Anglicans: Why don't you come home to Rome?

[johnnykins]

This was also a contributing factor in the return of many Eastern Catholics to the Orthodox church.

You should know

Vatican Council of 1870AD created a lot of totally unnecessary problems and a significant barrier to unity that never existed before.

Actually that statement betrays a gross misunderstanding of the dogmatic pronouncements from VI. The FACT of Papal infallibility existed ab initio. That some may have doubted it over time does not detract from the fact of it. The declaration simply made it de jure - the denial of which is heresy. Frankly, I’m surprised that you would think the Council was the problem and not the fact of the primacy of Peter. Further, I don’t see how the Primacy issue is apt from the Orthodox point of view when so many Orthodox (here and at Orthodox sites) claim that the filioque is heresy - not to mention the writings of St Augustine, the Scholastics and the general preferment of the “Turk’s turban.”

 

[Hesychios]

You should know
Actually that statement betrays a gross misunderstanding of the dogmatic pronouncements from VI. The FACT of Papal infallibility existed ab initio. That some may have doubted it over time does not detract from the fact of it. The declaration simply made it de jure - the denial of which is heresy. Frankly, I’m surprised that you would think the Council was the problem and not the fact of the primacy of Peter. Further, I don’t see how the Primacy issue is apt from the Orthodox point of view when so many Orthodox (here and at Orthodox sites) claim that the filioque is heresy - not to mention the writings of St Augustine, the Scholastics and the general preferment of the “Turk’s turban.”

You raise a lot of issues that take the subject further and further from the original theme of the thread. I suppose you want to pick a fight. Your prejudice and bitterness have always been quite evident.

Once again I will state that Orthodox do not have a problem with primacy, it is operative throughout the church as a principle. The tradition is especially strong in Orthodoxy and works at each level.

But the supremacy of the modern Pope as it exists today is a late fiction and no arguments for primacy can support what you have. Certainly nothing you have ever posted has supported it.

And yes, the Latin Catholic church teaches errors. But there is great hope that you guys will fix those problems, so I am praying for you.

I really like your church, I have a lot of friends and relatives in your church, priests included. I buried my parents through your church and raised my kids in your church. No regrets.

I am not hostile to it at all, and I believe that it is an instrument of salvation for many.

But, as I said, it teaches errors, so you guys need to fix that.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

You should know
Actually that statement betrays a gross misunderstanding of the dogmatic pronouncements from VI. The FACT of Papal infallibility existed ab initio. That some may have doubted it over time does not detract from the fact of it. The declaration simply made it de jure - the denial of which is heresy. Frankly, I’m surprised that you would think the Council was the problem and not the fact of the primacy of Peter. Further, I don’t see how the Primacy issue is apt from the Orthodox point of view when so many Orthodox (here and at Orthodox sites) claim that the filioque is heresy - not to mention the writings of St Augustine, the Scholastics and the general preferment of the “Turk’s turban.”

You raise a lot of issues that take the subject further and further from the original theme of the thread. I suppose you may wish to pick a fight.

Once again I will state that Orthodox do not have a problem with primacy, it is operative throughout the church as a principle. The tradition is especially strong in Orthodoxy and works at each level.

But the supremacy of the modern Pope as it exists today is a late fiction and no arguments for primacy can support what you have. Certainly nothing you have ever posted has supported it.

And yes, the Latin Catholic church teaches errors. But there is great hope that you guys will fix those problems, so I am praying for you.

I really like your church, I have a lot of friends and relatives in your church, priests included. I buried my parents through your church and raised my kids in your church. No regrets.

I am not hostile to it at all, and I believe that it is an instrument of salvation for many.

But, as I said, it teaches errors, so you guys need to fix that.

Michael

 

[Mrs_Mac]

I have great respect for many Anglicans I have met through the years, but I often wonder what is preventing them from becoming Roman Catholic?

I am aware of the many different factions within the Anglican Communion, and I would never expect an Evangelical Anglican to become Catholic, but Anglo-catholics are so similar to us that reunion seems to be the only logical conclusion.

Afterall, Anglo-Catholics believe in many of our doctrines and identify themselves as “catholic” rather than Protestant. I also know that the Anglo-Catholics are not happy with the way things are going in the Anglican Communion.

What prevents you from becoming Roman Catholic?

I pray that you will become Catholic one day.

Let’s use this thread to discuss our differences and see if we can work towards an agreement. Hopefully, this thread will be the catalyst that causes many of our Anglican friends to become Catholic in communion with the Pope.

I am a cradle Episcopalian who was received into the Catholic Church in April of 2007. Though not a scholar, I can speak from personal experience.

By and far, the biggest obstacle I faced in my conversion was developing the deep spiritual need that would motivate me to actually want to be Catholic, as opposed to Anglican. When I first started going to Catholic Mass it was so similar to the Episcopalian church I had grown up in. I had been raised in an atmosphere where my church was considered “almost Catholic.” It took over four years for me to admit that I wasn’t a Catholic, and that I needed what the Catholic church had to offer.

Sometimes the shortest jump is the most difficult, I suppose.

 

[nsper7]

I have great respect for many Anglicans I have met through the years, but I often wonder what is preventing them from becoming Roman Catholic?

I am aware of the many different factions within the Anglican Communion, and I would never expect an Evangelical Anglican to become Catholic, but Anglo-catholics are so similar to us that reunion seems to be the only logical conclusion.

Afterall, Anglo-Catholics believe in many of our doctrines and identify themselves as “catholic” rather than Protestant. I also know that the Anglo-Catholics are not happy with the way things are going in the Anglican Communion.

What prevents you from becoming Roman Catholic?

I pray that you will become Catholic one day.

Let’s use this thread to discuss our differences and see if we can work towards an agreement. Hopefully, this thread will be the catalyst that causes many of our Anglican friends to become Catholic in communion with the Pope.

The reason I am Anglican is because I truly do love the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church (although I do not like many of the things that have been perpetrated by certain clergy, specifically they ordaining the of the openly gay bishop who left his wife and family for a male and the movement of some towards almost ‘unitarian universalist’ type of faith).

What I first loved about Anglicanism was the Eucharist. I remember going up to the rail and kneeling and having the Priest put the Bread in my hand and saying, “This is the Body of Christ…” and then the Chalice Bearer bringing the Wine.

This was before I learned about the Real Presence and the history of the Eucharistic liturgies (I later learned that the Book of Common Prayer was based on Pre-Reformation Latin and Sarum Rites/liturgies and elements of the Eucharistic liturgy can be traced back to the Early Church and the liturgies of the Early Church Fathers).

It was also before I learned about our history. The Church of England, as a Province of the Western Church, was ‘officially’ founded by Pope Gregory the Great who elevated St. Augustine of Canterbury as the first Archbishop of Canterbury (it is said that +Cantuar sits upon the Chair of St. Augustine).

I agree with our foundational theology (Nicene Creed, XXXIX Articles, Anglican Catechism, Lambeth Quadrilateral, etc.).

In my Protestant (aka Pre-Anglican and Pre-CAF) past, I might have been cataloged as somewhat Anti-Catholic (mostly out of ignorance than anything else), but now I have a lot of respect for the Roman Catholic Church. Anglicanism recognizes Roman Catholic Holy Orders and the legitimacy of the Pope as Bishop of Rome. And I do believe (and hope) that Roman Catholics are a part of that ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ spoken of in the Nicene Creed.

Perhaps my biggest disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church is the idea of ‘Papal Infallibility’. I do not have a problem with seeing the Pope as the central authority or primus inter pares (much like +Cantuar is among other Anglican Primates), but Infallibility is problematic (and, perhaps, circular).

Personally, I have the utmost respect for Pope Benedict XVI and wish that the Anglican Communion could have such leaders. I have a lot of respect for Archbishop Rowan Williams (who is viewed by many as leaning towards Anglo-Catholicism/High Church Anglicanism) as well, but I sometimes wonder if he is not a tad to conciliatory with the theological liberals in our camp.

 

[angelusm]

Anticatholicism is strong among Anglicans. No surprise - it’s a very important part of Anglican identity throughout last almost 5 centuries. It cannot change immediately, it has to take some time.
Illogical and unacceptable liberalism in Anglican Community will push some Anglicans towards the CC.
Maybe Anglicanism and Catholicism may seem to be similar sometimes but there is one BIG difference - no priesthood in Anglicanism. As a result of that, Anglicans have no Real Presence, have no confession and cannot receive absolution, marriage is just an agreement, not a sacrament…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No, because of the anti-filioque, anti-Augustinianism and anti-westernism in all its manifestations by so many (especially the posters here and the Athonites) Orthodox. Like it or not, Anglicanism is largely in the western tradition.

So heresy is part of the Western Tradition? The first millenium teaches otherwise. England didn’t invent the filioque (though it did invent the Immaculate Conception), the West is bigger than St. Augustine.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You should know
Actually that statement betrays a gross misunderstanding of the dogmatic pronouncements from VI. The FACT of Papal infallibility existed ab initio. That some may have doubted it over time does not detract from the fact of it. The declaration simply made it de jure - the denial of which is heresy. Frankly, I’m surprised that you would think the Council was the problem and not the fact of the primacy of Peter. Further, I don’t see how the Primacy issue is apt from the Orthodox point of view when so many Orthodox (here and at Orthodox sites) claim that the filioque is heresy - not to mention the writings of St Augustine, the Scholastics and the general preferment of the “Turk’s turban.”

So the “fact” of papal infallibility was a well kept secret for 18 centuries until the fullness of time to make it official? Ever since Pope Victor, if it was a “fact,” it should have defined ex cathedra, as the Church didn’t know of any such thing.

 

[nsper7]

Maybe Anglicanism and Catholicism may seem to be similar sometimes but there is one BIG difference - no priesthood in Anglicanism. As a result of that, Anglicans have no Real Presence, have no confession and cannot receive absolution, marriage is just an agreement, not a sacrament…

This is according to Roman Catholics only, not the Anglican Communion. Also, as GKC and others have brought up, there have been infusing of Holy Orders from the PNCC and ‘Old Catholic Church’, both of whose Holy Order are recognized by the RCC.

 

[Dempsey1919]

It was also before I learned about our history. The Church of England, as a Province of the Western Church, was ‘officially’ founded by Pope Gregory the Great who elevated St. Augustine of Canterbury as the first Archbishop of Canterbury (it is said that +Cantuar sits upon the Chair of St. Augustine).

This is exactly the kind of thing I don’t understand.

The Western Church you are referring to is the Roman Catholic Church. Prior to the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church was the only Western Church.

As you stated the English Church was founded by the Bishop of Rome, the leader of the Catholic Church, Pope St. Gregory the Great. The Roman Pontiff did not found a separate and new Church in England; rather he founded the Catholic Church in England. Pope St. Gregory the Great then appointed St. Augustine as Archbishop of Canterbury; and St. Augustine remained loyal to the Pope.

What you have described is part of the history of the Church in England, but you cannot deny that the Reformation marked the establishment of an independent, separate and different Church of England.

The new Church of England marked the end of the ancient Church in England that was founded by Pope St. Gregory the Great. The reason I say this is because the new Church rejected the Papacy and rejected many doctrines of the faith that had been previously believed and taught by the Church in England.

The difference between the Church of England and the other Protestant ecclesiastical communities is that it was not founded because of doctrinal differences with Rome. It was founded because King Henry VIII wanted an anulment, and he also coveted the money that the Church possessed; the Church in England was very rich and he needed the money to fund his wars and lavish lifestyle. King Henry VIII considered himself a Catholic and did not agree with protestant doctrine; in fact, the Pope bestowed upon him the title of “Defender of the Faith” because of his writings in defence of Catholic doctrine. It was only during the reign of his son, King Edward, that Protestant doctrines began to take hold within the Church of England

This was before I learned about the Real Presence and the history of the Eucharistic liturgies (I later learned that the Book of Common Prayer was based on Pre-Reformation Latin and Sarum Rites/liturgies and elements of the Eucharistic liturgy can be traced back to the Early Church and the liturgies of the Early Church Fathers).

The Episcopal Church does not have a united doctrine concerning the Eucharist or the Real Presence. Although the Anglo-Catholics believe in the Real Presence, it must be remembered that many within the Communion do not. Some claim that the Lord’s Supper is merely a memorial, others believe in Consubstantiation, and the Anglo-Catholics generally, and correctly believe in Transubstantiation. However, Article XXVIII of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Faith states:

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

**Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
**
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

Anglo-Catholics who believe in Transubstantiation must be troubled by this. They belong to a Church which explicitly denies a doctrine they believe in. Also, as the Anglican Communion has different beliefs concerning the Eucharist, it cannot be assumed that Anglican eucharists have the Real Presence. This is further cast into doubt when you consider that validity of Anglican Holy Orders is questionable.

 

[johnnykins]

You raise a lot of issues that take the subject further and further from the original theme of the thread. I suppose you may wish to pick a fight.

Not at all - Just correcting the inflammatory statements made by you.

Once again I will state that Orthodox do not have a problem with primacy, it is operative throughout the church as a principle. The tradition is especially strong in Orthodoxy and works at each level.

You have no problem with “primacy” you say - but what does “primacy” mean? We could see what Metropolitan Zizioulas says. We could see what Rome says in VI or VII, and we could see what certain priests from Russia, Serbia , Greece or Athos say. Once you admit to primacy - then the question arises what is its limits. Whether we quote Matthew (that’s right from the start, I think) or early writings of the Fathers (also near the start) the issue is what does it all mean. Catholics say from the git-go the Primacy and Infallibility as set forth at Vi was present. You deny that. OK - not surprising since you have affirmatively rejected it.

But the supremacy of the modern Pope as it exists today is a late fiction and no arguments for primacy can support what you have. Certainly nothing you have ever posted has supported it.

Nonsense. 1 - I sincerely doubt you’ve read everything I’ve posted. 2 - The number of thread here and elsewhere are numerous in that matter. you, simply, reject them. It’s not a matter of them not being there - they are. It’s a matter of interpretation.

And yes, the Latin Catholic church teaches errors. But there is great hope that you guys will fix those problems, so I am praying for you.

Not so at all. The fullness of Truth exists only in the One Holy Catholic Church - and that means the Church in union with the Pope of Rome. I know you disagree - since you have rejected Rome, but you are in error.

I really like your church, I have a lot of friends and relatives in your church, priests included. I buried my parents through your church and raised my kids in your church. No regrets.

I believe the phrase from the 60’s for such statements regarding people of other races was “Some of my best friends are black”

I am not hostile to it at all, and I believe that it is an instrument of salvation for many.

But, as I said, it teaches errors, so you guys need to fix that.

Michael

Personally, I’m always amazed at the stories of the White Cowl, anathematizations for blessings with 3 fingers instead of 2, anathematizations for changing calendars to reflect the physical world, submitting to Sultan’s, Commissar’s and Tsar’s selections of Patriarchs, Synods unable to determine if there are 7 or 8 or more Ecumenical Councils, a voluntaristic application of Councils, postings on the archdiocese of Toronto (Orthodox) website that the Athanasian creed is a basic doctrine of Orthodoxy - but then having to claim the references to proceeding from the Son are part of some secret special emended version, claims that orthodoxy does/does not believe something but there is no way to get an authoritative answer. You seemingly like incertitude. OK. What’s stunning to anyone who reads on these topics is that Orthodoxy does in fact allow a wide variety of opinion - UNLESS THAT IS A LATIN OPINION. Your church has become a reflection of what it once was - a reactor to thought and events and always in the negative if Rome got there first. How sad. I do pray for you.

 

[johnnykins]

So heresy is part of the Western Tradition? The first millenium teaches otherwise. England didn’t invent the filioque (though it did invent the Immaculate Conception), the West is bigger than St. Augustine.

It’s only heresy - maybe - if you are Orthodox. And yes, Anglicanism is deeply western.

 

[johnnykins]

So the “fact” of papal infallibility was a well kept secret for 18 centuries until the fullness of time to make it official? Ever since Pope Victor, if it was a “fact,” it should have defined ex cathedra, as the Church didn’t know of any such thing.

You’ve heard of the Gospel of Matthew, I trust. The keys were given to Peter and his successors. Clearly this doctrine was not accepted by many. You heard of the Arians and Nestorians? They too had to be, at the appropriate time, corrected. The 19th century was the time to clarify the Primacy and infallibility of the Papacy. Clearly you reject it - You’re Orthodox. But don’t disparage Catholicism for being Catholic - it’s rude, presumptuous and inappropriate in a Catholic forum.

Of course your blatant proselytization:

Shouldn’t the Orthodox West (Western Rite Orthodox) hold more interest?

betrays your real interest here.

 

[Hesychios]

Not at all - Just correcting the inflammatory statements made by you.

You have no problem with “primacy” you say - but what does “primacy” mean? We could see what Metropolitan Zizioulas says. We could see what Rome says in VI or VII, and we could see what certain priests from Russia, Serbia , Greece or Athos say. Once you admit to primacy - then the question arises what is its limits. Whether we quote Matthew (that’s right from the start, I think) or early writings of the Fathers (also near the start) the issue is what does it all mean. Catholics say from the git-go the Primacy and Infallibility as set forth at Vi was present. You deny that. OK - not surprising since you have affirmatively rejected it.

Nonsense. 1 - I sincerely doubt you’ve read everything I’ve posted. 2 - The number of thread here and elsewhere are numerous in that matter. you, simply, reject them. It’s not a matter of them not being there - they are. It’s a matter of interpretation.

Not so at all. The fullness of Truth exists only in the One Holy Catholic Church - and that means the Church in union with the Pope of Rome. I know you disagree - since you have rejected Rome, but you are in error.

I believe the phrase from the 60’s for such statements regarding people of other races was “Some of my best friends are black”

Personally, I’m always amazed at the stories of the White Cowl, anathematizations for blessings with 3 fingers instead of 2, anathematizations for changing calendars to reflect the physical world, submitting to Sultan’s, Commissar’s and Tsar’s selections of Patriarchs, Synods unable to determine if there are 7 or 8 or more Ecumenical Councils, a voluntaristic application of Councils, postings on the archdiocese of Toronto (Orthodox) website that the Athanasian creed is a basic doctrine of Orthodoxy - but then having to claim the references to proceeding from the Son are part of some secret special emended version, claims that orthodoxy does/does not believe something but there is no way to get an authoritative answer. You seemingly like incertitude. OK. What’s stunning to anyone who reads on these topics is that Orthodoxy does in fact allow a wide variety of opinion - UNLESS THAT IS A LATIN OPINION. Your church has become a reflection of what it once was - a reactor to thought and events and always in the negative if Rome got there first. How sad. I do pray for you.

Johnny, what can I say…

I believe I have been reading you since Usenet, so that’s a long time. Probably nearly ten years unless I have missed my guess.

I try to be nice, and I mean what I say, every bit of it. If you are going to take the part of a hatemonger there is nothing I can do about it.

Michael

 

[GKC]

“Anglo-Catholics who believe in Transubstantiation must be troubled by this. They belong to a Church which explicitly denies a doctrine they believe in. Also, as the Anglican Communion has different beliefs concerning the Eucharist, it cannot be assumed that Anglican eucharists have the Real Presence. This is further cast into doubt when you consider that validity of Anglican Holy Orders is questionable.”

Keep in mind that the Articles are not normative for Anglicanism in general. They only are (theoretically) binding on ordinands of the Church of England, through its Erastian nature. Other Anglicans, may affirm, deny, pick or chose, or totally ignore, them (they’re a mixed bag, at best). Or Anglicans may cut them from the Prayer Book, and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter. Hence, what the Articles say (that is, how Elizabeth choose to organise her fractious Church 450 years ago) has no impact on Anglicanism generally, today. Unless by choice.

And remember that Henry didn’t start off with an idea of cashing in the monasteries. That came from Cromwell, after Wolsey’s fall, over the King’s original Great Matter. But Henry knew a pound, when he saw one.

The full story of how Hank came to acquire the *Defensor Fidei *title is neat. I’ll tell, if asked. It wasn’t totally tied to the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum

GKC

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It’s not that simple, particularly in the U.S. Most of us are somewhere in between. (I think that in England the parties are probably more sharply defined.)

As for why more of us don’t convert–have you ever visited an Anglican liturgy? It’s not just the aesthetics of the liturgy, but the quality of community as well. Catholicism seems very impersonal by comparison. To convert to Catholicism, an Anglican who is disposed to agree with Catholic doctrine has to put abstract belief over concrete ties of affection and the experiential means of grace. (By this I mean that while your sacraments may be valid and ours invalid, in terms of what we can experience it is easier for me at least to feel spiritually nourished in most Anglican liturgies than in most Catholic liturgies I’ve been to.)

And of course many Anglicans are not so disposed. Many Anglicans don’t find any merit in the papal claims, and more broadly most of us have problems with what seems to be the unduly (by the standards not only of contemporary society but also of Scripture and Tradition) authoritarian structure of your Communion. Many Anglicans also have problems with what seems to them to be the unnecessarily and harshly conservative stance of Catholicism on a number of moral and social questions. And even those of us who are disposed to agree with the Catholic Church on many of the most significant of such questions (abortion, for instance) find the “squishiness” of Anglicanism hard to renounce. For instance, I agree with the general tenor of JPII’s “theology of the body.” I’m disposed to agree that sexuality shouldn’t be separated from procreation. I’m on the fence with regards to (non-abortifacient) artificial birth control. But when I see folks on this forum get all tied up in knots about just what sort of marital intimacy is legitimate if potentially procreative intercourse is not intended, or when I hear of impotent men being denied the right to marry, or when I see the posts from young people tortured by the belief that they are in danger of damnation for masturbating–at such times I say to myself, “You know, there’s something to be said for teaching general principles and leaving some gray areas.”

I’m putting a case. This is one side of my attitude to the Anglican/Catholic divide. The other side comes around every time the issue of abortion comes up. I’m free to believe abortion is murder as an Anglican. But my church not only doesn’t teach this, but devotes all its public efforts to the other side. This is an abomination. And if the price of taking a clear stand on abortion is submitting to a bit of legalism with regard to less important matters, I suppose it’s a price that I ought to be willing to pay. But it’s not easy.

Edwin

Thanks for being a calming influence - - this former Anglican is sick to the back teeth of the RC attitude which points out the weaknesses (real or supposed) of the C of E, while ignoring its own. There really ought to be a smily that shakes its head back & forth; it would be very useful.​

If the CC (in this case) is so sure of its position, rubbing salt in the wounds of others should be anathema to it. As for abominations: is killing a foetus a greater abomination than letting it be born & (later on) molested by “Father” ? STM they are pretty much equal.

As for the faults in the CC you mention, maybe they would be greatly “diluted” if the teaching & spirit (it has one - if the word is unwelcome, read “ethos” instead) of Vatican II were more completely assimilated. That won’t abolish all the CC’s problems, but the Council documents do give the CC a fresh vision of what Catholicism is; it has the advantage of allowing people to see the Faith they hold as a unified whole, rather than as a heap of “Things to Do to be Saved” that are unrelated, static, & dead.

 

[bkovacs]

The reason I am Anglican is because I truly do love the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church (although I do not like many of the things that have been perpetrated by certain clergy, specifically they ordaining the of the openly gay bishop who left his wife and family for a male and the movement of some towards almost ‘unitarian universalist’ type of faith).

What I first loved about Anglicanism was the Eucharist. I remember going up to the rail and kneeling and having the Priest put the Bread in my hand and saying, “This is the Body of Christ…” and then the Chalice Bearer bringing the Wine.

This was before I learned about the Real Presence and the history of the Eucharistic liturgies (I later learned that the Book of Common Prayer was based on Pre-Reformation Latin and Sarum Rites/liturgies and elements of the Eucharistic liturgy can be traced back to the Early Church and the liturgies of the Early Church Fathers).

It was also before I learned about our history. The Church of England, as a Province of the Western Church, was ‘officially’ founded by Pope Gregory the Great who elevated St. Augustine of Canterbury as the first Archbishop of Canterbury (it is said that +Cantuar sits upon the Chair of St. Augustine).

I agree with our foundational theology (Nicene Creed, XXXIX Articles, Anglican Catechism, Lambeth Quadrilateral, etc.).

In my Protestant (aka Pre-Anglican and Pre-CAF) past, I might have been cataloged as somewhat Anti-Catholic (mostly out of ignorance than anything else), but now I have a lot of respect for the Roman Catholic Church. Anglicanism recognizes Roman Catholic Holy Orders and the legitimacy of the Pope as Bishop of Rome. And I do believe (and hope) that Roman Catholics are a part of that ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ spoken of in the Nicene Creed.

Perhaps my biggest disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church is the idea of ‘Papal Infallibility’. I do not have a problem with seeing the Pope as the central authority or primus inter pares (much like +Cantuar is among other Anglican Primates), but Infallibility is problematic (and, perhaps, circular).

Personally, I have the utmost respect for Pope Benedict XVI and wish that the Anglican Communion could have such leaders. I have a lot of respect for Archbishop Rowan Williams (who is viewed by many as leaning towards Anglo-Catholicism/High Church Anglicanism) as well, but I sometimes wonder if he is not a tad to conciliatory with the theological liberals in our camp.

Keep in mind that Pope Gregory and St Augustine brought the Roman Catholic faith to England. Not create a seprate Church in England seprate from Roman Catholicism. As you seem to understand it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Not at all - Just correcting the inflammatory statements made by you.

You have no problem with “primacy” you say - but what does “primacy” mean? We could see what Metropolitan Zizioulas says. We could see what Rome says in VI or VII, and we could see what certain priests from Russia, Serbia , Greece or Athos say.

How about Patriarch Alexei II? St. Photios, etc.?

Once you admit to primacy - then the question arises what is its limits. Whether we quote Matthew (that’s right from the start, I think)

Matthew 16:23?

or early writings of the Fathers (also near the start)

Like what St. John Crysostom says of Matthew 16, identifying the confession of St. Peter as the Rock?

the issue is what does it all mean. Catholics say from the git-go the Primacy and Infallibility as set forth at Vi was present. You deny that. OK - not surprising since you have affirmatively rejected it.

And you made it up.

Nonsense. 1 - I sincerely doubt you’ve read everything I’ve posted. 2 - The number of thread here and elsewhere are numerous in that matter. you, simply, reject them. It’s not a matter of them not being there - they are. It’s a matter of interpretation.

You mean correct interpretation.

Not so at all. The fullness of Truth exists only in the One Holy Catholic Church - and that means the Church in union with the Pope of Rome. I know you disagree - since you have rejected Rome, but you are in error.

Then the Second Ecumenical Coucil was in error, as they were not in union with the Pope at Rome. Of course, since you have seen fit to revise their, our Creed, you have no problem saying they were in error.

I believe the phrase from the 60’s for such statements regarding people of other races was “Some of my best friends are black”

I like Cardinal Arinze myself.

Personally, I’m always amazed at the stories of the White Cowl,

Is that like Crusaders pillaging relics?

anathematizations for blessings with 3 fingers instead of 2,

is that why the pope has restricted the finger blessing to himself?

anathematizations for changing calendars to reflect the physical world,

The Paschalion is calculated, it’s not based on actual observation of the moon. How about removing the rules the Ecumenical Council laid down, any problem there?

submitting to Sultan’s, Commissar’s and Tsar’s selections of Patriarchs,

I’d look a little into the history of the selection of your popes of Rome, especially in the lead up to the Avignon Papacy and the Great Western Schism.

Synods unable to determine if there are 7 or 8 or more Ecumenical Councils,

Look up Cadaver Synod, and the whole series conected with it. For something so evidently important, who’s the Pope, somewhat a problem.

As for the 8th or 9th, not a problem as those who don’t see them as Ecumenical (like myself) still accept them in toto.

a voluntaristic application of Councils,

you’d have to expand this.

postings on the archdiocese of Toronto (Orthodox) website that the Athanasian creed is a basic doctrine of Orthodoxy - but then having to claim the references to proceeding from the Son are part of some secret special emended version,

I’d have to see the link to know what you are alleging. The Athanasian Creed is mostly Orhtodox.

claims that orthodoxy does/does not believe something but there is no way to get an authoritative answer.

because none is needed

You seemingly like incertitude.

We respect God’s silence.

OK. What’s stunning to anyone who reads on these topics is that Orthodoxy does in fact allow a wide variety of opinion - UNLESS THAT IS A LATIN OPINION.

Actually there has been a lot of talk about the Confession of Dositheos, which takes the Latin (if this is what you mean) side against the Calvinists.

Your church has become a reflection of what it once was - a reactor to thought and events and always in the negative if Rome got there first. How sad. I do pray for you.

Seeing where Rome went with Vatican II, please be our guest and get there first. Boldly go where angels fear to tread. Or better yet, turn around.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

It’s only heresy - maybe - if you are Orthodox. And yes, Anglicanism is deeply western.

Yes. Augustine made a point of stamping out the earlier work of the East there, among the Celts.

And it was King Oswiu who enforced this at the Synod of Whitby. Again, selective Caesaropapism. Queen Margaret of Scotland was also good for that too.

Heresy if you’re Apostolic.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You’ve heard of the Gospel of Matthew, I trust.

“Get behind me Satan…” Yes I’ve heard of it.

The keys were given to Peter and his successors.

Why, as a matter of fact I’m attached to his successor, Patriarch Ignatius of Antioch.

Clearly this doctrine was not accepted by many. You heard of the Arians and Nestorians? They too had to be, at the appropriate time, corrected. The 19th century was the time to clarify the Primacy and infallibility of the Papacy.

Infallibility had been brought up before, as the followers of the Vatican were decrying it as a “Protestant lie” up untill 1870 (the Anglo-Irish Catechism of that year so states). The primacy, or rather, supremacy, long before. Why the dawdling?

Clearly you reject it - You’re Orthodox.

Yes. the same reason I reject Arianism.

But don’t disparage Catholicism for being Catholic - it’s rude, presumptuous and inappropriate in a Catholic forum.

Ultramontism is no more Catholic than imperialism is multilateral.

Of course your blatant proselytization: betrays your real interest here.

Proselytize to what? They expressed an interest in Eastern Orthodoxy, and I asked why not Western Orthodox? (I’m firmly in the East, btw.).