Catholic position on Anglo-Catholics?

[ltwin]

What might that autrhority be? Can she command “Her” ministers to act? Why does she exercise her authrity in private? Is it secret? Is she a public figure who does he work behind closed doors?

Is she a symbol or not a symbol? One British poster compared her to the flag, a symbol to get excited about.

If she has authority she is more than a symbol. It can’t be both.

The royals go to ceremonies with sceptors, swords, crowns and capes and take oaths to do this and that, and it means nothing. The sceptor is a symbol of rule, but they don’t rule anything. All it is is trappings, acting important and dignified for the sake of acting important. The show must go on.

Whatever an outsider thinks of it all does not matter. What does leave me totally confounded is that a person changes religions at the border. Can there be any religious conviction there? What of the martyrs who gave their lives rather than reonunce their faith? I’ll be this today and that tomorrow and this again next week.

One can be both a symbol and have authority. And one can exercise influence privately without having authority to act publicly.

The case can be made (using your line of reasoning) for the abolition of Vatican City as a sovereign state and the Pope as its sovereign. Vatican City is a relic of the Papal States and the Pope’s secular authority, just as the British monarchy is a relic of an age when kings actually ruled. Vatican City should be incorporated into Italy, and the Pope should stop the pretense of actually being a leader of a nation. He should submit to the secular laws of Italy and content himself with running the Catholic Church.

 

[LutheranSemGuy]

Because not all Anglicans are Episcopalians, and this is very confusing to many people!

Anglicans outside the U.S. are not usually called Episcopalians (Mexico and Scotland are two exceptions). And at this point, there are various Anglican groups inside the U.S. which are not part of the Episcopal Church, and are not directly recognized by the Anglican Communion (though some of them are under the authority of African or other bishops who are part of the Communion).

Isn’t there a conservative Anglican church in the US that calls themselves Anglicans rather than Episcopalians?

 

[GKC]

Isn’t there a conservative Anglican church in the US that calls themselves Anglicans rather than Episcopalians?

There are a number of such. Most prominently, the Anglican Church in North America.

And several of the Continuing Anglican Jurisdictions do so, also.

GKC

 

[grandfather]

One can be both a symbol and have authority. And one can exercise influence privately without having authority to act publicly.

The case can be made (using your line of reasoning) for the abolition of Vatican City as a sovereign state and the Pope as its sovereign. Vatican City is a relic of the Papal States and the Pope’s secular authority, just as the British monarchy is a relic of an age when kings actually ruled. Vatican City should be incorporated into Italy, and the Pope should stop the pretense of actually being a leader of a nation. He should submit to the secular laws of Italy and content himself with running the Catholic Church.

There is quite a difference between the queen and pope. The queen is a symbol as one of her British subjects posted earlier, as a flag is a symbol. She shows up at functions and acts royal. She has no authority to govern the secular state or the church. Whatever supposed influence she exercises privately is private. Who knows?. Is there any evidence that her influence has influienced anything? Her opinions are personal.

The pope is the head of the Catholic Church throughout the world. His authority to govern the Church is recognized by his followers, supporters and detractors alike. He appoints bishops and cardinals, the heads of all Vatican congregations, has authority over all Catholic religous orders, and wields ultimate authority over doctrinal matters.

To try to compare the two thousand year lineage and office of the pope, which is the longest established institutional governance on the planet, with the queen of England, whatever it is she does, is silly.

If the British like their royalty and want to keep them around for ceremonial purposes or anything else they do it is their business. They can call her Defender of the Faith or anything else they wish, even if she apponts no clergy and her role in the Church is attending services like any commoner.

I don’t know what faith she defends, if any, but it is certainly not the Catholic faith. That is the pope’s job around the world and in England.

 

[ltwin]

There is quite a difference between the queen and pope. The queen is a symbol as one of her British subjects posted earlier, as a flag is a symbol. She shows up at functions and acts royal. She has no authority to govern the secular state or the church. Whatever supposed influence she exercises privately is private. Who knows?. Is there any evidence that her influence has influienced anything? Her opinions are personal.

The pope is the head of the Catholic Church throughout the world. His authority to govern the Church is recognized by his followers, supporters and detractors alike. He appoints bishops and cardinals, the heads of all Vatican congregations, has authority over all Catholic religous orders, and wields ultimate authority over doctrinal matters.

To try to compare the two thousand year lineage and office of the pope, which is the longest established institutional governance on the planet, with the queen of England, whatever it is she does, is silly.

It is exactly the same. The Queen’s religious and political authority is largely symbolic. The pope’s religious authority is unquestionable in the Catholic Church, but does that mean he deserves to be recognized as the** sovereign **of a mini-state? Hmm …

If you are going to argue that the Queen’s status as monarch and governor of the Church of England is useless and has no purpose today, then you should also admit the uselessness of the Pope’s political authority over Vatican City and the desirability of its absorption back into Italy.

Or you could just realize that maybe the monarchy in England actually does serve a purpose, just like the Pope’s sovereignty over Vatican City continues to serve a purpose even if it makes no sense to maintain in the modern world.

If the British like their royalty and want to keep them around for ceremonial purposes or anything else they do it is their business. They can call her Defender of the Faith or anything else they wish, even if she apponts no clergy and her role in the Church is attending services like any commoner.

Yes, it is called a ceremonial role and a constitutional monarchy for a reason. The Queen conducts her role as monarch within constitutional conventions and traditions stretching back hundreds of years. It’s worked for the British, if it aint broke why fix it?

I don’t know what faith she defends, if any, but it is certainly not the Catholic faith. That is the pope’s job around the world and in England.

Umm, I’d assume its the faith of the Church of England.

 

[cwmalls]

Merry Christmas! My dear friends!
Welcome to
cwmalls.com/apparel-accessories/women-s-clothing/sweater
to purchase “cheapest assorted Color Ladies leisure fashion sweater”

 

[grandfather]

Umm, I’d assume its the faith of the Church of England.

Yes, so we have heard. She does it privately. She exercises influence privately, with whom we do not know, about what we do not know, and what policies she has influenced we do not know. No one knows, other than there is a rumor she is quietly unhappy about the strife within Anglicanism, the faith she defends, because she does not want a schism under her watch. She dare not speak out though. It would be improper.

Monarchies can be legitimate forms of government. Democracies can be illegitimate. Legitmacy comes from God not the people. That might be the topic for another thread.

Government of any sort presumes governing gets done, some authority is wielded implementing decisions, policies or laws. The term constitutional monarchy is convenient, but it is meaningless in the case of Britain’s government. Call it what you will. The monarch has no role in governing anything or anyone.

Britain is a democracy for bettter or worse. The people select their political leaders who exercise all functions of government and conduct all government business.

When the President of the United States appears at a press conference or some function the presidential seal is hung on his podium. It is a symbol of the office. When the queen shows up at a government event she is the symbol. The presidential seal and the queen have the same amount of authority in the respective governments of the two countries.

 

[defenderoftruth]

Grandfather,

I realize this is “Catholic Answers Forum” but your posts have been extremely uncharitable and just plain rude. Your “pretending to be Catholic” comments were particularly offensive. I may not be “Roman” Catholic but I am a Catholic who believes in the universal church of Christ and while I disagree with you on some Marian doctrines and the position of the Pope you have no right to just proclaim that only RC’s are Catholics.

Being rude even if you think you are being “truthful” isn’t going to win converts from Anglicanism by attacking our priesthood/sacraments etc.

I’m Continuing Anglican btw not Episcopalian. (just an FYI) There is a HUGE difference between us and them and even the CofE and us. check out an article on us on wikipedia.

Try to be a little kinder to us “seperated brethren” please. (brethren-sisters)

I would agree with most if not all doctrines prior to 1800’s in Roman Catholicism (except the papacy.) I don’t agree with Papal infallibiliy (or a papacy itself) or the immaculate conception/assumption etc. being dogmatic. If a person chooses to believe that it’s fine with me I just don’t think that it should be a salvation issue. That’s why I’m Anglican. Besides someone didn’t have to believe that prior to it being dogmatically defined yet somehow it’s an absolute must believe?

Doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[grandfather]

Grandfather,

I realize this is “Catholic Answers Forum” but your posts have been extremely uncharitable and just plain rude. Your “pretending to be Catholic” comments were particularly offensive. I may not be “Roman” Catholic but I am a Catholic who believes in the universal church of Christ and while I disagree with you on some Marian doctrines and the position of the Pope you have no right to just proclaim that only RC’s are Catholics.

 

[FrancisB]

defenderoftruth;8732060:

You reject the pope as the legitmate head of the Church. I, with the British Catholic martyrs reject British royalty’s claim to have any authority in religion whatsoever, then now or ever. It is a farce. They made Christmas illegal.

I’ll do you one better; I reject that she’s really the queen, since she comes from a line of unlawful usurpers.

That said, Merry Christmas, all.

 

[defenderoftruth]

defenderoftruth;8732060:

Grandfather,

Defender,

I hope you have a most blessed Christmas. RCs are not the only Catholics. There are twenty some odd rites in the Catholic Church. Anglicans separated themselves from that Church under King Henry. What I proclaim as Catholic is irrelevant. The pope determines what is Catholic. If that is rude I can’t help it.

Your problem is with the pope not me.

When Anglican priests convert and accepted into the Catholic priesthood they are ordained, or conditionally ordained. What is implicit in this is the Catholic Church does not recognize Anglican orders. I do not determine this. Rome does. Whatever dispute there was regarding Anglican orders has been laid to rest with the Anglican ordination of women. The Church has no power to ordain women. They are not Catholic priests or priestesses. They have no power to confect the Eucharist. It is make believe. the pope isn’t on CAF slamming Anglicans you are.

I realize that some conservative or traditional Anglicans disagree with this or have separated themselves from the main body of Anglicans over it, but the fact remains that many or most of those calling themselves Anglican claim their church has conferred Holy Orders on women. These orders are invalid. The same thing happens in the Catholic Church. When it does those who particpate in such scandal are automatically excommunicted, i.e., no longer Catholic. and those of us who don’t shouldn’t be even mentioned with them

Are CAs in communion with the CoE, or has there been a formal schism? Are CAs a splinter group of small numbers in comparison to the number of Anglicans worldwide.
I guess it doesn’t matter to you we are all just fake pretenders

**I promise to pray for you, to ask God to bless you abundantly.
**how “kind” of you after your posts

**Then you think King Henry did the right thing in order to dump Catherine to marry Ann, and the rest of the series of wives? **absolutely not he was an adulterous pig and I have little issue with the RC church back then (except the papacy being the only one in charge and indulgences) I think Catherine was a saint personally to put up with him and Anne got her just desserts just a few years later for being a home wrecking whore. While Henry had no right to proclaim himself head of the church of england the bishops did have a right to take charge of the church as did/do the Eastern orthodox. (but I disagree with them that icons have to be kissed, and their doctrines on hell (that it’s not seperate place from God etc.) Your “you must agree with Henry about Catherine” is part of the rude ignorance you put off on Anglicans just because we are Anglicans. (and no I don’t agree with artificial birth control either when the CofE did that in the 1930’s)

It is not a salvation issue. It is a Catholic issue. It is de fide, of the faith, for Catholics as defined by the pope the head of the Catholic Church. no it’s a ROMAN Catholic issue, people shouldn’t have Marian doctrines that weren’t once dogma shoved on them now as salvation issues

So be Anglican. I do believe in these things. They make perfect sense to me, the theology behind them. That is why I am Catholic. my church has Anglican in it’s name but it is universally part of Christ ie catholic-something you “we are the only Catholics” would like to project-RUDELY/ARROGANTLY

Consider the early history of this separation. English royalty rejected the pope and claimed the monarch was the head of the Anglican Church. If you are Anglican somehow you have to approve of this then and as it continues to this day. Those Englishmen who refused to go along with this were put to death by the crown, the newly selfproclaimed head of the Church in England. Catholics were martyred for their faith, for refusing to apostacize. and we are not part of the CofE nor do we pay homage to Elizabeth or her family we are Anglican as in English speaking Catholic people without the latin rite I do not approve of it or have I approved of it the church was at the council of Arles in the 300’s before they were under the papacy we simply see ourselves again in that way it was then much like the Eastern Orthodox who have bishops for their churches but do not recognize the pope as anything more than greatest among equals-which is how we see him

You reject the pope as the legitmate head of the Church. I, with the British Catholic martyrs reject British royalty’s claim to have any authority in religion whatsoever, then now or ever. It is a farce. They made Christmas illegal.and I would have been a martyr as well not for the pope but because Henry was not and had no authority to be the head of anything to do with the church only the bishops do

We belong to different religions. They are not the same. We can not pretend differently.oh so I’m not even a Christian then? You don’t even recognize I’m of the Christian religion now or do you think only RC’s are Christians?

 

[defenderoftruth]

cont.

I wish the breach were healed. I hope God will reunite all the separated into one universal faith. I believe this will happen. For now we can only pray for it and one another. we are all of the Christian faith and (anglicans) eastern orthodox, oriental orthodox, and RC’s are of one universal faith bound in valid sacraments with the real true body and blood of Christ and one baptism for remission of sins (ie the NICENE CREED?!)

**I hope that Jesus the Savior is born in yourt heart and soul this Christmas, and mine.**oh He is and was a long time ago despite the fact I’m not a member of YOUR specific church

this is the kind of responses that make people think all RC’s are arrogant rude elitists…

 

[grandfather]

. and those of us who don’t shouldn’t be even mentioned with them

I guess it doesn’t matter to you we are all just fake pretenders

Clearly, given the irreconcilable beliefs within Anglicanism someone must be pretending to be Anglican even if they insist on calling themselves by the same name. One or the other must be the true Anglicans. Numbers do not matter, or how few the numbers are on one side of this divide or the other. The traditional Anglican Church has been hijacked, or control of it has, so it seems to an outsider. This is obvious and it motivated the pope to extend his recent invitation to those who have been marginalized and can no tolerate the insanity. They are welcome and can find a home within Catholicism if they choose. Some decided to accept and others who reject the pope and Catholic dogma have to form their own ongoing groups, separated from the queen defender of the faith and the bishops who have rejected Christian morals and discipline.

**I promise to pray for you, to ask God to bless you abundantly.
**how “kind” of you after your posts

It was quite sincere. If we want to resolve anytihng we need to not pretend. We need to get to the wound and get it out in the open. A similar discussion goes on with Mormons and Christians. Christians, at least those who maintain any of the essential beliefs of Christianity say Mormons are not Christians. You can see the pattern there. What can be called Catholic, Anglican, Christian. Taking your position Mormons could say that all the other Christian denominations of the world have no right to the name Christian. We decleare we are Christians and they have no right to say we are not. All the Catholics in the world with the pope and bishops loyal to him say what is Catholic and some splinter group that separated itself from the authority of the Catholic Church wants to insist it is Catholic.

**Then you think King Henry did the right thing in order to dump Catherine to marry Ann, and the rest of the series of wives? **absolutely not he was an adulterous pig and I have little issue with the RC church back then (except the papacy being the only one in charge and indulgences) I think Catherine was a saint personally to put up with him and Anne got her just desserts just a few years later for being a home wrecking whore. While Henry had no right to proclaim himself head of the church of england the bishops did have a right to take charge of the church as did/do the Eastern orthodox.

But that is not what happened. Henry the adulterous pig took charge, or attempted to take charge of the Church in his country where he had temporal authority and some bishops supported him. He usurped the government of the Church as his own. It is impossible to dissasociate Henry from his collaborators. There are still Anglicans who defend the legitmacy of what he did, the ruse of wanting a male heir to justify the cruelty to Catherine. It is impossible to disassoicate Anglicanism and its genesis from Henry whatever you think of him. He is yours as are his bishops as long as you call yourself Anglican. This has nothing to do with whatever you believe about the pope or Mary’s sinlessness or indulgences or theology. It is integral to the history of Anglicanism, whicever group that calls itself Anglican is truly Anglican.

 

[grandfather]

(but I disagree with them that icons have to be kissed, and their doctrines on hell (that it’s not seperate place from God etc.) Your “you must agree with Henry about Catherine” is part of the rude ignorance you put off on Anglicans just because we are Anglicans. (and no I don’t agree with artificial birth control either when the CofE did that in the 1930’s)

Defender,
Here is a Catholic thought for you. Please do not take offense and you are probably already aware of it. What we personally believe or do not believe about reality does not effect reality. Artificial contraception is either sinful or it is not. If I am a Presbyterian and believe it is not sinful, because Presbyterians do not believe it is, does not make it ok for me. The moral law applies to everyone. Pope Paul VI was right and the Catholic Church is right, or they are wrong. The dogma on the Immaculate Conception is true or false. My opinion or yours on the matter has no bearing on the truth of the matter. Icons can be venerated or not. There are countless points of contention in matters of religion. How do we know on each of them which is right, a or b? What means dod Christ give us to make all these determinations? Does He leave us alone to decide for ourselves? Does He intend for us to pick and choose for ourselves which combinations of what to believe or reject and then align ourselves with whatever group agrees with our personal viewpoint on them all? When we do this as time goes by we find that what happens is continuing divisions, smaller and smaller groups form and they endlessly break off from one another.

The Church says this or that position on any doctine is orthodox or heresy. Christ is either the second person of the Holy Trinity or a created being. It is one or the other. The general concept of heresy, or heretic, is non specific. It comes from a Greek word. A heretic is someone who picks and chooses. So if I were to say, I agree with some Anglicans on this, but not that, the Orthodox on this other point, but not that, and the Catholics pre 500 AD, 1000, 1500, but not post that makes me the definer of truth for myself and I will find myself becoming more and more isolated by this pickin and choosing.

. no it’s a ROMAN Catholic issue, people shouldn’t have Marian doctrines that weren’t once dogma shoved on them now as salvation issues

A person could say the same about any doctrine. The issue again is about the Church’s authority to teach as given by Christ. My parish is not ROMAN Catholic. We celebrate Mary’s sinless conception in a liturgy that predates the formally defined dogma. Truth can not change. Our understanding of it can increase as the Holy Spirit leads the Church from age to age into all truth. As the Church proclaims the truth there are people who will not accept it and leave as has happened from the beginning.

my church has Anglican in it’s name but it is universally part of Christ ie catholic-something you “we are the only Catholics” would like to project-RUDELY/ARROGANTLY

I ask you honestly not trying to provoke you, do you believe that Rowan Williams, Shorri, Robinson are Catholic, or Anglo-Catholic, part of your group? Do you believe their women priests are priests? If you do not, are you rude and arrogant by assuming you have the right to say so?

COLOR=“DarkRed”] and we are not part of the CofE nor do we pay homage to Elizabeth or her family we are Anglican as in English speaking Catholic people without the latin rite I do not approve of it or have I approved of it the church was at the council of Arles in the 300’s before they were under the papacy we simply see ourselves again in that way it was then much like the Eastern Orthodox who have bishops for their churches but do not recognize the pope as anything more than greatest among equals-which is how we see him

**

It really is impossible, whatever you think of Henry or Elizabeth, to divorce yourself from the historical origins of Anglicanism and the Church of England. You come from them, however you see yourself or them today, as does Rowan Williams, et al. You come from the bishops who sided with them and apostacized from the Catohlic faith. These are your roots. You can disavow them and believe what you want about your group today, but history is what it is.

COLOR=“DarkRed”]and I would have been a martyr as well not for the pope but because Henry was not and had no authority to be the head of anything to do with the church only the bishops do

**

You would have been alone. There were two sides of the dispute, the side that held for the throne with its lackey bishops and the Catholic martyrs. You could not side against the temporal ruler and with those who stood with him. They were on his side and condoned the arrest, persecution and martyrdom of the martyrs. You can’t separate the king or queen from those who were bonded to them.

We belong to different religions. They are not the same. We can not pretend differently.oh so I’m not even a Christian then? You don’t even recognize I’m of the Christian religion now or do you think only RC’s are Christians?

The Catholic Church never said you are not Christian. All those who are validly baptized are Christian, but we are separated by the fact that we believe different things. We are not of one mind as Paul instructs.

 

[AnglicanForMary]

Granted that it does not change the conclusions reached by AC or Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, but I know that Cantaur and Eboracum sent a response “Saepius Officio: Answer of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the bull Apostolicae Curae of H.H. Leo XIII” which addressed a number of issues. Does anyone know if a response was made to this particular document?

 

[GKC]

Granted that it does not change the conclusions reached by AC or Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, but I know that Cantaur and Eboracum sent a response “Saepius Officio: Answer of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the bull Apostolicae Curae of H.H. Leo XIII” which addressed a number of issues. Does anyone know if a response was made to this particular document?

Yes, from a number of sources. A letter in reply came over Leo XIII’s signature, to Cantaur and Ebor and a Vindication of the Bull ‘Apostolicae Curae’, came, in Cardinal Vaughan’s name and that of the other RC bishops. And there were unofficial replies from individual clergy and scholars.

Saepius Officio, BTW, while sent from the two archbishops, was written by the Bishop of Salisbury.

GKC