Anne Boleyn

[Kaninchen]

And I wasn’t disputing your point, but agreeing with it. I was attempting to point out that oftentimes being in danger for the sake of truth cannot be avoided.

Pius wasn’t in danger, he put others in danger. The question is ‘Why?’

The answer lies, I would suggest, not so much in principle but in politics and plotting - the Northern Rebellion - Regnans in Excelcis - Ridolfi Plot, all with the background/foreground threat of Spanish invasion.

Most Catholics, very sensibly, seemed to have seen the point.

 

[GKC]

Yep.

GKC

 

[Della]

Pius wasn’t in danger, he put others in danger. The question is ‘Why?’

The answer lies, I would suggest, not so much in principle but in politics and plotting - the Northern Rebellion - Regnans in Excelcis - Ridolfi Plot, all with the background/foreground threat of Spanish invasion.

Most Catholics, very sensibly, seemed to have seen the point.

I don’t think most Catholics would agree that Pius had deliberate intentions of putting Catholics in danger. Certainly that was a result, but I will not ascribe motivations where there is no evidence except a result, for results/fall-out happens whether or not they are intended. To see some deliberate plot in subsequent events may be reaching a little too much, to my mind.

 

[GKC]

Forgive me for asking a rather “dumb” question…but you’re Anglican and refer to Henry VIII - as in the man responsible for your church - a train wreck. I agree with you, he was just that…but doesn’t that call into question the legitimacy of the church he founded?

Nope.

What Henry did was sever the relationship between the Church in England and the RCC. This was something that, in some form, was going to have happened eventually, whether Henry had ever met la Boleyn, or no, or whether he had sired a rugby team of legitimate, virile, and healthy heirs. The relationship between the Church, and the Throne, in England had been a contentious one for several hundred years, minimum, with the Throne/Parliament maneuvering to increase the government’s power over the Church in England, and reduce the power of any external agency over it, from outside the kingdom (i.e., Rome). You can trace the struggle in a number of Acts and Royal decrees, running back to the First Statute of Westminster, and culminating in the Henrician Acts in 1534. Henry (and Catherine and Anne and Clement and Pius and Cromwell and Wolsey and Charles, etc, etc) was the occasion of the split from Rome; the cause was much deeper, and lay in emerging nationalism, as much as Hanks’ dynastic and hormonal issues.

As you may be aware, Anglicans don’t account Hank the founder of Anglicanism. That happened some years earlier and further east. Hank took the Church in England private, so to speak. There is no expectation that you would agree, to be sure.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Yep.

GKC

 

[mgoforth]

Nope.

What Henry did was sever the relationship between the Church in England and the RCC. This was something that, in some form, was going to have happened eventually, whether Henry had ever met la Boleyn, or no, or whether he had sired a rugby team of legitimate, virile, and healthy heirs. The relationship between the Church, and the Throne, in England had been a contentious one for several hundred years, minimum, with the Throne/Parliament maneuvering to increase the government’s power over the Church in England, and reduce the power of any external agency over it, from outside the kingdom (i.e., Rome). You can trace the struggle in a number of Acts and Royal decrees, running back to the First Statute of Westminster, and culminating in the Henrician Acts in 1534. Henry (and Catherine and Anne and Clement and Pius and Cromwell and Wolsey and Charles, etc, etc) was the occasion of the split from Rome; the cause was much deeper, and lay in emerging nationalism, as much as Hanks’ dynastic and hormonal issues.

As you may be aware, Anglicans don’t account Hank the founder of Anglicanism. That happened some years earlier and further east. Hank took the Church in England private, so to speak. There is no expectation that you would agree, to be sure.

GKC

Before I can agree or disagree I need to fully understand. Thanks for your response, that’s helpful. What I’m confused about is how the Anglican Church (or Church of England, not sure which is preferred?) was founded by Jesus? Did he visit England at some point?

And also, the other question: How would Anglicans still consider themselves to be Catholic when the Catholic Church does not agree (and hasn’t since the sixteenth century if I understand correctly)?

 

[GKC]

I definitely need an Anglican explanation on this one…

I thought it was “founded” by Elizabeth I in the Elizabethan Religious Settlement. The Settlement being a way to settle once and for all the flip-flopping England had done between Catholicism, Church of England and back to Catholicism which began when Henry VIII decided in 1534 that he was taking his ball and going home because Pope Clement VII refused to let him change the rules of the game. So in my mind, Henry VIII was the original founder. As to whether Elizabeth would have created the Church of England on her own if Henry had behaved like a proper Christian husband in the first place, the answer is “no” because Elizabeth never would have been born! So no matter who officially “founded” the Church of England as separate from Rome, the act seems to be the product of infidelity, pride and disobedience.

“…but in general when I’ve discussed this with many Anglicans they would view Christ as founding their Church.”

So does every Protestant denomination. So do the Mormons and the Jehovahs Witnesses. Christ apparently had a major bout of indecision between 1517 and…well now I guess, since there are still Protestant (as well as some quasi-but-not-really Christian) churches being founded every day. Who’s correct? All of them? Christ must not want us to understand much then…

“Some Anglicans would also point out they are still by their view Catholic.”

It takes agreement from both sides to truly be in a relationship. I might wake up tomorrow and decide that I’m married to that beautiful rich lady (fictional) down the road…but she would probably disagree.

The Elizabethan Compromise set the tone and limits for what would be tolerated in the CoE, in Elizabeth’s day, with respect to issues current in that society at the time (the Articles originated from the same problems). As time passed, things changed. Elizabeth was not really a hard doctrinarian. But she would have peace within the CoE, if she had to kill to get it.

Anglicans don’t necessarily imply a relationship by saying they are Catholic (though, in the days of PaulVI/Archbishop Ramsey, one was starting to form). they mean that to be Catholic doesn’t necessarily mean to be in communion with the Holy See.

GKC

 

[mgoforth]

The Elizabethan Compromise set the tone and limits for what would be tolerated in the CoE, in Elizabeth’s day, with respect to issues current in that society at the time (the Articles originated from the same problems). As time passed, things changed. Elizabeth was not really a hard doctrinarian. But she would have peace within the CoE, if she had to kill to get it.

Anglicans don’t necessarily imply a relationship by saying they are Catholic (though, in the days of PaulVI/Archbishop Ramsey, one was starting to form). they mean that to be Catholic doesn’t necessarily mean to be in communion with the Holy See.

GKC

OK, but doesn’t the world “catholic” (derived from the Greek “katholikos”) literally mean “universal”? If you’re no longer in communion with the Church that Christ founded, then we have 2 churches…so it’s not really “universal”, at least in the common understanding of that word.

“But she would have peace within the CoE, if she had to kill to get it.” And she did kill for it, right? Again, not sure that would give me a warm fuzzy feeling to think that’s how my church started. Trying to understand how Anglicans reconcile this, or if they attempt to.

 

[GKC]

Before I can agree or disagree I need to fully understand. Thanks for your response, that’s helpful. What I’m confused about is how the Anglican Church (or Church of England, not sure which is preferred?) was founded by Jesus? Did he visit England at some point?

And also, the other question: How would Anglicans still consider themselves to be Catholic when the Catholic Church does not agree (and hasn’t since the sixteenth century if I understand correctly)?

You’re welcome, for whatever I might be doing right.

Your first question opens a box of oddities that I don’t care to address right now, but which involves Joseph of Arimathea. Glastonbury, and a lot of folklore. But is not necessary to the point at hand. Anglicans say that they are Catholic in the same sense they say that RCCs and all sui juiris Churches in communion with her, and all Orthodox Churches are Catholic. Through possession of valid apostolic succession and orders, and through adherence to the traditional Creeds.

What Rome certainly gets to determine is what Churches are in communion with her. To an Anglican, that is not what determines Catholicity.

Note: sometimes you have to look closely at Anglicans to see if they qualify, under this definition. Fewer and fewer do. Sometimes, it’s easy to tell. And yes, I’m very well read on Apostolicae Curae. Trust me.

As to terminology, I’ll give a short answer (I’ve given much longer ones). Once upon a time, Anglican and Church of England were synonymous. The CoE was the totality of Anglicanism. Now, many bits and pieces of history later, Anglicanism encompasses a lot of things (good and bad) and the CoE is one (the original, to be sure) self-governing jurisdiction in the world zoo of Anglicanism. Sort of like Anglicanism is the genus and CoE is one of the species. Some Anglicans are CoE. All CoE are Anglicans. Some Anglicans are not CoE.

It’s complicated.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[GKC]

OK, but doesn’t the world “catholic” (derived from the Greek “katholikos”) literally mean “universal”? If you’re no longer in communion with the Church that Christ founded, then we have 2 churches…so it’s not really “universal”, at least in the common understanding of that word.

“But she would have peace within the CoE, if she had to kill to get it.” And she did kill for it, right? Again, not sure that would give me a warm fuzzy feeling to think that’s how my church started. Trying to understand how Anglicans reconcile this, or if they attempt to.

No, we have one Church in schism. And the sooner you guys get your act together, the better for all.

Rhetorical expression, that. She killed very little, within the CoE. And not all that much outside it, in the first 11 years of her reign. Until, that is, Regnens in Excelsis. Bad idea, that. In sum, though, Elizabeth’s total of bodies was not very much more than Mary’s, over a much longer period (Mary, around 300, Liz, maybe 400-500). Killing for domestic tranquility was not unknown in the mid -late 1500s.

GKC

Incidentally, I’m now going to the front yard, to read a David Weber SF book and smoke my afternoon pipe. In case I’m missed.

GKC

 

[mgoforth]

You’re welcome, for whatever I might be doing right.

Your first question opens a box of oddities that I don’t care to address right now, but which involves Joseph of Arimathea. Glastonbury, and a lot of folklore. But is not necessary to the point at hand. Anglicans say that they are Catholic in the same sense they say that RCCs and all sui juiris Churches in communion with her, and all Orthodox Churches are Catholic. Through possession of valid apostolic succession and orders, and through adherence to the traditional Creeds.

What Rome certainly gets to determine is what Churches are in communion with her. To an Anglican, that is not what determines Catholicity.

Note: sometimes you have to look closely at Anglicans to see if they qualify, under this definition. Fewer and fewer do. Sometimes, it’s easy to tell. And yes, I’m very well read on Apostolicae Curae. Trust me.

As to terminology, I’ll give a short answer (I’ve given much longer ones). Once upon a time, Anglican and Church of England were synonymous. The CoE was the totality of Anglicanism. Now, many bits and pieces of history later, Anglicanism encompasses a lot of things (good and bad) and the CoE is one (the original, to be sure) self-governing jurisdiction in the world zoo of Anglicanism. Sort of like Anglicanism is the genus and CoE is one of the species. Some Anglicans are CoE. All CoE are Anglicans. Some Anglicans are not CoE.

It’s complicated.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

Thank you again, especially for that analogy at the end. I understand the distinction now.

The reason I asked about the Anglican definition of “catholic” is that my personal background before converting to the Catholic Church was Methodist, and in the version of the Apostle’s Creed still used by the Methodists they say “…We believe in the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, etc…”. They mean catholic with a lowercase “c” as in “anybody that believes that Christ is the Son of God is part of the same church”. In a way I believe that, but not the way Methodists believe it.

So I was curious whether Anglicans considered themselves uppercase Catholic or lowercase catholic. I think what you’re saying is uppercase right? Even though Rome would say lowercase?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Thank you again, especially for that analogy at the end. I understand the distinction now.

The reason I asked about the Anglican definition of “catholic” is that my personal background before converting to the Catholic Church was Methodist, and in the version of the Apostle’s Creed still used by the Methodists they say “…We believe in the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, etc…”. They mean catholic with a lowercase “c” as in “anybody that believes that Christ is the Son of God is part of the same church”. In a way I believe that, but not the way Methodists believe it.

So I was curious whether Anglicans considered themselves uppercase Catholic or lowercase catholic. I think what you’re saying is uppercase right? Even though Rome would say lowercase?

When he gets back he can answer for himself of course but I think he’s saying lowercase (though probably a stricter definition of belief than for most Methodists and with Apostolic succession thrown into the mix) whereas the Catholic Church says uppercase. Maybe this is what you meant to write.

This is indicated, for example, in how he believes a single Church can exist in a state of schism, which from an uppercase-C Catholic perspective is nonsense- the schism obviously would divide a schismatic Church, community, or individual from the true Church.

 

[Kaninchen]

I don’t think most Catholics would agree that Pius had deliberate intentions of putting Catholics in danger. Certainly that was a result, but I will not ascribe motivations where there is no evidence except a result, for results/fall-out happens whether or not they are intended. To see some deliberate plot in subsequent events may be reaching a little too much, to my mind.

I think he took a gamble.

 

[mgoforth]

No, we have one Church in schism. And the sooner you guys get your act together, the better for all.

Rhetorical expression, that. She killed very little, within the CoE. And not all that much outside it, in the first 11 years of her reign. Until, that is, Regnens in Excelsis. Bad idea, that. In sum, though, Elizabeth’s total of bodies was not very much more than Mary’s, over a much longer period (Mary, around 300, Liz, maybe 400-500). Killing for domestic tranquility was not unknown in the mid -late 1500s.

GKC

Incidentally, I’m now going to the front yard, to read a David Weber SF book and smoke my afternoon pipe. In case I’m missed.

GKC

Anglicans are certainly our separated brothers in faith, but you did not take half the Catholic Church with you, leaving us only half. The Church of England divorced itself from the Catholic Church altogether in the sixteenth century and created new rules and traditions, that had not existed before within the Catholic Church. Anglicans started a new church.

Also I’m curious why it’s the Catholic side that needs to “get our act together”? The Anglican Church instigated the split, but the Catholic Church should change the core of our beliefs, that have been held unchanging for 2000 years, in order to appease its dissenters? The love and desire to see a reconciliation is certainly present on the Catholic side…but I can give you a 100% guarantee that Rome will not change the basic tenets held since the time of Christ to suit Canterbury’s much newer ideas. How could we do so? We also want the Orthodox Christians to come home, and all the Protestants. We would love to see the Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses adopt true and correct Christian doctrines as well. But even if the Catholic Church wanted to make such a change, and it never will, how could it change to satisfy all the various sects who have split off over the centuries…at the same time? The more logical solution seems to be for all Christians to return to the one original Church founded by Christ Himself directly and in person. We are the only church who has remained unchanged since Jesus walked the earth (folklore aside).

All of the other churches left us…we did not leave them.

 

[mgoforth]

When he gets back he can answer for himself of course but I think he’s saying lowercase (though probably a stricter definition of belief than for most Methodists and with Apostolic succession thrown into the mix) whereas the Catholic Church says uppercase. Maybe this is what you meant to write.

This is indicated, for example, in how he believes a single Church can exist in a state of schism, which from an uppercase-C Catholic perspective is nonsense- the schism obviously would divide a schismatic Church, community, or individual from the true Church.

I’m honestly not sure which one GKC meant. The last two sentences of the first paragraph about “Catholic in the same way as all churches in communion with Rome, and with valid orders” is what made me think he meant uppercase somehow.

 

[mgoforth]

Anglicans are certainly our separated brothers in faith, but you did not take half the Catholic Church with you, leaving us only half. The Church of England divorced itself from the Catholic Church altogether in the sixteenth century and created new rules and traditions, that had not existed before within the Catholic Church. Anglicans started a new church.

Also I’m curious why it’s the Catholic side that needs to “get our act together”? The Anglican Church instigated the split, but the Catholic Church should change the core of our beliefs, that have been held unchanging for 2000 years, in order to appease its dissenters? The love and desire to see a reconciliation is certainly present on the Catholic side…but I can give you a 100% guarantee that Rome will not change the basic tenets held since the time of Christ to suit Canterbury’s much newer ideas. How could we do so? We also want the Orthodox Christians to come home, and all the Protestants. We would love to see the Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses adopt true and correct Christian doctrines as well. But even if the Catholic Church wanted to make such a change, and it never will, how could it change to satisfy all the various sects who have split off over the centuries…at the same time? The more logical solution seems to be for all Christians to return to the one original Church founded by Christ Himself directly and in person. We are the only church who has remained unchanged since Jesus walked the earth (folklore aside).

All of the other churches left us…we did not leave them.

The part about Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses may have been misleading as they were never part of the Catholic Church. My intent was that the Catholic Church wants to be in communion with all people worldwide, but won’t sacrifice true doctrine just to gain converts or reverts.

 

[GKC]

Thank you again, especially for that analogy at the end. I understand the distinction now.

The reason I asked about the Anglican definition of “catholic” is that my personal background before converting to the Catholic Church was Methodist, and in the version of the Apostle’s Creed still used by the Methodists they say “…We believe in the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, etc…”. They mean catholic with a lowercase “c” as in “anybody that believes that Christ is the Son of God is part of the same church”. In a way I believe that, but not the way Methodists believe it.

So I was curious whether Anglicans considered themselves uppercase Catholic or lowercase catholic. I think what you’re saying is uppercase right? Even though Rome would say lowercase?

Capital C. See the 1928 Book of Common Prayer.

But I must emphasize that Anglicans are not of one mind on this, or almost anything. A motley crew, as the term goes.

GKC

 

[GKC]

When he gets back he can answer for himself of course but I think he’s saying lowercase (though probably a stricter definition of belief than for most Methodists and with Apostolic succession thrown into the mix) whereas the Catholic Church says uppercase. Maybe this is what you meant to write.

This is indicated, for example, in how he believes a single Church can exist in a state of schism, which from an uppercase-C Catholic perspective is nonsense- the schism obviously would divide a schismatic Church, community, or individual from the true Church.

Big C, says Anglicans like me.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Anglicans are certainly our separated brothers in faith, but you did not take half the Catholic Church with you, leaving us only half. The Church of England divorced itself from the Catholic Church altogether in the sixteenth century and created new rules and traditions, that had not existed before within the Catholic Church. Anglicans started a new church.

Also I’m curious why it’s the Catholic side that needs to “get our act together”? The Anglican Church instigated the split, but the Catholic Church should change the core of our beliefs, that have been held unchanging for 2000 years, in order to appease its dissenters? The love and desire to see a reconciliation is certainly present on the Catholic side…but I can give you a 100% guarantee that Rome will not change the basic tenets held since the time of Christ to suit Canterbury’s much newer ideas. How could we do so? We also want the Orthodox Christians to come home, and all the Protestants. We would love to see the Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses adopt true and correct Christian doctrines as well. But even if the Catholic Church wanted to make such a change, and it never will, how could it change to satisfy all the various sects who have split off over the centuries…at the same time? The more logical solution seems to be for all Christians to return to the one original Church founded by Christ Himself directly and in person. We are the only church who has remained unchanged since Jesus walked the earth (folklore aside).

All of the other churches left us…we did not leave them.

I note that you’ve got around 60 or so posts. I’m closing in on 6700. By this time, some folks (not all of whom are still posting, alas), know my methods of expression. One needs to look where my tongue might be fixed, in my mode of expression.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I think he took a gamble.

I think he was operating under a paradigm that was changing.

GKC