Attending an Anglican bible study

[GKC]

I always enjoy you (name removed by moderator)ut. Let 'er rip!!

You are very kind.

I have a more complete version, somewhere, but can’t find it. The short version:

Henry like 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”, 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 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:

“Rex Fidelis”, “Orthodoxus”, “Ecclesiaticus” ,
“Protector”, “Anglicus”

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, of which Rome had heard (it was in draft in May 1521, printed in July, sent to Rome in September, after the Cardinals had been considering the matter for a few months. So, before the Assertio was received and presented to Leo (his copy bound in cloth-of-gold), a list of titles for Henry to choose from was shipped to England.

The Assertio probably tipped the scales. 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 such as Gloriosus or Fidelissimus, but Leo vetoed it.

So Henry got his sparklie, partially because of the Assertio, partially because of the Holy League, 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.

So it went.

GKC

 

[doughnut]

As you (rather inconsistently) note, not all Protestants are the same. You are committing an injustice when you judge a group of Anglicans you do not know by the standards of whatever Protestants you’ve had bad experiences with in the past.

Since you admit that not all Protestants are like this, what’s the point of your comments? How can you legitimately generalize from your experience to give advice to the OP?

Edwin

Peace be with you.

I did not realise that i’d done any ‘injustice’ by personal sharing. Now, I’m not sure if you’re objecting because you’re upset with what I said, or merely that you’d decided my experiences are not important enough to warrant a post; i didn’t place judgement, im just sharing what i have experienced. or has this place turn into such a political arena that ‘i better watch what i say’ before i said anything; and before we know it, you only have people who are qualified to make any opinions. *the regular old ‘judgementals’ ‘ignorant of faith’ guys like us should keep quiet. is that the real world we’re dealing with?

 

[Non_Serviam]

So essentially Henry would have made a good KofC member or Shriner?

 

[GKC]

So essentially Henry would have made a good KofC member or Shriner?

Ol’ Hank was a hustler, to be sure.

GKC

 

[catharina]

I had read them; and he was pretty much incensed about what I posted, on his conduct as well.

Hmmmm. That’s news to me.
Guess he communicated his irate censure via PM.

Lucky you. (Or lucky me?)

 

[Contarini]

Peace be with you.

And also with you.

I did not realise that i’d done any ‘injustice’ by personal sharing.

Only insofar as you implied that your experiences were relevant to those of the OP. If, for instance, we were discussing whether one could visit a Buddhist holy site without personal danger, and you said, “I’d be careful about these non-Christian places–I got chased by a mob of angry Muslim fundamentalists when I tried to go to Mecca once,” a Buddhist might legitimately complain of injustice. Same here.

There are no doubt violent Buddhists. There are intolerant and proselytizing Anglicans. But surely both groups can ask to be judged on their own merits rather than being compared with quite different religious traditions.

Now, I’m not sure if you’re objecting because you’re upset with what I said, or merely that you’d decided my experiences are not important enough to warrant a post;

Neither.

i didn’t place judgement, im just sharing what i have experienced.

You implied that this was a reason for the OP to steer clear of Anglican Bible studies.

I am sorry for overreacting, though. You did only imply this, and I can certainly see how your experience could make you wary. It’s just that as someone who came to Anglicanism from a very conservative evangelical background and has experienced the differences first-hand, I get tired of Catholics assuming that we Western Christians of broadly Reformational heritage (aka Protestants, though many of us Anglicans don’t think of ourselves as Protestants theologically) are all the same, and if some crazy Baptists bite a Catholic we all get blamed for it.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Non_Serviam]

Ol’ Hank was a hustler, to be sure.

GKC

Was just thinking of people I know in both groups who will go to amazing lengths for a bit of glitter or a title. Of course people do that in WOW as well-part of the human condition I suppose.

 

[catharina]

And also with you.

Only insofar as you implied that your experiences were relevant to those of the OP. If, for instance, we were discussing whether one could visit a Buddhist holy site without personal danger, and you said, “I’d be careful about these non-Christian places–I got chased by a mob of angry Muslim fundamentalists when I tried to go to Mecca once,” a Buddhist might legitimately complain of injustice. Same here.

There are no doubt violent Buddhists. There are intolerant and proselytizing Anglicans. But surely both groups can ask to be judged on their own merits rather than being compared with quite different religious traditions.

Neither.

You implied that this was a reason for the OP to steer clear of Anglican Bible studies.

I am sorry for overreacting, though. You did only imply this, and I can certainly see how your experience could make you wary. It’s just that as someone who came to Anglicanism from a very conservative evangelical background and has experienced the differences first-hand, I get tired of Catholics assuming that we Western Christians of broadly Reformational heritage (aka Protestants, though many of us Anglicans don’t think of ourselves as Protestants theologically) are all the same, and if some crazy Baptists bite a Catholic we all get blamed for it.

In Christ,

Edwin

My goodness, are you claiming that crazy Baptists bite Catholics?
Heavens!
Who knew?
I’ve known plenty of Baptists (some crazy) and have never been bitten by one.



Re doughnut’s posts: I thought the essence of her warning is that it not ever
recommended that Catholics go to “denominational” groups to learn more
from a Catholic standpoint. If that’s what doughtnut meant - then I fully agree.

PS - despite self-justification of “otherness,” Anglicans are indeeed Protestants.

 

[GKC]

My goodness, are you claiming that crazy Baptists bite Catholics?
Heavens! Who knew! I’ve known plenty of Baptists and have never been bitten by one.



Re doughnut’s posts: I thought the essence of her warning is that it not ever
recommended that Catholics go to “denominational” groups to learn more
from a Catholic standpoint. If that’s what doughtnut meant - then I fully agree.

PS - despite self-justification of “otherness,” Anglicans are indeeed Protestants.

An appropriate position for a RC to affirm

GKC

 

[Contarini]

Re doughnut’s posts: I thought the essence of her warning is that it not ever
recommended that Catholics go to “denominational” groups to learn more
from a Catholic standpoint. If that’s what doughtnut meant - then I fully agree.

And I can see where you are coming from, even though naturally I disagree (I believe truth is truth, and I am not convinced by claims that the “fullness of truth” is actually to be found in any one tradition).

PS - despite self-justification of “otherness,” Anglicans are indeeed Protestants.

Depending on what you mean by this, we may not disagree. I agree that we are historically Protestants. The point I’m making is that your general definition of “Protestantism” may have almost nothing to do with what a particular group of Anglicans believes.

In the case of the group the OP is hanging out with, it sounds as if they are fairly representative of a certain strand of Protestantism. These days one can almost speak of a “Wrightian” faction within Protestantism. Which is not a good thing insofar as factions are generally bad things in the Church–but we’ve had much worse factions.

Edwin

 

[catharina]

An appropriate position for a RC to affirm

GKC

But of course. So glad you noticed.

PS - Have you met any crazy Baptists?
Did any one of them bite you?
Should someone take a poll re this?

 

[GKC]

My pleasure. I’m good at those sort of nuances.

But of course. So glad you noticed.

PS - Have you met any crazy Baptists?
Did any one of them bite you?
Should someone take a poll re this?

I have indeed met crazy Baptists. Indeed, I once was a (use adjective of your choice here) Baptist. None of them bit me, to date.

Anyone interested might start a poll re: the subject, sure.

GKC

 

[catharina]

And I can see where you are coming from, even though naturally I disagree (I believe truth is truth, and I am not convinced by claims that the “fullness of truth” is actually to be found in any one tradition).

Depending on what you mean by this, we may not disagree. I agree that we are historically Protestants. The point I’m making is that your general definition of “Protestantism” may have almost nothing to do with what a particular group of Anglicans believes.

In the case of the group the OP is hanging out with, it sounds as if they are fairly representative of a certain strand of Protestantism. These days one can almost speak of a “Wrightian” faction within Protestantism. Which is not a good thing insofar as factions are generally bad things in the Church–but we’ve had much worse factions.

Edwin

It’s a good start that each of has some idea of what the other believes.

As for the fullness of truth, my faith tells me it really can’t be found in a meanigful way (that is, in a full Sacramental life and union with Rome) outside of the Catholic Church. It can be desired, hoped for, imagined,a bit replicated, but it can’t be found in its totality.

Even in my maturity, I can’t understand why any Protestant, knowing their own structural history, could imagine that a break with Rome could leave their new structure (denomination) as anyhting but “less than.”

 

[catharina]

My pleasure. I’m good at those sort of nuances.

I have indeed met crazy Baptists. Indeed, I once was a (use adjective of your choice here) Baptist. None of them bit me, to date.

Anyone interested might start a poll re: the subject, sure.

GKC

I’ll start a poll with you:

1. When you were Baptist, were you encouraged to bite Catholics, if the opportunity came your way?
2. Did you hear of many Baptist groups that openly taught the biting of Catholics?
3. As a Baptist, did you perhaps not indulge, but did you recommend biting Catholics?

 

[GKC]

I’ll start a poll with you:

1. When you were Baptist, were you encouraged to bite Catholics, if the opportunity came your way?
2. Did you hear of many Baptist groups that openly taught the biting of Catholics?
3. As a Baptist, did you perhaps not indulge, but did you recommend biting Catholics?

1. No. They were considered toxic.
2. No. But given the huge range of Baptistry, I cannot say for certain that somewhere, amongst the Primitive, Predestinarian, Regular, Freewill, Footwashing, Hardshell, Two-Seed-In-The-Spirit, Missionary, Re-Baptising Baptists, there are no Catholic-chomping Baptists. It would not be prudent.
3. No. I was a Catholic Baptist, even then. Worried my parents.

GKC

 

[TriuneUnity]

My guess is that Baptists are only encouraged to bite Catholics if the Catholic in question is covered in the Colonel’s secret recipe sauce with a side of mashed potatoes.

 

[catharina]

1. No. They were considered toxic.
2. No. But given the huge range of Baptistry, I cannot say for certain that somewhere, amongst the Primitive, Predestinarian, Regular, Freewill, Footwashing, Hardshell, Two-Seed-In-The-Spirit, Missionary, Re-Baptising Baptists, there are no Catholic-chomping Baptists. It would not be prudent.
3. No. I was was a Catholic Baptist, even then. Worried my parents.

GKC

Poll conclusion:
Baptists too are individuals.

Thank you for your active and willing participation.

 

[Non_Serviam]

My guess is that Baptists are only encouraged to bite Catholics if the Catholic in question is covered in the Colonel’s secret recipe sauce with a side of mashed potatoes.

Or if the Catholic in question responds to a Baptist’s comment with “Bite me.”

(Which may be the origin of the Biting Baptists…or something like that)

(Biting Baptists. HMMM…coould be a young adults novel aimed at evanglicals…Baptist vampires and the Catholic girls who fall in love with them.)

 

[catharina]

My guess is that Baptists are only encouraged to bite Catholics if the Catholic in question is covered in the Colonel’s secret recipe sauce with a side of mashed potatoes.

My vast experience as a Catholic - and among Catholics - is this:
there are no such Catholics as you describe.
Thank goodness.

OTOH - Many Catholics will take a side of mashed potatoes with just about anything.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Or if the Catholic in question responds to a Baptist’s comment with “Bite me.”

(Which may be the origin of the Biting Baptists…or something like that)

(Biting Baptists. HMMM…coould be a young adults novel aimed at evanglicals…Baptist vampires and the Catholic girls who fall in love with them.)

Isn’t that already a pop preteen book series?