwinson reneged on the deal, and this lead to the Battle of Hastings… and the rest, as they say, is History.

**The Communion of Saints, brother! Turn your back on the Saints, and you are LOST, LOST, LOST. England now has more “protestant” churches than they have soccer fields, and each claims to be the “real” Christian church! ** When was it last called “Merry ole England”? Before the Reformation, that’s when! (and I dare say, the Catholic Church has since done a much better job keeping Ireland Irish than the Church of England has done trying to keep England English! )

I rest my case!

 

[defenderoftruth]

Anglicanism is a mess. Cont., Regular variety, and the ACNA here in the States.

To claim that Joseph of Arimethea or someone else from the time of Christ went to England and started Celtic Christianity and that’s what Anglicanism is really the ancestor of is ridiculous because it cannot be proved. You can however say there were Christian slaves/soldiers traveling with the Roman Emperor/his army that brought Christianity to England which is more likely.

My DH chooses to believe the Joseph of Arimethea, Lazarus, Mary, Martha, possibly Paul-the who’s who of the NT as traveling to England bringing the holy grail with them as Anglicanisms-Celtic Church history. (And Henry just brought them independance from Romish doctrines/subjection-his words)

Sorry I don’t buy it, it’s a fairy tell to keep people thinking that the schisms and wishy washiness of Anglicanism today is valid. **Henry was a pig, he claimed to believe the Faith but when it came down to it his heir and his lust was more important. Anglicanism is nothing but schism from The Church and just like the Old Catholics and others; the fact that they can’t stop splitting and they decide for themselves what’s doctrine and what isn’t splitting and splitting again shows that they have no Rock. This idea goes along with my invisible/visible church thread. **

 

[GKC]

Anglicanism is a mess. Cont., Regular variety, and the ACNA here in the States.

To claim that Joseph of Arimethea or someone else from the time of Christ went to England and started Celtic Christianity and that’s what Anglicanism is really the ancestor of is ridiculous because it cannot be proved. You can however say there were Christian slaves/soldiers traveling with the Roman Emperor/his army that brought Christianity to England which is more likely.

My DH chooses to believe the Joseph of Arimethea, Lazarus, Mary, Martha, possibly Paul-the who’s who of the NT as traveling to England bringing the holy grail with them as Anglicanisms-Celtic Church history. (And Henry just brought them independance from Romish doctrines/subjection-his words)

Sorry I don’t buy it, it’s a fairy tell to keep people thinking that the schisms and wishy washiness of Anglicanism today is valid. **Henry was a pig, he claimed to believe the Faith but when it came down to it his heir and his lust was more important. Anglicanism is nothing but schism from The Church and just like the Old Catholics and others; the fact that they can’t stop splitting and they decide for themselves what’s doctrine and what isn’t splitting and splitting again shows that they have no Rock. This idea goes along with my invisible/visible church thread. **

Anglicanism is a mess, yep.

I don’t buy the Joseph of Arimathea/Glastonbury stuff either, say as set out in L. S. Lewis’ standard work. But it should be noted that the story originally was part of a developed tale supporting the antiquity of the Church in the islands, to establish the status of the English Church as the eldest daughter, against the claims of the Church in France.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion of Hank. Mine is based on 10 years reading, more or less, and a personal library on the period of some several hundreds of titles (IOW, it’s sort of a hobby). For more understanding of what was going on, I always suggest J. J. Scarisbrick’s superb bio, HENRY VIII, as an antidote to waving cartoon cutouts. It’s not pro-Henry, it’s pro-history. And written by an RC, too.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

**the fact that they can’t stop splitting and they decide for themselves what’s doctrine and what isn’t splitting and splitting again shows that they have no Rock. **

Given how recently Anglicans have started showing fissiparous tendencies, I think this is a poor argument.

Edwin

 

[AngloCatholic1]

Given how recently Anglicans have started showing fissiparous tendencies, I think this is a poor argument.

Edwin

Pardon? I think defenderoftruth makes a great argument there. “Fissiparous tendencies”? That’s a quant expression… that is also grossly inadequate. I’ll tell you just how “fizzy” or should I say “fuzzy” Anglicans have become. Just before I became RC, I was a member of the Traditional Anglican Communion (the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada). One day the local newspaper in my town ran an article on our parish… along with another “conservative” Anglican parish just 5 miles away. When I asked my Priest about this other church, he said, “No, we don’t recognize their orders”. **Imagine THAT! Two small (very small) conservative Anglican parishes, each with less than 40 people enrolled, with virtually the EXACT SAME theology/doctrine/beliefs… and they REFUSE to acknowledge each other… let alone share a roof!!! ** This is the TRUTH. I can name the two parishes if you like. Yes, it was THEN, my good friend, when I realized the Wisdom in turning to “Rome sweet home!”.

 

[GKC]

Pardon? I think defenderoftruth makes a great argument there. “Fissiparous tendencies”? That’s a quant expression… that is also grossly inadequate. I’ll tell you just how “fizzy” or should I say “fuzzy” Anglicans have become. Just before I became RC, I was a member of the Traditional Anglican Communion (the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada). One day the local newspaper in my town ran an article on our parish… along with another “conservative” Anglican parish just 5 miles away. When I asked my Priest about this other church, he said, “No, we don’t recognize their orders”. **Imagine THAT! Two small (very small) conservative Anglican parishes, each with less than 40 people enrolled, with virtually the EXACT SAME theology/doctrine/beliefs… and they REFUSE to acknowledge each other… let alone share a roof!!! ** This is the TRUTH. I can name the two parishes if you like. Yes, it was THEN, my good friend, when I realized the Wisdom in turning to “Rome sweet home!”.

I’d be interested in knowing the other jurisdiction. The ACC/C is the local TAC. Who were the bad guys?

GKC

 

[Contarini]

Pardon? I think defenderoftruth makes a great argument there. “Fissiparous tendencies”? That’s a quant expression… that is also grossly inadequate. I’ll tell you just how “fizzy” or should I say “fuzzy” Anglicans have become. Just before I became RC, I was a member of the Traditional Anglican Communion (the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada). One day the local newspaper in my town ran an article on our parish… along with another “conservative” Anglican parish just 5 miles away. When I asked my Priest about this other church, he said, “No, we don’t recognize their orders”. **Imagine THAT! Two small (very small) conservative Anglican parishes, each with less than 40 people enrolled, with virtually the EXACT SAME theology/doctrine/beliefs… and they REFUSE to acknowledge each other… let alone share a roof!!! ** This is the TRUTH. I can name the two parishes if you like. Yes, it was THEN, my good friend, when I realized the Wisdom in turning to “Rome sweet home!”.

No dispute here–but the Continuing Anglicans originated in 1979. That is my point. Before that time you had a few small splits, and of course you had much of English-speaking Protestantism which originated from Anglicanism in one way or another, but if you asked someone “show me the Anglican church” it wouldn’t be hard to do. (Since Catholics use this argument a lot, it seems a reasonable one to use in a non-technical way to determine whether we can speak of a tradition as united or divided.) Even after 1979 the Continuers were quite few and marginal. Unless you were looking for them you probably wouldn’t know they were there. Only in recent years have we gotten to the point that if you say “where is the Anglican church” it causes all kinds of confusion.

Edwin

 

[defenderoftruth]

I attend a Continuing Anglican church (I changed my religious thing because I think it was a little mean to say of my husband.) Our church was originally Episcopalian until the hint of women priests and acceptance of other things came around. Then they went to the ACA and when the ACA wanted to go to Rome the two priests (one of which left the Catholic Church as an adult) said we’re not staying in the ACA they are now APCK. I know they recognize the ACA’s orders since one or both were ordained in the ACA, the APCK, ACC, UEC are all in communion with one another but not in communion with the ACA, APA, and others. What drives me up the wall and my husband as well as these churches have almost identical beliefs (except the APA is in communion with REC-reformed episcopal church which are calvinist sacrament deniers) but they won’t recognize their ordinations and or question the validity of their orders.

Now I can see not wanting to be in communion with some church (REC) that has calvinist beliefs and denies the real presence-Anglican view even. But why not be in communion with others that are almost exactly the same in beliefs than you??!! It’s ridiculous and totally schismatic. My husband who champions Anglicanism above Roman Catholic/Orthodox is totally annoyed at this as well. **BUT his point is he can go into ANY Anglican church and take communion **(he wouldn’t have himself skinned alive before going into a Episcopal Church) but any Continuing church would commune him. However the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox wouldn’t so he’s totally offended at what he sees is their lack of charity and arrogance.

 

[GKC]

I attend a Continuing Anglican church (I changed my religious thing because I think it was a little mean to say of my husband.) Our church was originally Episcopalian until the hint of women priests and acceptance of other things came around. Then they went to the ACA and when the ACA wanted to go to Rome the two priests (one of which left the Catholic Church as an adult) said we’re not staying in the ACA they are now APCK. I know they recognize the ACA’s orders since one or both were ordained in the ACA, the APCK, ACC, UEC are all in communion with one another but not in communion with the ACA, APA, and others. What drives me up the wall and my husband as well as these churches have almost identical beliefs (except the APA is in communion with REC-reformed episcopal church which are calvinist sacrament deniers) but they won’t recognize their ordinations and or question the validity of their orders.

Now I can see not wanting to be in communion with some church (REC) that has calvinist beliefs and denies the real presence-Anglican view even. But why not be in communion with others that are almost exactly the same in beliefs than you??!! It’s ridiculous and totally schismatic. My husband who champions Anglicanism above Roman Catholic/Orthodox is totally annoyed at this as well. **BUT his point is he can go into ANY Anglican church and take communion **(he wouldn’t have himself skinned alive before going into a Episcopal Church) but any Continuing church would commune him. However the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox wouldn’t so he’s totally offended at what he sees is their lack of charity and arrogance.

That’s a good description of the wild and wooly Continuum. I’ve found myself in two jurisdictions, without leaving my parish, myself.

But AFAIK, there is no official refusal, amongst any of the “major” jurisdictions, to recognize the validity of the others’ orders, generally. Failure to be in official communion, yes. But I’ve received from a variety of priests who happened to visit our parish, including ACA, APCK, and ACC. And, oddly, a high church REC priest is a good friend of the parish.

As I see it, most of the empire-building in the Continuum is related more to politics, personality and “purple-passion”, and not so much to doctrine.

But certainly I’d be happier if there were fewer jurisdictions to choose from.

GKC