Church of England

[GKC]

I am not GKC.

You have your Anglo-Catholics that believe they are "C"atholic as much as the Roman Catholic. At least that is what I get from speaking with them.

You also have your Episcopalians like me that believes we are part of the One Holy Universal Apostolic Church.

Make sense?

It’s not my opinion, but makes sense.

GKC

 

[cheezey]

I am not GKC.

You have your Anglo-Catholics that believe they are "C"atholic as much as the Roman Catholic. At least that is what I get from speaking with them.

You also have your Episcopalians like me that believes we are part of the One Holy Universal Apostolic Church.

Make sense?

I know. I was asking GKC to clarify his statement in post 33 which was in response to 32.

Thank you!!

 

[aidanbradypop]

I know. I was asking GKC to clarify his statement in post 33 which was in response to 32.

Thank you!!

 

[Contarini]

And I respectfully disagree with Contarini (not a thing to be done lightly, and you misunderstood his point), on the typical Anglican view of the point of origin of the Church in England. It is far more likely to be identified with the 3rd century than with Augustine’s mission, when it is possible to identify at least 3 dioceses organized in the isles. But generally, what he said is so.

Fair enough. I was concerned about that myself but was trying to keep things relatively simple, and the history of “Celtic Christianity” in Britain is a shadowy and complicated subject. I mentioned that there were Christians earlier–my point was just that there’s an easily traceable institutional connection between St. Augustine and the present C of E. It was the earliest point at which I could make an obvious argument that institutionally this is in important respects the same thing. I wasn’t excluding earlier dates.

 

[Contarini]

Catholic means universal…high churches like to consider themselves catholic still (catholic in your sense)…others don’t, they just mean the universal body of Christ church

I do not see the point of this distinction.

Catholic, whether uppercased or lowercased, means the universal body of Christ’s Church. What else could it mean?

There are different definitions of what it means to be fully part of that Body. But the word always refers to the Body (except when it is used purely by courtesy). There is nothing else for it to refer to.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I am not GKC.

You have your Anglo-Catholics that believe they are "C"atholic as much as the Roman Catholic. At least that is what I get from speaking with them.

You also have your Episcopalians like me that believes we are part of the One Holy Universal Apostolic Church.

Make sense?

So in what sense don’t you think you are as Catholic as the Roman Catholics?

Why use the word Catholic at all?

Just out of courtesy? Then why say that the Anglo-Catholics think they are as Catholic as the Roman Catholics? That just sows confusion.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I was baptised and confirmed in the Church of England. I was always told that there was a difference between “catholic” (with a lower-case c) and “Catholic” - the first meaning ‘all-embracing’ rather than Roman Catholic.

Yes, people say that, but it’s silly. Embracing all of whom? Obviously not all people without exception. All Christians? Christians defined how? All the baptized, perhaps? What about Jesus-only baptism?

The point is that “Catholic” excludes some people and includes others. It always has, from the beginning. There is no “all-embracing” definition, but there are broader and narrower definitions.

Edwin

 

[aidanbradypop]

So in what sense don’t you think you are as Catholic as the Roman Catholics?

Why use the word Catholic at all?

Just out of courtesy? Then why say that the Anglo-Catholics think they are as Catholic as the Roman Catholics? That just sows confusion.

Edwin

The whole thing drowns in confusion. I state that I am Episcopalian. No confusion there.

 

[GKC]

I know. I was asking GKC to clarify his statement in post 33 which was in response to 32.

Thank you!!

It means that Anglicans have a lot of opinions on a lot of points. I’ve seen this particular one answered many ways. Some Anglicans will limit the word to meaning small “c”, universal. Some will say that it is to be used indifferently, with that meaning, whether capitalized or not. Some will limit the capitalized version to only those Churches in communion with Rome. Some will apply the capitalized version to all Churches possessing apostolic succession. Some will never have given the idea a thought.

Lots of opinions, amongst Anglicans.

GKC

 

[Isca]

That’s just a convention to avoid confusion. The word is the same and has the same meaning; capitalisation can just help show in which context it is being deployed.

Dictionaries do give two definitions, however, which does confuse it a little - as in “he has catholic tastes”, for example, meaning he has a wide range of interests. I understand your clarification though, thanks.

 

[Contarini]

Question: with the ordination of women has priests and even bishops in the AC, have any of you in the High Church consider coming to the Catholic Church as part of the Anglican-Use?

If yes, why have you not done so? If no, why not?

I’m simply curious.

Thanks and God Bless

The ordination of women is almost the only substantive reason to be Anglican rather than Catholic, in my opinion. Catholics have so far failed miserably in giving a theological rationale for the male-only priesthood. I don’t want this to take over the thread, and I’ve participated in threads on this over and over again. If you want me to explain, I can find an old thread or start a new one. But conservative Catholics assume so casually that this must be a point in their favor.

Certainly there are Anglicans, like GKC, who are at least as opposed to women’s ordination as any Catholic (note that GKC’s church is separated from the larger Anglican Communion over this issue among other things). And of course a case can be made that I’m not a real Anglo-Catholic or whatever. But I am an Anglican who wishes to be in full communion with the Church throughout space and time (i.e., the Catholic Church in the theological sense of the word, the only one that matters). And it seems to my fallible theological judgment that the principles and logic of historic Christian orthodoxy point toward the ordination of women, not away from it. Given the testimony of the Catholic Church on the other side, I accept that I am probably wrong. But it would be nice to hear the theology of the matter actually discussed instead of dogmatic assertions on one hand and secular political rhetoric on the other.

Edwin

 

[Picky_Picky]

… 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. Paul III took it back, but Parliament thought it looked nice, and attached it to the Throne, in 1544. Mary took it off, Elizabeth put it back, and it’s there now by legislative fiat.

GKC

I suspect A Boleyn and C Howard would agree about the pain in the neck.

Yes, Elizabeth II bears the title “Defender of the Faith”, although there are rumours the Prince of Wales would like to drop the definite article, although that would perhaps expand his role as Defender beyond what any Pope could grant: only the British Imperial Parliament, I suppose, would have the scope, power and presumption to award such a grandiose title

 

[Novocastrian]

The ordination of women is almost the only substantive reason to be Anglican rather than Catholic, in my opinion. Catholics have so far failed miserably in giving a theological rationale for the male-only priesthood. I don’t want this to take over the thread, and I’ve participated in threads on this over and over again. If you want me to explain, I can find an old thread or start a new one. But conservative Catholics assume so casually that this must be a point in their favor.

Certainly there are Anglicans, like GKC, who are at least as opposed to women’s ordination as any Catholic (note that GKC’s church is separated from the larger Anglican Communion over this issue among other things). And of course a case can be made that I’m not a real Anglo-Catholic or whatever. But I am an Anglican who wishes to be in full communion with the Church throughout space and time (i.e., the Catholic Church in the theological sense of the word, the only one that matters). And it seems to my fallible theological judgment that the principles and logic of historic Christian orthodoxy point toward the ordination of women, not away from it. Given the testimony of the Catholic Church on the other side, I accept that I am probably wrong. But it would be nice to hear the theology of the matter actually discussed instead of dogmatic assertions on one hand and secular political rhetoric on the other.

Edwin

Amen!

 

[Novocastrian]

I suspect A Boleyn and C Howard would agree about the pain in the neck.

Yes, Elizabeth II bears the title “Defender of the Faith”, although there are rumours the Prince of Wales would like to drop the definite article, although that would perhaps expand his role as Defender beyond what any Pope could grant: only the British Imperial Parliament, I suppose, would have the scope, power and presumption to award such a grandiose title

I (a) doubt that demand for such a change would be sufficient within either the court, parliament or the public and (b) think that we don’t give HRH enough credit for his deep personal commitment to the truth of Christianity; his retreats to Mt. Athos and work with groups like the Prayer Book Society suggest a sincerely held belief. His past infidelities and current promotion of interreligious dialogue seem to be compatible with this, not proof to the contrary.

 

[Contarini]

Dictionaries do give two definitions, however, which does confuse it a little - as in “he has catholic tastes”, for example, meaning he has a wide range of interests. I understand your clarification though, thanks.

Right, although I’d like to see the history of the “secular” use of the word. I suspect–but can’t prove–that it arose by analogy with the way Protestants of a relatively “broad” bent (like Richard Baxter, who coined the term “mere Christianity” later taken over by C. S. Lewis) were using the word in the seventeenth century and later. I mean that people would be praised for their “catholic” sympathies or spirit, meaning what we’d now think of as a generous, ecumenical attitude, and then the term got applied to other subjects. But I may well be wrong on this.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I (a) doubt that demand for such a change would be sufficient within either the court, parliament or the public and (b) think that we don’t give HRH enough credit for his deep personal commitment to the truth of Christianity; his retreats to Mt. Athos and work with groups like the Prayer Book Society suggest a sincerely held belief. His past infidelities and current promotion of interreligious dialogue seem to be compatible with this, not proof to the contrary.

As it happens I agree that HRH is a deeply serious man, and I have admiration and much sympathy for him. Fortunately it is also my privilege as one of his mother’s subjects to laugh at him occasionally, too.

 

[Contarini]

As it happens I agree that HRH s a deeply serious man, and I have admiration and much sympathy for him. Fortunately it is also my privilege as one of his mother’s subjects to laugh at him occasionally, too.

Have you ever read S. M. Stirling’s “Change” novels (Dies the Fire and its sequels)? It postulates a future (well, future when he first wrote) in which technology stops working and most people die. In England nearly everyone dies, but Prince Charles survives because he gets all his organic-gardening friends together and they head for the Isle of Wight.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Have you ever read S. M. Stirling’s “Change” novels (Dies the Fire and its sequels)? It postulates a future (well, future when he first wrote) in which technology stops working and most people die. In England nearly everyone dies, but Prince Charles survives because he gets all his organic-gardening friends together and they head for the Isle of Wight.

Where they meet the survivors of the Day of the Triffids, perhaps? I always think the IoW would be much too big for a bunch of survivors to replant, but perhaps I underestimate the pioneer spirit. But no, I haven’t read them. Perhaps I should.

 

[Contarini]

Where they meet the survivors of the Day of the Triffids, perhaps? I always think the IoW would be much too big for a bunch of survivors to replant, but perhaps I underestimate the pioneer spirit. But no, I haven’t read them. Perhaps I should.

The English parts are actually ridiculous. They essentially recreate a Maloryesque England where everyone rides around in suits of armor (well, the aristocracy do) and says “Tally ho!” and such. But the silliness is explained in part by the idea that it’s all King Charles’ silliness, which makes it slightly more believable (he eventually makes everyone have thatched roofs and learn Morris dancing–there’s a great scene with a guy of Caribbean origin declaiming tongue in cheek about how the king has taught him to reclaim his old English roots. . . . )

Edwin

 

[Novocastrian]

The English parts are actually ridiculous. They essentially recreate a Maloryesque England where everyone rides around in suits of armor (well, the aristocracy do) and says “Tally ho!” and such. But the silliness is explained in part by the idea that it’s all King Charles’ silliness, which makes it slightly more believable (he eventually makes everyone have thatched roofs and learn Morris dancing–there’s a great scene with a guy of Caribbean origin declaiming tongue in cheek about how the king has taught him to reclaim his old English roots. . . . )

Edwin

I can imagine much, much worse futures to live in! If we could keep some modern medicine, I’d be very happy to live on that island!