G
- Status
S
SarahLM
Guest
Well said, GKG. And, actually, the documents of the Church of England recognize the pope as the patriarch, just not his claims to rule over the other bishops, appoint bishops, define the deposit of the faith without reference to the rest of the church (AKA papal infallibility), etc. What happened in English history is that papal taxes made the pope odious to the people of England. I think 1/3rd of English money was going to the pope, and part of that was through the papal court charges. So parliament outlawed turning to a papal court.
G
GKC
Guest
Partially that, but way more complicated. As history always is.
Been posting on this sort of thing for years. Been reading the history for years more. I think you are referring to the Act in Restraint of Appeals
GKC
K
Kathryn_Ann
Guest
Symphorium, you and others here certainly like to list concise facts and point out faults, and that is perfectly correct.
Yet while you “wonder about the future:shrug: of the Ordinariate” and list all its shortcomings :blush:and financial:shrug: woes (which could change for the better if that’s what interests you,) I have lots of hope,:heaven: a welcoming smile and point people not to my own understanding or a litany of facts, but to Christ’s welcoming arms through His Holy Church.
I imagine the latter :heaven:is what people all over the world are seeking. I know that is exactly what my friends who have converted to our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church tell me. :grouphug::heaven:
K
Kathryn_Ann
Guest
That’s the spirit, dear Bernadette.
People desire Christ and the fullness of the Catholic Church.
I believe a dash of hope and the Holy Spirit will take care of the rest.
Peace to all here,
Kathryn Ann
B
BernadetteM
Guest
The CDF has not finished their work on the revised liturgy/liturgies for the Ordinariates as yet, so we will have to wait until it comes out to see if the English Ordinariate will be required to use an Anglican Use Liturgy. Also all Ordinariate parishes are free, at least in the US, to use the OF, EF and AU.
There has been much hostility in England against the Catholic Church, whether that has changed much I don’t know. Here in the US, there has been some by break away Anglicans, but not TEC. Also there are very few parishes that are aware of the Ordinariate here, unless they were Anglo Catholic and even then many belonged to one of Continuing Churches who feel the need to discourage their members from entering the Ordinariate. It seems more like they feel like it is competition. I think that the UK and the US are very different circumstances that must be considered.
Time will tell the result and no matter how one feels about the Ordinariate it is from God, as Satan has worked very hard against it. As far as financial aspects, the Early Church was poor and has surviived for over 2000 years, also they had small numbers to begin with.
God Bless
Bernadette
M
minkymurph
Guest
Certainly parts of my post could be fine-tuned. That’s why I said it was the gist of it. But feel free - all information is valuable.
Indeed. I’m often guilty of such misdemeanors. I think working on computer blinds me at times :hypno: - yet people still seem to know what I mean.
G
GKC
Guest
I agree that all info can be valuable, and the more complete/accurate the better. But I don’t think I’ll do an exposition again, at this time. I’ve done it for years. Occasionally it tires me.Certainly parts of my post could be fine-tuned. That’s why I said it was the gist of it. But feel free - all information is valuable.
Indeed. I’m often guilty of such misdemeanors. I think working on computer blinds me at times :hypno: - yet people still seem to know what I mean.
As to old Hank, I suspected that was a typo, but as in the use of “divorce” when discussing Henry’s Great Matter, there are one or two things I have a knee-jerk response to.
GKC
C
Contarini
Guest
Which documents and in what precise terms?
Popes in the sixteenth century did not generally appoint bishops. The basic rule was that the cathedral chapter elected the bishop, but monarchs tried to play as much of a role as possible, and the pope of course always had to confirm the election.
First of all, that’s a caricature of papal infallibility; and secondly, papal infallibility was not a doctrine of the sixteenth-century Catholic Church and was not what the Church of England objected to.
There were at least two things going on:
- The monarch’s desire to control the Church within his dominions. In its more theological form this became the doctrine found in Hooker of a Christian “commonwealth” in which church and state were two different functions of one community.
- The desire of Protestants to establish national churches free from Roman control so that they could establish within these national churches doctrines and practices regarded as heretical by the Western Church as a whole (and for the most part utterly alien to Eastern Christianity as well).
It was odious to the monarchy and the aristocracy.
What evidence do you have that it was particularly odious to the people?
That’s a huge debate among scholars, and on the whole the “revisionists” (who argue that the Reformation was a top-down movement and that the common people were for the most part either indifferent or hostile to it) seem to have the upper hand these days.
If you are sure that they are wrong, could you provide your reasons and/or references to the decisive refutations of such scholars as Duffy and Scarisbrick?
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Well, no one would have questioned it until recently.
It came from the ancient Church.
It would be more proper to ask where the idea came from that you can or should share the Eucharist with those with whom you don’t profess a common faith?
And the answer to that would be that it’s a modern ecumenical development based on the teaching on the validity of schismatic/heretical baptisms established by Rome in the third century and defended by Augustine. Of course the Fathers didn’t take in that direction–but to be fair they didn’t take it as far as Vatican II does either.
The view held by most Episcopalians on this point has the merit of restoring the unity of baptism and Eucharist severed to some extent by the Augustinian doctrine.
But that’s a modern argument and needs to be recognized as such.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Actually that typographical distinction is pretty modern, and in my opinion it adds to the confusion.no we don’t call ourselves Catholic but we are catholic
Many people on these boards do not know that catholic means universal and Catholic as
in Roman Catholic or the other 26 denominations is it that are within Rome - Catholic. Hence the confusion.
Defining “Catholic” as “universal” raises the next question: “universal what?”
Catholic has always meant the one Church which preserves the fullness of the faith throughout the word.
Different Christians define this Catholic Church differently. I can certainly see the merit of using the capital letter vs. lowercase to distinguish between different definitions. But since there are in fact more than two definitions, this can, as I said, increase the confusion, especially when people put forward such distinctions as having some kind of objective validity instead of being a modern, ad hoc attempt to make sense of a term that means different things in different Christian traditions.
If I were to adopt the distinction, I’d draw the line not between a “Roman” definition and everyone else’s, but between the definitions that require apostolic succession and those that have broader requirements (i.e., the various Protestant definitions).
By that standard, some Anglicans claim to be Catholic and others just to be catholic!
Edwin
M
minkymurph
Guest
I can understand that. I was attempting to give the OP the gist of things in an attempt to explain why some people call themselves Catholic or Protestant. It wasn’t an attempt at accuracy or detail, or a judgement on whether people are right/wrong to call to themselves Protestant or Catholic.
Interestingly, people in my part of the world would categorize Jehovah’s Witnesses as ‘Protestant,’ simply because it’s ‘not Catholic,’ and as we know, in the opinion of some anything ‘non-catholic’ is Protestant.
I was brought up a JW. When I started work the equal opportunities manager asked me what religion I was, as in this part of the world employers must attempt to balance the number of Catholics and Protestants they employ. At that time I said I did not have a religion. He asked me what I was brought up and I said I was brought up a JW but I had left. He said, ‘in that case, I’ll put you down as a Protestant. Is that OK?’ I said it wasn’t, as I was not a Protestant and never had been. However, a few days later I got a letter from the equal opportunities office, saying I was listed as a Protestant because of the school, (the school I attended was a state school and in a staunchly Protestant area of Belfast) I went to. 
Even now, people tell me I’m not really Catholic because I am a convert, but on the plus side I’m no longer labelled Protestant against my will.
G
GKC
Guest
Can’t beat the bureaucracy, I guess.I can understand that. I was attempting to give the OP the gist of things in an attempt to explain why some people call themselves Catholic or Protestant. It wasn’t an attempt at accuracy or detail, or a judgement on whether people are right/wrong to call to themselves Protestant or Catholic.
Interestingly, people in my part of the world would categorize Jehovah’s Witnesses as ‘Protestant,’ simply because it’s ‘not Catholic,’ and as we know, in the opinion of some anything ‘non-catholic’ is Protestant.
Even now, people tell me I’m not really Catholic because I am a convert, but on the plus side I’m no longer labelled Protestant against my will.
I note that Contarini is talking on related subjects, in this thread. I’ll leave it to him for a while.
GKC
Anglicanus-Catholicus
M
minkymurph
Guest
Yes, I’ve often said the Church was founded on converts.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Yes, I’ve heard that. I can also tell you a true story. I know a guy who moved to Belfast from Wales. When he started school, they asked him if he was a ‘left footer’ or a ‘right footer.’ You know what that means. He had no idea what they were talking about but because he was left-handed, he said he was a ‘left footer,’ so they beat him up. A teacher intervened and all were sent to the principle. The principle asked him why he was beaten up, and he replied ‘because I’m left-handed.’
S
SarahLM
Guest
No one knows when Christianity arrived in Great Britain. It was certainly very, very early in the history of the church, and it developed quite independently of Roman Catholicism on the continent. At one point, the English Church surrendered to the Roman way…the Roman haircut style for monks and date of Easter and primitive government, over the earlier Celtic tradition. But to say the church began when it pulled back, again, from Rome is simply a result of simplistic and faulty history. No, it was the same building, priest, sacraments, faith and spirituality. It simply returned to its independence from Rome, as it had been in earlier times.
G
GKC
Guest
Which tends to render Apostolicae Curae prescient, by around 75 years.Motley crew we are indeed!
My parish is Anglo-Catholic and we do indeed think she’s a real, honest to God bishop. But we’re much more McLaren than Spong.
GKC
M
minkymurph
Guest
I do not know the history of Christianity in relation to England, Scotland or Wales. Ireland became Christian with the arrival of St Patrick. St Patrick was sent to Ireland by the Pope. There is historical evidence for that despite the fact some Protestants do not like that. However, prior to the Norman invasion Christianity in Ireland was loosely organized, an loosely connected with Rome. The Pope did occupy a position of particular significance in Europe, but at that time not to the same extent as today. The Pope had some influence with the Saints who established monasteries in Ireland, but the church in Ireland became consolidated under the Pope as a consequence of the Norman invasion. My guess is a similar situation existed in England who also experienced a Norman invasion. I say guess because history at that time is not very reliable, and I don’t know a lot about the development of Christianity in England as a consequence of the Norman invasion.
In relation to Ireland and England, my assessment of it all is the theology and nature of the Christian faith was essentially Catholic, but prior to the Norman invasion the Pope had not much influence and was not a prominent figure. The Christian church in Ireland greatly changed as a consequence of the arrival of Calvinism. In England and Ireland the Reformation was more political than religious, and the issue was the position of the Pope more than anything else. In Europe, it was more religious than political. However, this is a watered down version of historical events and ultimately, more complicated than what I have outlined here.
G
GKC
Guest
It is correct to say that little is known about the first arrival of Christianity in the British Isles. There are some vague hints in the early 3rd century, in Tertullian, and Origen, but these are open to interpretation. By the fourth century, some facts are known. the Church in the Isles was at least organized into some number of dioceses; 3 bishops from Britain attended the council of Arles, and other facts slowly emerged from the mists. But it is all far from clear. As was the relationship between the Celtic Church and that more closely aligned with Rome. Folks tend to take stands more based on presumptions than historical tidbits.
History is complicated.,
GKC
- Status