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

[GKC]

Hmm. Some thoughts here already.

Here’s the* Defensor Fidei *story. On the other point, I’ll try to add something shortly. For now, my computer and I are undergoing a trial separation, and my times for posting are variable, in duration and frequency.

Perhaps tomorrow, for what it’s worth.

GKC

Henry liked sparklies. Was always on the look-out for a new and nifty title, or gee-gaw to add to his collection. In 1512, he petitioned Julius II to award him the title possessed by Louis XII, “Most Christian King” (you didn’t just call yourself something like that; it was awarded). Not sure if “Most Christian” was a zero sum title, but Julius did award it to Henry, and, for good measure, secretly gave him the French throne. All he had to do to claim it was to defeat Louis in the then on-going unpleasantness between the Holy League and France. That part never happened, though Henry tried, after Ferdinand of Spain finked out on him. But Henry got his “Christianissimus”.

In 1515, Henry wanted something else to pad his resume. Various ideas were passed around: “Protector of the Holy See”, maybe “Defender”, were suggested from the English side. The first was turned down because it already belonged to the Holy Roman Emperor, the second was the property of the Swiss. Some in Rome countered with “King Apostolic” (interesting combination) or “Orthodox”. The Pope vetoed both. In 1516, the title of “Defender of the Faith” was proposed from England. Leo ignored it, and Henry sulked.

Henry gave up until May, 1521, when Wolsey wrote once again to Rome, asking for a pretty for Henry. Leo passed it to a committee of Cardinals. Forthcoming were suggestions for titles:

“Rex Fidelis”, "“Orthodoxus”, “Ecclesiaticus” ,
“Protector”, “Anglicus” (that last was a little weak).

When the Cardinals inquired just why Henry warranted another honor, the part he had played fighting for the Holy See against Louis, 9 years before, was mentioned. And there was the Assertio (that is, the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum), sort of written by Henry, against Luther’s De Captivitate Babylonica). Rome had heard of this work of Hank’s (it was in draft in May 1521, printed in July, sent to Rome in September, after the Cardinals had been considering the matter of a title for a few months). So, even before the *Assertio *was received and presented to Leo, a list of titles for Henry to choose from was shipped over to England.

The Assertio probably tipped the scales for approval. About the time it was presented to Leo, Henry chose the same title that had been suggested by England 6 years before: *Defensor Fidei *. Leo granted it six weeks after he received the book. Doubtless directly inspired by the Assertio, some cardinals then wanted to add a flourish to the title, such as *Gloriosus *or Fidelissimus, but Leo vetoed it. Moderation in all things. Might give Henry a swelled head.

So Henry got his sparklie, partially because of the Assertio, partially because of the Holy League, years before, partially because he was a pain in the neck. It was intended as a title for him personally, though he thought it was hereditary. Parliament thought it looked nice, and attached it to the Throne, in 1543. Mary took it off, Elizabeth put it back, and it’s there now by legislative fiat.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I feel that is based on an outmoded view of matter.

How so?

What is it about the doctrine of

Transubstatiation

that you have difficulties with? I would also like to know what Eucharistic theological view you believe in?

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

But is this Catechism recognised by the worldwide Anglican Communion? Must all Anglicans agree with it’s summary of beliefs?

Here’s the Defensor Fidei story.

Thanks for sharing. I thought the title mattered more than it does; I didn’t realise it was a gift to sooth Henry’s over-inflated ego. It seems that he pressured the Holy See to grant him this title, or indeed any title.

 

[GKC]

How so?

What is it about the doctrine of that you have difficulties with? I would also like to know what Eucharistic theological view you believe in?

But is this Catechism recognised by the worldwide Anglican Communion? Must all Anglicans agree with it’s summary of beliefs?

Thanks for sharing. I thought the title mattered more than it does; I didn’t realise it was a gift to sooth Henry’s over-inflated ego. It seems that he pressured the Holy See to grant him this title, or indeed any title.

You’re welcome. Hank is a hobby of mine. Certainly his ego was involved, and so was the realization from Rome that he had been of use, in the past, would likely be of use in the future, and building coalitions and alliances was precisely what political powers, including Rome, did, at the time. A title was a reasonably cheap payoff.

As to a catechism, one might be of use, yes (I walk the *via media * on this). No, the one in the BCP isn’t comprehensive, or binding. Little is, as you know, in Anglicanism, since the power of the throne waned, back when Henry was issuing the Six Articles, or the Ten Articles, and enforcing them with the secular sword, and since the world of Anglicanism morphed from the unitary Church of England, to independent jurisidictions in voluntary association.

Useful as a structured catechism might be (I use my CCC and my Ott regularly), I don’t think I’d want to see Anglicanism on that road, of structured legalism, and graduated degrees of theological certainty. From the days of the Elizabethean Compromise, Anglicanism was a broad spectrum of details, under a central umbrella of orthodoxy. One could reasonably embrace the core of historic Anglicanism, once: the Creeds/gospel, Apostolic succession, the councils of the undivided Church (some say 4, some 7), specific liturgies and formularies. That’s no longer true, and the issues within Anglicanism are wider than what sort of Christianity might be permitted or accepted under the umbrella. Now it’s what degree of aposasty might be uncovered today.

That’s distressing, but I have no real desire to counter it with a series of de fide statements, which would define the limits. I just note that Anglicanism is likely disappearing, as it was once known. Its historical essence willl linger, in such groups as the Continuum (on the Anglo-Catholic side) and whatever arrangements flow from those people who are gradually moving toward the door, following the latest Lambeth. Orthodox Anglicans can recognise their like, and broken communion removes those beyond the pale. Can’t stop the apostates from using the name Anglican, but life’s like that.

GKC

 

[Dempsey1919]

Useful as a structured catechism might be (I use my CCC and my Ott regularly), I don’t think I’d want to see Anglicanism on that road, of structured legalism, and graduated degrees of theological certainty. From the days of the Elizabethean Compromise, Anglicanism was a broad spectrum of details, under a central umbrella of orthodoxy. One could reasonably embrace the core of historic Anglicanism, once: the Creeds/gospel, Apostolic succession, the councils of the undivided Church (some say 4, some 7), specific liturgies and formularies. That’s no longer true, and the issues within Anglicanism are wider than what sort of Christianity might be permitted or accepted under the umbrella. Now it’s what degree of aposasty might be uncovered today.

It’s good to know that you read our Catechism because it will enable you to understand the reasoning of Roman Catholic belief. As an Anglo-Catholic, do you use the Roman Catechism as a basis for your own beliefs, or more for ecumenical purposes?

As you are an Anglo-Catholic, would I be correct in assuming that you agree with 90% of Catholic doctrine, or would you consider yourself closer to the Orthodox in terms of theology and beliefs? For instance, what is your opinion on the four Marian dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church and do you as an Anglo-Catholic accept them?

In the Anglo-Catholic branch of Anglicanism, who decides the core beliefs of all members? Or is it possible that people who hold different beliefs would worship in the same parish?

 

[GKC]

It’s good to know that you read our Catechism because it will enable you to understand the reasoning of Roman Catholic belief. As an Anglo-Catholic, do you use the Roman Catechism as a basis for your own beliefs, or more for ecumenical purposes?

I use it to learn.

We have only just met and thus my personal quirks and foibles are not known to you. I’m a book collector, and former book dealer, with a library of pathological proportions, including a great deal of religious writing, of the Catholic sort. Unfortunately, I’m moving, and much of it is in storage, likely for several years. Sort of cripples me.

As you are an Anglo-Catholic, would I be correct in assuming that you agree with 90% of Catholic doctrine, or would you consider yourself closer to the Orthodox in terms of theology and beliefs? For instance, what is your opinion on the four Marian dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church and do you as an Anglo-Catholic accept them?

I never measured the proportions, but that sounds about right. There are places where I look more like a non-ethnic Orthdox, but mostly, not.

Marian dogmas bother me not at all, in general (unless you’re speaking of the Mediatrix idea), though, as you know, sometimes the Anglican mindset shades them a little. We are about to observe the Dormition of the BVM (and on my daughters birthday, too), not the Assumption, for example. OTOH, we sing the Angelus, or the Regina Coeli, afer each Mass.

On the other other hand, the Marian dogmas are pious opinions in Anglicanism, not de fide.

In the Anglo-Catholic branch of Anglicanism, who decides the core beliefs of all members? Or is it possible that people who hold different beliefs would worship in the same parish?

Not only possible, inevitable. My parish is pretty High Church, pretty AC (not the same thing), and not everyone is as High or AC as is the norm. In fact, after the Sung Mass each Sunday, there is a small Prayer Book Communion, for folks who are uncomfortable with the smells, bells and yells.

GKC

 

[nsper7]

How so?

My understanding is that when transubstantiation was originally defined by the Church, it was based on a Aristotelian view of matter, specifically regarding substance, essence and accidents.

What is it about the doctrine of that you have difficulties with? I would also like to know what Eucharistic theological view you believe in?

I do not deny that transubstantiation could be correct. I just believe it is trying to hard to explain a spiritual miracle in mere physical terms. Some Anglicans do believe in t.s. (one friend of mine who is a actually an Episcopal Priest believes in it). In this, I agree with the Eastern Orthodox view of calling it a Divine Mystery and leaving it at that.

For me, I believe that somehow, the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ, whether symbolically, spiritually or substantially.

Thanks for sharing. I thought the title mattered more than it does; I didn’t realise it was a gift to sooth Henry’s over-inflated ego. It seems that he pressured the Holy See to grant him this title, or indeed any title.

Perhaps that is one of the amazing things about God. Even though King Henry VIII was a sinner (like all of us are), God worked through him to form a Church that would continue in the Apostolic Succession of Pope Gregory I and St. Augustine of Canterbury. Even if His Majesty’s goal was not the best, God still used it for His Divine purposes.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Marian dogmas bother me not at all, in general (unless you’re speaking of the Mediatrix idea), though, as you know, sometimes the Anglican mindset shades them a little. We are about to observe the Dormition of the BVM (and on my daughters birthday, too), not the Assumption, for example. OTOH, we sing the Angelus, or the Regina Coeli, afer each Mass.

On the other other hand, the Marian dogmas are pious opinions in Anglicanism, not de fide.

The Dormition of the BVM is a beautiful understanding of what happened at the end of the Virgin’s life. The belief is that Mary experienced a natural death, and that her soul was received by Christ. Three days after this event, her body was resurrected and she was taken up, body and soul into heaven.

The Dormition and the Assumption are basically different explanations of the same event, and I see no contradiction between the two. They both state that the BVM was taken bodily up to heaven, but the diffence is that the Orthodox view also states that she first died and was then ressurected. Many Catholics also believe that she experienced natural death, while others do not. Pope Pius XII did not comment on this aspect of the dogma when he infallably defined the Assumption. Here is what he stated:

1. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

He states that the BVM, “having completed the course of her earthly llife, was assumed body and soul into heaven.” I take this to mean that she died, because that is what happens when anyone completes the course of their earthly life. Therefore, I would state that I also believe in the Dormition, although I refer to it as the Assumption.

The Catechism also explicitly mentions the Dormition, as seen below:

. . . also in her Assumption

966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.509

The Orthodox view and the Catholic view are essentially the same, although the Orthodox view goes into more detail regarding what happened at the end of her life.

I think it’s great that our Anglo-Catholic bretheren, for the most part, believe in the dogmas concerning the Virgin. I do find it strange that a Western Church would celebrate an Eastern Feast (Dormition) as opposed to the corresponding Western Feast (Assumption), but I suppose it doesn’t really matter.

I thought that you might disagree with the Marian dogmas, since most Protestants do. Although, I suppose you aren’t really protestant since you believe in Catholicism to an extent. I would say that Anglo-Catholics are mostly Catholic, with a few issues that need to be ironed out before any reunion can take place.

You believe in the Marian dogmas, you have no real issues with Transubstantiation, and you agree with the male only Priesthood and Bishopric. It seems that the only obstacle to reunion is the Papacy. What is it about the Papacy that bothers Anglo-Catholics? Do you view the Pope as first among equals, or as the Head of the College of Cardinals, and the Supreme Pontiff?

I do not deny that transubstantiation could be correct. I just believe it is trying to hard to explain a spiritual miracle in mere physical terms. Some Anglicans do believe in t.s. (one friend of mine who is a actually an Episcopal Priest believes in it). In this, I agree with the Eastern Orthodox view of calling it a Divine Mystery and leaving it at that.

So you have no theological objections against Transubstantiation. You do not disbelieve in this doctrine. You believe in the Real Presence but you are slightly confused about how it happens. In that case, it would be sensible to believe in the explanation that your Church taught prior to the Reformation; the Anglican belief was identical to the Catholic belief before the reign of Edward VI. As an Anglo-Catholic, it would make more sense for you to accept the traditional Catholic teaching, that was accepted by your Church in the early days of its formation, before the influence of radical Protestantism. I think it’s better to know exactly what you believe concerning important doctrines such as the Real Presence. Do you agree?

 

[GKC]

The Dormition of the BVM is a beautiful understanding of what happened at the end of the Virgin’s life. The belief is that Mary experienced a natural death, and that her soul was received by Christ. Three days after this event, her body was resurrected and she was taken up, body and soul into heaven.

The Dormition and the Assumption are basically different explanations of the same event, and I see no contradiction between the two. They both state that the BVM was taken bodily up to heaven, but the diffence is that the Orthodox view also states that she first died and was then ressurected. Many Catholics also believe that she experienced natural death, while others do not. Pope Pius XII did not comment on this aspect of the dogma when he infallably defined the Assumption. Here is what he stated:

He states that the BVM, “having completed the course of her earthly llife, was assumed body and soul into heaven.” I take this to mean that she died, because that is what happens when anyone completes the course of their earthly life. Therefore, I would state that I also believe in the Dormition, although I refer to it as the Assumption.

The Catechism also explicitly mentions the Dormition, as seen below:

The Orthodox view and the Catholic view are essentially the same, although the Orthodox view goes into more detail regarding what happened at the end of her life.

I think it’s great that our Anglo-Catholic bretheren, for the most part, believe in the dogmas concerning the Virgin. I do find it strange that a Western Church would celebrate an Eastern Feast (Dormition) as opposed to the corresponding Western Feast (Assumption), but I suppose it doesn’t really matter.

I thought that you might disagree with the Marian dogmas, since most Protestants do. Although, I suppose you aren’t really protestant since you believe in Catholicism to an extent. I would say that Anglo-Catholics are mostly Catholic, with a few issues that need to be ironed out before any reunion can take place.

If that were to happen, yes, some things would have to happen first.

No, I’m not really a protestant. Did I mention our Mary Shrine? OL of Walsingham.

You believe in the Marian dogmas, you have no real issues with Transubstantiation, and you agree with the male only Priesthood and Bishopric. It seems that the only obstacle to reunion is the Papacy. What is it about the Papacy that bothers Anglo-Catholics? Do you view the Pope as first among equals, or as the Head of the College of Cardinals, and the Supreme Pontiff?

Primus inter pares=Papa.

In the following para, you are responding to something nsper7 posted, not me. Keep in mind that while he and I have some convergence on some points, essentially, we are two different things. He is a protestant, and not an Anglo-Catholic. It takes a scorecard, I know.

As for me personally, I certainly do accept transubstantiation, per Trent, Session XIII. . But I don’t think the case is good enough to make it de fide. It’s another case of over-defining. The Real Presence, otoh, is well supported by scripture and the ECFs.

So you have no theological objections against Transubstantiation. You do not disbelieve in this doctrine. You believe in the Real Presence but you are slightly confused about how it happens. In that case, it would be sensible to believe in the explanation that your Church taught prior to the Reformation; the Anglican belief was identical to the Catholic belief before the reign of Edward VI. As an Anglo-Catholic, it would make more sense for you to accept the traditional Catholic teaching, that was accepted by your Church in the early days of its formation, before the influence of radical Protestantism. I think it’s better to know exactly what you believe concerning important doctrines such as the Real Presence. Do you agree?

Well, nsper7? What saith thou?

GKC

 

[SIA]

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.

Catholics: Why don’t you come home to the Church of Uganda??

 

[nsper7]

So you have no theological objections against Transubstantiation. You do not disbelieve in this doctrine. You believe in the Real Presence but you are slightly confused about how it happens. In that case, it would be sensible to believe in the explanation that your Church taught prior to the Reformation; the Anglican belief was identical to the Catholic belief before the reign of Edward VI. As an Anglo-Catholic, it would make more sense for you to accept the traditional Catholic teaching, that was accepted by your Church in the early days of its formation, before the influence of radical Protestantism. I think it’s better to know exactly what you believe concerning important doctrines such as the Real Presence. Do you agree?

In the following para, you are responding to something nsper7 posted, not me. Keep in mind that while he and I have some convergence on some points, essentially, we are two different things. He is a protestant, and not an Anglo-Catholic. It takes a scorecard, I know.

As for me personally, I certainly do accept transubstantiation, per Trent, Session XIII. . But I don’t think the case is good enough to make it de fide. It’s another case of over-defining. The Real Presence, otoh, is well supported by scripture and the ECFs.

Well, nsper7? What saith thou?

GKC

1. GKC is partially correct to say that I am not Anglo-Catholic; however, I do not view myself as strictly Protestant/Reformed either. On some areas of theology (especially Soteriology), I would fall under a certain brand of Protestantism (namely Free Grace theology), but on other areas, I am more aware of Tradition and Roman Catholicism. I suppose I am the definition of ‘Broad Church’.
2. Is it important that one definitively understand how the Real Presence is expressed or merely that God knows?

 

[GKC]

1. GKC is partially correct to say that I am not Anglo-Catholic; however, I do not view myself as strictly Protestant/Reformed either. On some areas of theology (especially Soteriology), I would fall under a certain brand of Protestantism (namely Free Grace theology), but on other areas, I am more aware of Tradition and Roman Catholicism. I suppose I am the definition of ‘Broad Church’.
2. Is it important that one definitively understand how the Real Presence is expressed or merely that God knows?

As to the proper nomenclature for you, I know what you mean. That sort of thing happens to me all the time.

As to understanding the Eucharist, I am reminded of how C. S. Lewis expressed it, in LETTERS TO MALCOM: the command was “Take, eat”, not “take, understand”. Luckily for us.

GKC

 

[nsper7]

As to the proper nomenclature for you, I know what you mean. That sort of thing happens to me all the time.

As to understanding the Eucharist, I am reminded of how C. S. Lewis expressed it, in LETTERS TO MALCOM: the command was “Take, eat”, not “take, understand”. Luckily for us.

GKC

John Donne also expressed Anglican Eucharistic theology very well too:
*
He was the Word that spake it;
He took the bread and break it;
And what the Word did make it
I do believe and take it*

 

[Hesychios]

… I am reminded of how C. S. Lewis expressed it, in LETTERS TO MALCOM: the command was “Take, eat”, not “take, understand”. Luckily for us.

GKC

Wow, that was great.

I never read that before.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Primus inter pares=Papa.

So you agree that the Pope is first among equals. This means you must also agree that the Pope, as first among equals, is entitled to the last word in situations where different parties cannot agree. If the Bishops could not agree on something, then the Pope, being the first among the Bishops, has the authority to step in and settle matters. Would you agree? By stating that the Pope is first among the Bishops, it would be logical to say that the Pope is the head of the Bishops, or the leader of the Bishops.

Although you accept Primus Inter Pares, you may feel that the Roman Catholic Church has exalted the Pope too much, and that the role of the Bishops has been diminished; and perhaps there is some truth in this statement. However, Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution On The Church Lumen Gentium completed the work of Vatican I and adressed the role of Bishops in the leadership of the Church. I view collegiality to be one of the most important contributions of Vatican II to the Church. Here is what the Constitution says:

1. The Lord Jesus, after praying to the Father, calling to Himself those whom He desired, appointed twelve to be with Him, and whom He would send to preach the Kingdom of God;(137) and these apostles(138) He formed after the manner of a college or a stable group, over which He placed Peter chosen from among them.(139)

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.

It is the teaching of the Church that the Bishops, as successors of the Apostles, also has “supreme and full power over the Universal Church” as long as they are united with “its head the Roman Pontiff…” The “power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter” was also given to the Bishops who are “joined with their head,” the Successor of St. Peter.

Your belief in Primus Inter Pares is similar to the teaching of the Church. This is shown in this quote: “In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church…” The Bishops who recognise that the Pope is first among them, will exercise their own authority, but will concede to the Pope in important matters because they recognise that he is the first among them; he is their leader, and as such, exercises authority over them. How is this different from your belief?

nsper7:

Is it important that one definitively understand how the Real Presence is expressed or merely that God knows?

Is it important that one definitively understand the Trinity, or the hypostatic union?

Throughout the history of the Church, there has been a need for clarity; it is important to know the truth, and it is important to define the truth to prevent people from falling into error.

It is easy for people to fall into error if they do not understand what they believe; and in an attempt to prevent this, the Church defines dogmas. The Anglican Communion is a perfect example for the need to authoritatively define beliefs. The Anglican Communion is split in two regarding the ordination of women Priests and Bishops; this whole situation would have been avoided had the Church defined the it’s teaching regarding Holy Orders.

In belief, there is a need for absolutes, otherwise you speculate and decide for yourself what to believe, which only creates disunity within the Church, as seen by the disputes over homosexuality within the Anglican Communion.

 

[GKC]

John Donne also expressed Anglican Eucharistic theology very well too:
*
He was the Word that spake it;
He took the bread and break it;
And what the Word did make it
I do believe and take it*

That is sometimes attributed to Elizabeth I.

GKC

 

[GKC]

"Your belief in Primus Inter Pares is similar to the teaching of the Church. This is shown in this quote: “In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church…” The Bishops who recognise that the Pope is first among them, will exercise their own authority, but will concede to the Pope in important matters because they recognise that he is the first among them; he is their leader, and as such, exercises authority over them. How is this different from your belief?

The bishops in question would be all bishops possessing Apostolic succession (and that means a lot of folks), not merely those in communion with Papa. Collegiality and conciliarity would be the method. And Papa gets to break ties, publish the minutes, and schedule latrine breaks.

You stress the* primus*, I the pares. Papa doesn’t possess universal ordinary authority

“Is it important that one definitively understand the Trinity, or the hypostatic union?”

No one definitively understands the hypostatic union, nor the Trinity, nor the Real Presence. We have valiant efforts, using language of accomodation.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Wow, that was great.

I never read that before.

Much of Lewis, one of my serious collecting areas, is great. LETTERS is a particularly rich field. But one must remember that the “voice” in LETTERS is not Lewis speaking directly, but a fictional construct. That being said, there is no doubt that it reflects his personal views.

GKC

 

[Dempsey1919]

You stress the primus, I the pares. Papa doesn’t possess universal ordinary authority

I don’t really stress any part of the phrase. My interpretation of the phrase is that all Bishops are equal, as all of the Apostles were equal, but I also acknowledge the fact that the Pope is first among them. The implications of this is that the Pope leads the Bishops, and has the authority to settle disputes etc.

There has to be a leader among the Bishops; every flock needs a shepherd to hold the flock together. Without a shepherd, the sheep would scatter in all directions. This is exacly what has happened in the Anglican Communion. You have the Bishops of the Church of England accepting homosexuality and women Bishops, and you have the African Evangelical Anglicans who are against this. Even though they are equal, they aren’t in agreement and no side has authority over the other. There must be a Bishop with the authority to decide matters and hold the union together. Instead, you have the Church of England moving in one direction, and the Anlo-Catholics and Evangelicals moving in another; the sheep are scattering.

How do you interpret this phrase? Most importantly, what does the word “Primus” mean to you, and how does this affect the role of the Pope?

 

[GKC]

I don’t really stress any part of the phrase. My interpretation of the phrase is that all Bishops are equal, as all of the Apostles were equal, but I also acknowledge the fact that the Pope is first among them. The implications of this is that the Pope leads the Bishops, and has the authority to settle disputes etc.

There has to be a leader among the Bishops; every flock needs a shepherd to hold the flock together. Without a shepherd, the sheep would scatter in all directions. This is exacly what has happened in the Anglican Communion. You have the Bishops of the Church of England accepting homosexuality and women Bishops, and you have the African Evangelical Anglicans who are against this. Even though they are equal, they aren’t in agreement and no side has authority over the other. There must be a Bishop with the authority to decide matters and hold the union together. Instead, you have the Church of England moving in one direction, and the Anlo-Catholics and Evangelicals moving in another; the sheep are scattering.

How do you interpret this phrase? Most importantly, what does the word “Primus” mean to you, and how does this affect the role of the Pope?

I have given a quick suggesion as to what it means to me, above. There is not one bishop who possesses the singular authority to decide matters. Hence the need for collegial conciliarity, in matters of doctrine.

Primus is a primacy of honor, and of leadership. But not of sole personal authority. Hence, as I said, *Papa *gets to chair the meetings and write the minutes. THe issues are decied by the successors of the Apostles.

Have you ever had this sort of discussion with an Orthodox? If so, how did it go?

GKC

 

[Dempsey1919]

I have given a quick suggesion as to what it means to me, above. There is not one bishop who possesses the singular authority to decide matters. Hence the need for collegial conciliarity, in matters of doctrine.

Primus is a primacy of honor, and of leadership. But not of sole personal authority. Hence, as I said, Papa gets to chair the meetings and write the minutes. THe issues are decied by the successors of the Apostles.

You hold that the Pope has a primacy of honour among the Bishops, but has no primacy of authority. However, according to Matthew 16:18-19:

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This states that Peter has been given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, including the authority to use those keys: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven…” This passage does not mention any of the other Apostles; it doesn’t say that Peter holds the keys but that the other Apostles are to use them equally with Peter. God singled out Peter and gave him a special role amongst the Apostles, a role which also includes authority over them.

I agree with the need for collegial conciliarity, but I also believe that Peter and his Successors were given a primacy of honour, which also includes pastoral authority. Scripture (as shown above) proves that Peter was given the authority to bind and loose; something the other Apostles were not given. This honour belonged only to Peter and his Apostles.

Have you ever had this sort of discussion with an Orthodox? If so, how did it go?

Unfortunately I haven’t had this opportunity, but I would love to dialogue with them; I’m sure I would learn a great deal, as I have been lucky to learn a great deal by talking with you. However, I would rather talk with Anglicans because I know them, they have Churches in my area. I always wanted to know what the Anglo-Catholics believed, so I thank you for the opportunity to talk with you.

As a matter of interest, do you hold the same views as Orthodox concerning Papal authority? What are your thoughts on what I’ve written?