Anglicans Vs. Orthodox

  • Thread starter Thread starter jbelokur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A bit touchy about terms “Catholic Church” and “Roman Catholic Church”, but I think you know what I meant. Many non Catholics detest the term “Catholic Church” when applied to the church in Rome. "We are all “catholic - universal” they retort. And, if you believe this, that’s fine. Just stop splitting hairs. We are all universal when we are considered Christian; the similarities end here, however. Whether or not Protestantism is “universal” is another topic to discuss. Then, too, it depends on what your interpretation of the word “universal” is. After all, what really is a label if the meaning is quite clear.
I do believe when the pope speaks it is taken BY ROMAN CATHOLICS as more than mere “opinion.” What other denominations think is extraneous and really not germane to the statement.
 
Nine_Two said:
Pre-1066 the Church of England was an autocephalus Church in full communion by its own rights with the Orthodox, however following the Norman conquest it came under the control of Rome.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but that’s just not historical. The English Church was the most “Roman” in Western Europe. Unlike the Church in Gaul, Spain or Italy, the Churches of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were constituted following St. Augustine’s mission at the end of the sixth century. Subsequent Anglo-Saxon saints and heirarchs were profoundly loyal to Rome; one need only look at the example of bishops such as St. Wilfrid, who made several pilgrimages to Rome, and returned with Roman books to educate his monks, a Roman cantor to teach the latest Roman liturgies, and served as the prime advocate for the Roman party at the Synod of Whitby in 664.

English Christianity was more Roman than anywhere else outside the City itself!
 
Im not familiar at all with Anglicans.

I’ve only read or heard such and such from the forums
 
Oh good God, then make sure you really study and read up about Anglicans OUTSIDE of CAF. In here there is a real fundamental misunderstanding of Anglicanism much of the time and some wild views of it that sometimes are deserved and often are inaccurate and untrue. People like to paint Anglicans with a broad brush in here IMO.
Wesley7 said:
Im not familiar at all with Anglicans.

I’ve only read or heard such and such from the forums
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Oh good God, then make sure you really study and read up about Anglicans OUTSIDE of CAF. In here there is a real fundamental misunderstanding of Anglicanism much of the time and some wild views of it that sometimes are deserved and often are inaccurate and untrue. People like to paint Anglicans with a broad brush in here IMO.
Click to expand...
Serious question… how do you not paint Anglicanism with a broad brush? It pretty much covers the gamut from the Liberal Social Gospel to the Conservative Evangelical to the Anglo-Catholic.

But I agree, a forum with “Catholic” in its name is probably not the best place to learn about the church. 🙂
 
Well that’s just it, isn’t it? Anglicanism is so diverse that a broad brush generalization makes no sense, right? Orthodoxy or Catholicism can be generalized more easily because they are so dogmatic and traditional, respectively. They are easily defined. Anglicanism is varied, motley, and there is such diversity within its ranks and communion that one can scarcely paint it with any brush let alone a broad one.

Continuers cannot be lumped with Episcopalians and the conservative values of the Global South cannot and should not be lumped with the Church of England.

So I cannot see your point, respectfully, that one cannot avoid broad-brush painting a communion that is so utterly diverse that it’s about impossible? You’re making my point for me I think.

And I sure agree with the last comment! A Catholic forum is by no means a good starting place for Anglican studies! A bit of bias in here…just maybe…;)😛
Nine_Two said:
Serious question… how do you not paint Anglicanism with a broad brush? It pretty much covers the gamut from the Liberal Social Gospel to the Conservative Evangelical to the Anglo-Catholic.

But I agree, a forum with “Catholic” in its name is probably not the best place to learn about the church. 🙂
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Well that’s just it, isn’t it? Anglicanism is so diverse that a broad brush generalization makes no sense, right? Orthodoxy or Catholicism can be generalized more easily because they are so dogmatic and traditional, respectively. They are easily defined. Anglicanism is varied, motley, and there is such diversity within its ranks and communion that one can scarcely paint it with any brush let alone a broad one.

Continuers cannot be lumped with Episcopalians and the conservative values of the Global South cannot and should not be lumped with the Church of England.

So I cannot see your point, respectfully, that one cannot avoid broad-brush painting a communion that is so utterly diverse that it’s about impossible? You’re making my point for me I think.

And I sure agree with the last comment! A Catholic forum is by no means a good starting place for Anglican studies! A bit of bias in here…just maybe…;)😛
Click to expand...
Mmmm. Motley.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus-Catholicus
 
Listen, Gandalf, the way I flatter your great words is to keep 'em alive in posts, brother! You coined it, I keep it alive! You’re still the straw that stirs the drink, GKC, don’t worry! 😃 to employ a little Reggie quote!
GKC said:
Mmmm. Motley.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus-Catholicus
Click to expand...
 
Sorry Gurney, I misread your statement. We’re in complete agreement here. 👍
 
John_Augustine said:
I’m sorry, but that’s just not historical. The English Church was the most “Roman” in Western Europe. Unlike the Church in Gaul, Spain or Italy, the Churches of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were constituted following St. Augustine’s mission at the end of the sixth century. Subsequent Anglo-Saxon saints and heirarchs were profoundly loyal to Rome; one need only look at the example of bishops such as St. Wilfrid, who made several pilgrimages to Rome, and returned with Roman books to educate his monks, a Roman cantor to teach the latest Roman liturgies, and served as the prime advocate for the Roman party at the Synod of Whitby in 664.

English Christianity was more Roman than anywhere else outside the City itself!
Click to expand...
Your remarks are interesting but not what I was taught! Is this why Willian the Conquerer removed all the Anglican Hierarchy, Bishops as well as Deans and substituted or intruded Foreigns chismatics in to their places with the supportof the papacy?
 
seamusmohr said:
Your remarks are interesting but not what I was taught! Is this why Willian the Conquerer removed all the Anglican Hierarchy, Bishops as well as Deans and substituted or intruded Foreigns chismatics in to their places with the supportof the papacy?
Click to expand...
So how did the Tudor’s reconnect with that ancient apostolic lineage if that is the case?
 
Nine_Two said:
So how did the Tudor’s reconnect with that ancient apostolic lineage if that is the case?
Click to expand...
They didn’t as far as I can see, we had to make do with Continental orders! But that doesn’t alter in anyway Williams actions in intruding schismatic ?] bishops.
 
So you don’t think it was a pay back for the Bishop of Rome’s moral support before and during the usurpation and the slaughter? Well? That isn’t what I was taught by my tutors, neither is your claim regarding Henry 8th. The only Church started in England during the reformation was the one that resulted from the Pope’s Bull against Elizabeth. 1571 AD.
 
seamusmohr said:
Your remarks are interesting but not what I was taught! Is this why Willian the Conquerer removed all the Anglican Hierarchy, Bishops as well as Deans and substituted or intruded Foreigns chismatics in to their places with the supportof the papacy?
Click to expand...
There were foreigners in the English episcopate long before the Conquest. Three Norman bishops held important English Sees in the reign of St. Edward the Confessor; William in London (1051-75), Ulf in Dorchester (1050-2) and Robert of Jumieges at Canterbury (1051-2). Robert of Jumieges, along with Cynsige and Ealdred of York both travelled to Rome to receive the pallium in 1051, 1055 and 1061 respectively. English prelates attended Pope Leo IX’s Councils at Rheims (1049), Rome (1050) and Vercelli (1050). This was all by no means a formality, as Pope Nicholas II would only give Archbishop Ealdred the pallium and recognise him as Archbishop of York once the Saxon bishop had renounced the See of Worcester! So we see that nearly twenty years before the Conquest, the Roman programme of reform was already having a major impact in England.
 
seamusmohr said:
So you don’t think it was a pay back for the Bishop of Rome’s moral support before and during the usurpation and the slaughter? Well? That isn’t what I was taught by my tutors, neither is your claim regarding Henry 8th.
Click to expand...
One of the prerequisites for a reasonable and productive conversation on a forum such as this one is a willingness to consider that what one has taught (or even what the notables of one’s preferred theological tradition may have claimed for some centuries) may be open to question.

In your exchanges with me on another thread, you repeatedly cited claims by Anglican apologists as if they amounted to settled fact. They don’t. If they did, they would be made not only by Anglican apologists but by people across the ideological spectrum. (That’s why your source’s distortion of MacCulloch was a serious issue–it represented a bogus attempt to enlist a serious, more or less secular though Anglican-sympathizing scholar on behalf of a position he did not in fact endorse.)

That’s not to say that those claims are wrong. Maybe everyone else is so biased against the poor old Anglicans that they can’t see the truth. Apologists of all sorts often wind up making a claim something like this. But the matter needs to be examined using sources other than Anglican apologists or “what your tutors taught you.”

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
One of the prerequisites for a reasonable and productive conversation on a forum such as this one is a willingness to consider that what one has taught (or even what the notables of one’s preferred theological tradition may have claimed for some centuries) may be open to question.

In your exchanges with me on another thread, you repeatedly cited claims by Anglican apologists as if they amounted to settled fact. They don’t. If they did, they would be made not only by Anglican apologists but by people across the ideological spectrum. (That’s why your source’s distortion of MacCulloch was a serious issue–it represented a bogus attempt to enlist a serious, more or less secular though Anglican-sympathizing scholar on behalf of a position he did not in fact endorse.)

That’s not to say that those claims are wrong. Maybe everyone else is so biased against the poor old Anglicans that they can’t see the truth. Apologists of all sorts often wind up making a claim something like this. But the matter needs to be examined using sources other than Anglican apologists or “what your tutors taught you.”

Edwin
Click to expand...
I almost feel I’ve met seamusmohr, before. Somewhere.

GKC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top