A
aidanbradypop
Guest
which part? The religious orders do require celibacy. Anglican monks and nuns. That is why I meant be orders. Sorry
- Status
P
Peter_J
Guest
Gotcha.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Clergy is required to be celibate until marriage.Gotcha.
C
ChurchSoldier
Guest
Agreed. It is a sad thing what happened.
G
GKC
Guest
Most likely correct. Henry probably would have been content to continue dalliance with other damsels, without bothering to rid himself of Catherine, as he did with Elizabeth Blount, the mother of his illegitimate son Henry Fitzroy. There are possible complications to that view, but it is certainly possible.
Your last sentence is likely correct, especially the final part. Henry was the perfect storm to cause the split, but even if he had sired a rugby team of healthy male heirs, in time, such a division would still likely have occurred, at some point. History suggests that.
No time for details now, but thanks for replying.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Not at all. Sorry I haven’t been able to do one of my multi-page treatises on Hank and his Great Matter.
Keep in mind I might be wrong. On occasion. Theoretically.
GKC
Addendum: Where’s the Rosary thread?
Addendum the second. I found it. I had another point in mind, as to what history suggested, possibly.
G
GKC
Guest
It is not liberty that I was referring to. It was a shift in power bases; nascent nationalism. It is reflected, in English history, in 250+ years of conflict (at least) between the Throne and Rome, stretching back to the First Statute of Westminster, to the Henrican Acts of 1534.I am fascinated by liberty as an inevitably Christian outcome. Your quote fit the argument nicely. You haven’t given us much of your mind lately on Anglican thought. This would be a perfect thread if you have the time
I am not one to consider the Gospel particularly fluid,or to be read with a calendar in one hand, but the intertwining of religion and politics, as in Henry’s day, and before, certainly did shift. Henry and his Great Matter were the occasion, but something like it would have come, in some fashion, eventually.
Time is precisely what I do not have, at the time. And I mainly deal in history. This thread would not have caught my eye.
GKC
R
RC_Sojourner
Guest
Well, thank you for your honesty.No. Admittedly, I’m the wrong person to ask, since I have been hovering on the brink of becoming Catholic for years (since before I became Anglican, in fact). So I certainly don’t think everyone should be Anglican, and never have.
Evangelization is bringing people to Jesus, not to one’s own particular tradition. The problem is that many Episcopalians don’t seem to realize that
Actually I think you raise valid concerns. The problem was really brought home to me a few years ago, when a Catholic student became Episcopalian partly because of me. I did everything I could, reasonably and charitably, to persuade her otherwise. But she found my approach to the Christian faith congenial as a young Catholic interested in youth ministry and attending an evangelical college, and when she saw the leaflet about my church on my office door (which I think may actually have been put there by my wife, if I remember rightly), she became interested.
There isn’t “a Church.” (Yes, I have problems with the “sui juris Church” language in the Catholic Church, but that’s another issue.) There is just the Church, and local churches. So the question is really: are Anglicans fully united to the Church? And I think we aren’t. Hence, I think your challenge is a valid one, and you’re absolutely right that our situation presents huge problems for evangelization. In one sense I think we do a lot of good, because we are a home for questioning intellectual/artistic types who might abandon Christianity altogether if we weren’t there. But at the same time, a good many of those folks are Catholics, who ought instead to be given support in remaining within the Church, however difficult it may be!
Edwin
I won’t challenge anything you wrote, because you have basically admitted the shaky ground that the Anglican world stands on (at least all the parts not on the African continent).
**
Anyways, you personally have decided to come home, so congratulations on your decision! I truly hope you can find a Catholic parish that doesn’t have an appalling liturgy.** * I AM very happy for you!
But yes, I disagree with your view on Evangelism. Evangelism is one of the most fundamental parts of Christianity. And, I think the fact that TEC and other parts of the Anglican Communion just don’t do evangelism anymore is pretty obvious.
Well, as a Catholic, I forget the Biblical basis for this. But, essentially I heard a large part of that from a Catholic apologist. And he made a pretty good Biblical argument that there is only one Church, and that other Churches should ask themselves if they are that one Church or not.
However, he did admit that he has yet to meet a Protestant of any stripe (and he’s asked the question to thousands) who has answered yes: that they believe their Church is the one true Church, and they want everybody to be part of whatever Church that is.
Because, that is what the Catholic Church teaches. In addition that other Churches do have some truth, perhaps even a lot of truth, but not 100% of the truth.*
N
Novocastrian
Guest
I think I agree with you, but the more I reflect on this, I wonder whether any of the particular churches may be described as being fully united to the Church. Rome’s unity is far more robust than our own, and I suspect that you and I continue to share our experience of a gravitational pull in that direction, but is Rome fully united to the Church as a whole? To take one example, I think it’s pretty hard to deny that the persecuted Copts of Egypt are part of the Church. They suffer and die for the faith, and while they do not recognise Chalcedon, they do confess the substantially orthodox doctrine of Cyril. I find it very hard to say that Rome is in perfect and full unity with “the Church” when she is not in union with the new-martyr churches of Alexandria, Constantinople, Russia, etc.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Amen. The CofE technically sees ‘of England’ as an important qualifier. We are two provinces of the ancient Latin Church.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Not meaning to be tiresome, but I think it more-or-less goes without say that you don’t consider Rome to be “in perfect and full unity with ‘the Church’”. After all, if you did then presumably you would become Catholic.
D
David_Zampino
Guest
It is not the choice of Rome that She is not united with Alexandria, Constantinople or Russia.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Yes, and the choice of many Protestants is not to be united with Rome, as well.
B
BrethrenBoy
Guest
Thank you for answering. I’m busy myself with school right now, so I can understand not having enough time to go far in depth. My problem is that since Anglicanism as it is today would not exist if Henry had had a son, I can’t quite justify becoming Anglican to myself. I do think there would have been a split eventually, but I’m not convinced it would have resulted in what we recognize as Anglicanism. Of corse, you’ve probably studied this much more than I have.
G
GKC
Guest
I likely have. My library on the Tudor period runs to 175+ books, centered on Hank. But it doesn’t give me a crystal ball, I fear.
GKC
N
Novocastrian
Guest
They, of course, would disagree!
D
David_Zampino
Guest
Albeit incorrectly.
- Status