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

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

The Catholic Faith was already there.

 

[GKC]

The Catholic Faith was already there.

True. As I noted in discussing the British bishops at Arles and Rimini.

GKC

 

[Hesychios]

True. As I noted in discussing the British bishops at Arles and Rimini.

GKC

I agree. These are important things to keep in mind, although some would rather we forget.

Mythmaking abounds.

 

[jblake]

GKC;:

That came from Cromwell, after Wolsey’s fall, over the King’s original Great Matter.

I was under the impression that Cromwell was urged to make that suggestion, by some of the priests who saw it as the ideal solution to the theological disputes that had been brewing for the previous century plus.

xan

jonathon

 

[GKC]

I was under the impression that Cromwell was urged to make that suggestion, by some of the priests who saw it as the ideal solution to the theological disputes that had been brewing for the previous century plus.

xan

jonathon

The disputes between the state (usually the monarch) and the Church, within and without the country) stretch back over 250 years before Henry’s day, reflected in a list of royal decrees and Parlimentary acts. But in all my reading (and Henry’s period is a hobby of mine) I never ran across a suggestion of that nature. AFAIK, it was Cromwell, from the start.

GKC

 

[johnnykins]

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

Sure - it just highlights there is no agreement - not Truth.

Matthew 16:23?

We all know there is disagreement on interpretation

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

see above - the issue is not disputed interpretations - it’s your rather rude bold assertion of error. You disagree with Catholic interpretation - of course, you’re Orthodox. What’;s your point? Mere assertion on your part does not show anything but disrespect.

And you made it up.

come now!! No.

You mean correct interpretation.

no, you mean Non-catholic interpretation.

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.

The second council was ratified. Actually revision of the Creed shows in fact the early claim to the Petrine Primacy, n’est-ce pas?

I like Cardinal Arinze myself.

me, too. I also happen to like many Orthodox - Some of my best friends are Orthodox.

Is that like Crusaders pillaging relics?

No, actually - you should know better than to mix totally differnt things like this and disingenuously compare them.

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

Again, no.

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?

Two points: 1. The calculation is based on an erroneous calendar 2. You added to Nicea by tying the Calculation to Passover - so we know who adjusts councilor decrees.

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.

Yes, that was a struggle - that extended over many years. It was not a capitulation as in Russia, Turkey or Byzantium.

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

You continually confuse things - for what purpose? I cannot tell what your point is here other to to bring up an admittedly bizarre event.

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.

Yes, but one must wonder when the 4 Patriarchs and 3 of their Synods say there are 8 - you reject one as Ecumenical?

you’d have to expand this.

Merely a comment on the fact there that is no means of telling in Orthodoxy which Councils are/are not ecumenical by application of any particular criteria other that voluntarilsm.

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

Went to the site - it’s been removed. perhaps you can get it directly from the Metropolitan of Toronto. It’s existence is demonstrated by the following site. Basic Teachings of the Orthodox Faith - By Metropolitan Archbishop Sotirios. A publication of The Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto (Canada)

aggreen.net/theology/orththeo.html

because none is needed

another Greek myth

We respect God’s silence.

you didn’t used to - ever heard of the 7 ecumenical councils where the catholic Church actually defined things. Your church used to be part of it.

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.

Come now, we all know the revisionism of the last 75 years or so where Orthodox roundly excoriate those scholars who use/used western language and constructions.

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.

Ok - we still have ecumenical councils - like the early church. An ability seemingly no longer available to the Orthodox.

 

[johnnykins]

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.

I was referring to Augustine of Hippo - not Augustine of Canterbury. Canterbury did not stamp out the prior - it was absorbed. Hippo - the great western Father is a church Father, every bit as much as any in the east. The point of the royalty escapes me.

 

[johnnykins]

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

No one ever said Popes don’t sin.

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

Well, that’s a good question in two ways: 1 - who is the legitimate successor in Antioch and 2. Does an interim successor - when Peter moved on - succeed to the Petrine ministry.

In answer, 1 you are merely attached to a false successor from a Catholic perspective and 2 the successor to the keys is in Rome.

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?

Perhaps because the need for it was not yet present. The very matter of the Irish comments perhaps demands it. BTW - take a look at the Relatio of Bishop Vincent Gasser, the spokesman for the deputation that wrote the formula at VI - it clearly clarifies infallibility - and thereby clarifies what the Irish were saying, too.

Yes. the same reason I reject Arianism.

We all know you reject it - you’re not Catholic.

Ultramontism is no more Catholic than imperialism is multilateral.

Like all shorthands for complex issues, “ultramontanism” is both right and wrong depending on the person hearing/using it. State a specific matter and we can discuss the issue. BTW you’re mixing apples and oranges again.

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

To Orthodoxy - you have a consistent record of it here in your postings and bold denigration of catholicism - often in the most inaccurate and appalling manner.

 

[johnnykins]

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

Well, Hes, I’ve been on this board only since late 2004 - and never on any board before that. You have me confused (shock of shocks).

BTW - not a hatemonger - just telling the truth about you and your posts (along with those of your buddies)

 

[johnnykins]

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.

Gottle - you are exactly right and justified in your anger. It’s the same thing that gets me going by our Orthodox posters. We all have beams in our eyes. Like it or not.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Sure - it just highlights there is no agreement - not Truth.

Depends on whose telling the Truth. We’re bound to no agreement with falsehood. No covenant with death, nor pact with hell.

We all know there is disagreement on interpretation

You were the one trying to proof text.

see above - the issue is not disputed interpretations - it’s your rather rude bold assertion of error. You disagree with Catholic interpretation - of course, you’re Orthodox. What’;s your point? Mere assertion on your part does not show anything but disrespect.

The Orthodox interpretation is the Catholic interpretation. That “everywhere, always, everyone” thing. You brought up the Fathers, I merely brought up what they said.

come now!! No.

I didn’t mean you personally.

no, you mean Non-catholic interpretation.

See above, “always, everywhere, everyone.”

The second council was ratified.

So Rome sent her late “Me too!” Sorry, the Church didn’t wait for it.

Actually revision of the Creed shows in fact the early claim to the Petrine Primacy, n’est-ce pas?

Actually the Popes had no had in the revision at Constantinople, and fought the revision of Toledo, until the Emperor Henry forced it on Rome, who in turn tried to force it on us. How’s that for capitulation.

No, actually - you should know better than to mix totally differnt things like this and disingenuously compare them.

The white cowl I put in the same category of nonsense as Crusader relic poaching. Like St. Mark, Apostle of Alexandria.

Again, no.

How about turning your back on ad Orientem? It never ceases to amaze me how the Old Ritualist schism, which only affected Russia, is magnified as the havoc that Vatican II unleashed is minimized.

Two points: 1. The calculation is based on an erroneous calendar 2. You added to Nicea by tying the Calculation to Passover - so we know who adjusts councilor decrees.

Just like we omitted the filioque. Nicea, following Alexadnria and the Apostlolic tradition tired Pascha to Passover.

Yes, that was a struggle - that extended over many years. It was not a capitulation as in Russia, Turkey or Byzantium.

Many years? Try centuries.

And if you can’t beat 'em, join 'em. Papal states. The epitomy of good government no? Who was it again that represented Italy at the Lateran Treaty setting up Vatican City?

I notice all the complaining that we didn’t capitualate to the emperor (of the Romans, btw, not “Byzantine” a non-existent entity) at Florence.

You continually confuse things - for what purpose? I cannot tell what your point is here other to to bring up an admittedly bizarre event.

A whole series of popes nullifying their predecessors papacies, and all their ordinations. If you put all your eggs in one baskett…

Yes, but one must wonder when the 4 Patriarchs and 3 of their Synods say there are 8 - you reject one as Ecumenical?

No, they accept one as Ecumenical that we ALL agree is Pan Orthodox. Causes no more problems than the constant revisions of the offiical list of popes/anti-popes.

Merely a comment on the fact there that is no means of telling in Orthodoxy which Councils are/are not ecumenical by application of any particular criteria other that voluntarilsm.

Christ says He stands at the door and knocks, and waits for the invitation in. He doesn’t break the down door.

He knows His own and His own know Him. They have no problem hearing the voice of His Spirit in the Councils. If you do, that is not our problem.

Btw, what ever happened to your council of Siena?

Went to the site - it’s been removed. perhaps you can get it directly from the Metropolitan of Toronto. It’s existence is demonstrated by the following site. Basic Teachings of the Orthodox Faith - By Metropolitan Archbishop Sotirios. A publication of The Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto (Canada)

aggreen.net/theology/orththeo.html

Then I can’t comment on the particular, but repeat the general statement that the so-called Athanasian Creed is mostly fine, although we make no use of it. The Apostles Creed is totally fine, but, besides the Western Rite Orthodox, we don’t use it either.

another Greek myth

another Latin misunderstanding

you didn’t used to - ever heard of the 7 ecumenical councils where the catholic Church actually defined things. Your church used to be part of it.

Part? We were, are and will be the whole (the Catholic part) of it.

Just the Church has not had a heresy in its midst to warrent an Ecumenical Council for over a thousand years. The Fathers did there work thoroughly.

Come now, we all know the revisionism of the last 75 years or so where Orthodox roundly excoriate those scholars who use/used western language and constructions.

Yes, we are shaking off the shackles of the Western Capitity of the Church, which frightens some.

Ok - we still have ecumenical councils - like the early church. An ability seemingly no longer available to the Orthodox.

No need. We’ve had plenty of Pan-Orthodox synods, so if needed we wouldn’t have a problem convening an Ecumenical Council. Of course those mired in heresies like the early Church have multiplied councils to no seeming effect.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I was referring to Augustine of Hippo - not Augustine of Canterbury. Canterbury did not stamp out the prior - it was absorbed. Hippo - the great western Father is a church Father, every bit as much as any in the east. The point of the royalty escapes me.

I was referring to Augustine of Cantebury, as the British Isles received light from the East unmediated by Augustine of Hippo, which his namesake of Cantebury stamped out. Besides St. days, what was absorbed?

As I prefer Augustine far above Jerome, I’m not sure what comparision with SS Athanasius, Cyril, Basi, John Chrysostom etc would serve. I’m quite found of Augustine in many places, in particular as a counterbalance in the West to Jerome.

I’m sure the royalty escapes you: I’ve notice one sees Caesaropapism only when it involves an emperor in the East (and only when he’s not trying to ram another union scheme down our throats).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No one ever said Popes don’t sin.

But still owed that assent of the will.

Well, that’s a good question in two ways: 1 - who is the legitimate successor in Antioch and 2. Does an interim successor - when Peter moved on - succeed to the Petrine ministry.

1. See below.
2. Better question: The offiical list gives St. LInus and then St. Anacletus. But the Roman Martyrology states on Linus: “At Rome, commemoration of Saint Linus, Pope, who, according to Irenaeus, was the person to whom the blessed Apostles [plural?!] entrusted the episcopal care of the Church founded in the City and whom blessed Paul the Apostle mentions as associated with him” and the Apostolic Constitutions (which the Sixth Ecumenical Council cites as authority) states St. Paul ordained him, and he was succeeded by St. Clement, ordained by St. Peter, but AFTER Linus’ death. Terutllian knows of the list of his day listing Clement after Peter. How was Linus Pope during Peter’s papacy?

In answer, 1 you are merely attached to a false successor from a Catholic perspective and 2 the successor to the keys is in Rome.

1. Oh? And which of the three that Rome has there now is the true successor? or should I be under the fourth one which you abolished in the 60s?

Rome tried to replace St. Meletius (he’s on your calendar too), Jerome getting his ordination from Rome’s man there. St. John Chrysostom got his from St. Meletius, and the saint went on to open the Second Ecumenical Council, outside of communion with Rome, and write the Creed. Rome’s line died out, and the four (oops, now three) patriarchs of Antioch you have there all trace their descent through St. Meletius. So much for those keys (2).

Perhaps because the need for it was not yet present. The very matter of the Irish comments perhaps demands it. BTW - take a look at the Relatio of Bishop Vincent Gasser, the spokesman for the deputation that wrote the formula at VI - it clearly clarifies infallibility - and thereby clarifies what the Irish were saying, too.

That it was a Protestant lie?

We all know you reject it - you’re not Catholic.

Since when was Arianism Catholic?

Like all shorthands for complex issues, “ultramontanism” is both right and wrong depending on the person hearing/using it. State a specific matter and we can discuss the issue. BTW you’re mixing apples and oranges again.

No, ultramontanism is wrong always, everywhere for everyone. And no, since the pope of Rome liked to play emperor (the original pontifex maximus), it was mixed when I got here.

To Orthodoxy - you have a consistent record of it here in your postings and bold denigration of catholicism - often in the most inaccurate and appalling manner.

Apologetics, never having to say you are sorry.

Again, the OP states his attraction to Orthodoxy, I merely redirected it Westward.

 

[Dempsey1919]

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.

This is one of the problems I have with Anglicanism: it doesn’t have a unified set of beliefs or doctrines that are binding on all believers. Theoretically, Anglicans are allowed to believe what they want. The Anglican Communion, in my view, is really a confederation of many denominations under one banner. A Church which is not united in belief cannot really be called “one,” in the sense of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Belief in a shared faith is what unites a Church.

Would an the Anglicans on this forum like an Anglican Catechism, which details the beliefs and tenets of the Anglican faith?

I like the fact that we Catholics have at our disposal a Catechism which clarifies exacly what the Church believes. I view a united and shared faith as one of the benefits of Catholicism. Would you agree?

The full story of how Hank came to acquire the Defensor Fidei title is neat. I’ll tell, if asked.

GKC,

I’d be very interested in hearing this story, and I would also like to hear your responses to the questions I’ve posed above.

 

[GKC]

This is one of the problems I have with Anglicanism: it doesn’t have a unified set of beliefs or doctrines that are binding on all believers. Theoretically, Anglicans are allowed to believe what they want. The Anglican Communion, in my view, is really a confederation of many denominations under one banner. A Church which is not united in belief cannot really be called “one,” in the sense of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Belief in a shared faith is what unites a Church.

Would an the Anglicans on this forum like an Anglican Catechism, which details the beliefs and tenets of the Anglican faith?

I like the fact that we Catholics have at our disposal a Catechism which clarifies exacly what the Church believes. I view a united and shared faith as one of the benefits of Catholicism. Would you agree?

GKC,

I’d be very interested in hearing this story, and I would also like to hear your responses to the questions I’ve posed above.

Ok. The DF bit will be a C&P, of something I did here a while back, the other will be short replies, and both will be in a little while.

I’m due at the local Thai/Viet restaurant right now.

GKC

 

[nsper7]

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

Although perhaps King Henry VIII’s reason for schisming from the
Roman Catholic Church may have been questionable, it should be noted that during Queen Mary’s reign, the Church of England returned to union with Rome. It was under Queen Elizabeth that the final schism from Rome occurred and the Elizabethan Settlement was hammered out.

We can still trace Apostolic Succession back to that first Archbishop of Canterbury, St. Augustine, and Pope Gregory the Great. Perhaps the Anglican Communion, and the Church of England specifically, are misusing those gifts granted to us by that Great Pope, but what other option is there? Are we to close up shop and basically tell Il Papa and his Archbishop that their hard work were all for nothing and that the Chair of St. Augustine is worthless?

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:

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.

Personally, I believe in the Real Presence, but necessarily transubstantiation. The XXXIX Articles do not condemn a belief in the Real Presence, but they challenge transubstantiation. My qualm with transubstantiation is that I feel that is based on an outmoded view of matter.

 

[masuwerte]

Would an the Anglicans on this forum like an Anglican Catechism, which details the beliefs and tenets of the Anglican faith?

The ECUSA has one. To answer the OP, I’m home already.

 

[SPH1]

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.

What I’ve never understood is how so-called “Anglo-Catholics” and “Evangelical Anglicans” can call themselves part of the same Anglican Communion.

But perhaps that is the reason they do not - and cannot - fully unite with the Catholic Church. Anglicanism stands for everything and nothing, allowing too many Baptist types in the back door.

 

[nsper7]

What I’ve never understood is how so-called “Anglo-Catholics” and “Evangelical Anglicans” can call themselves part of the same Anglican Communion.

But perhaps that is the reason they do not - and cannot - fully unite with the Catholic Church. Anglicanism stands for everything and nothing, allowing too many Baptist types in the back door.

Who was it that said, [On essentials, unity; on non-essentials, liberty; in everything, charity]? Granted, certain elements of the ECUSA and other ‘Western’ Anglican provinces are abusing that liberty, the original goal of the Elizabethan Settlement was to promote that ‘via media’ between the Reformation churches and the Roman Catholic Church.

Also, I thought there was an ‘Anglican Catechism’ (its in the back of the BCP).

Perhaps one of the miracles of Anglicanism is that you have those who are, for all intents and purposes, Papists (no insult intended) and those who are Evangelicals/pseudo-Baptists able to worship together and take communion together and respect the same spiritual authority: +Cantuar.

 

[emeraldcoast]

Yes nsper7, you are correct that there is a Catechism in the BCP.

Here is a link as well…anglicansonline.org/basics/catechism.html

God Bless!