Church of England

[Contarini]

:why do you expect us to sugar-coat everything. you’re on a catholic forum, get use to it.:

I don’t expect you to sugar-coat anything. I expect you to tell the truth, and I will point out when you fail to do so. I would also expect some degree of courtesy and restraint in language, since surely the only possible reason to criticize another church is either to convince us of our errors or to warn your fellow-Catholics against being taken in by us. The first purpose is ill-served by overly harsh language. The second may seem to call for extreme language, but even there such tactics will fail in the long run, I think.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Booklover]

##
Mud-slinging may be a Catholic practice, but there is nothing Christian about it. They may be something Hellish about it, but nothing Christian. ##

Excuse me! You’re saying that mud slinging is a Catholic practice? I think not. The Catholic Church is always on the receiving end of the mud and Protestants are always ready to sling it!

 

[Thepeug]

Booklover:

Excuse me! You’re saying that mud slinging is a Catholic practice? I think not. The Catholic Church is always on the receiving end of the mud and Protestants are always ready to sling it!

Such blanket statements are best avoided; no one would seriously deny the fact that both sides are guilty of this unfortunate practice.

 

[Gunner]

## Where did I say that ? ##

You inferred that telling the truth was unbcharitable.

That is a part of the story- but not by any means all. There is far more to the C of E’s history than those details​

The Cof E history is a history of man made religion, pick and mix to suit the day as it is today. This is truth. Divorce/Abortion/Contraception/Women Priest/Gay Bishops etc etc. Whats next on the agenda - Same Sex marriages/Euthanasia/Multiple Wives??? When it suits, who knows?

I read all you said.​

They are Christians already- they don’t need to be evangelised. At least, Popes since and including John Pius XII have ben under the impression that they are Christian. As the acts of these Popes prove, and their utterances. ##

Cof E are separated brethen, who do not have the fullness of truth are most of the sacraments. We cannot affirm their errors but must proclaim the truth to them in charity.

God’s graces are God’s - He gives as He wills, to whom, and when , and in the measure, and how, and where He wills.​

In any case, I prefer to follow the CC on this one - it has rejected the error that God gives no grace outside the Church. And has taught nothing about the quantity given or the means, or such like points. It can scarcely claim the competence to do so. As the Mediaevals knew well, “God is not bound by the Sacraments”. There is far too much evidence of Anglican holiness & grace-filled life for me to deny that God has abundantly blessed the C of E. ##

I stated that outside of the CC there are graces in far less abundance. It is hard enough for a good Catholic to be saved even with all the graces available.

I don’t see how I am doing any such thing. The Sacrifice of Christ is His. He is the Primary and True Offerer - human beings are but the created instruments of that perfect and all-sufficient offering; as many Anglican theologians would point out.​

We are following Christ’s command to participate in his sacrifice re-presented to the father as acceptable to him and prophesised by Malachi in the OT.

Thank you - and the same to you ​

As Cardinal Newman (Famous Anglican Convert) has said

“To be steeped in history is to CEASE to be Protestant”

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Booklover:

Excuse me! You’re saying that mud slinging is a Catholic practice? I think not. The Catholic Church is always on the receiving end of the mud and Protestants are always ready to sling it!

Look no further than this thread​

 

[Exporter]

Some of you on this thread do not want Catholics to tell the truth. It seems you want to adopt the Politically Correct stance.

In the U.S. the news papers and TV news shows you will see any time there is a chance to blast a Catholic , they do it. You never hear of any Protestant scandal. Fot the News, Catholics are raw meat.

The reason the Anti-Catholics have gotten so rabid is because no one opposed them 30 years ago. If one remains quiet, one gets it’s toes stepped on. Finally destroying the being.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gunner:

As Cardinal Newman (Famous Anglican Convert) has said

“To be steeped in history is to CEASE to be Protestant”

Which may or may not be true - it doesn’t affect the points you called me on, I think.​

The trouble is, that being “steeped in history” is a relative quantity. Newman had a better grasp of Church History in many respects than Catholics of 500 years before him - and it’s safe to say that knowledge of Church history has deepened considerably since his time. And, it is to be hoped that it will be even more thorough and solid in generations to come - not that one can ever take such developments for granted…

Go here, and scroll to the end of section 5.

Newman was referring, not to all Protestantism in general, still less to the sort of intellectually vigorous Protestantism of the 20th century which has brought us a renewal in Luther studies (for example), but to the sort of 1830s Protestantism which would have been considered redoubtable in an earlier century. But,one cannot expect the Caroline divines of the 17th century to be reckoned as redoubtable historians by the standards of 1840. And the same applies applies to Catholics - which is why an historian such as Tillemont - who is one of Gibbon’s sources - is not an author commonly read today. And why Chateaubriand is not a household name, even though he was just a generation earlier than Newman.

One of the great changes in the situation since Newman wrote, is that a vast mass of documentation has been printed and edited, which mere students are now expected to be able to consult intelligently. 200 years ago, most of it was available only if one knew the “right people” in Venice, Madrid, Rome, Paris, Edinburgh, and a host of other places. This is now no longer true. The century saw a vast increase in historical knowledge - we are its beneficiaries. Newman’s 1838 study of the “Arians of the Fourth Century” would need rewriting - the study of the Fathers has also benefitted; the revolution in the study of the Bible is part of this movement in historical understanding. Books which impressed by their learning in 1600 or 1700 are no longer good enough.

Newman’s remark is not a timeless truth - it may be true, but then again, it may not. Protestant historians - as Contarini is perfectly well able to point out - are a well-informed lot these days. Protestants does not need to rely on invective or insult - neither should Catholics. ##

 

[Gunner]

## Which may or may not be true - it doesn’t affect the points you called me on, I think.

The trouble is, that being “steeped in history” is a relative quantity. Newman had a better grasp of Church History in many respects than Catholics of 500 years before him - and it’s safe to say that knowledge of Church history has deepened considerably since his time. And, it is to be hoped that it will be even more thorough and solid in generations to come - not that one can ever take such developments for granted…

Go here, and scroll to the end of section 5.

Newman was referring, not to all Protestantism in general, still less to the sort of intellectually vigorous Protestantism of the 20th century which has brought us a renewal in Luther studies (for example), but to the sort of 1830s Protestantism which would have been considered redoubtable in an earlier century. But,one cannot expect the Caroline divines of the 17th century to be reckoned as redoubtable historians by the standards of 1840. And the same applies applies to Catholics - which is why an historian such as Tillemont - who is one of Gibbon’s sources - is not an author commonly read today. And why Chateaubriand is not a household name, even though he was just a generation earlier than Newman.

One of the great changes in the situation since Newman wrote, is that a vast mass of documentation has been printed and edited, which mere students are now expected to be able to consult intelligently. 200 years ago, most of it was available only if one knew the “right people” in Venice, Madrid, Rome, Paris, Edinburgh, and a host of other places. This is now no longer true. The century saw a vast increase in historical knowledge - we are its beneficiaries. Newman’s 1838 study of the “Arians of the Fourth Century” would need rewriting - the study of the Fathers has also benefitted; the revolution in the study of the Bible is part of this movement in historical understanding. Books which impressed by their learning in 1600 or 1700 are no longer good enough.

Newman’s remark is not a timeless truth - it may be true, but then again, it may not. Protestant historians - as Contarini is perfectly well able to point out - are a well-informed lot these days. Protestants does not need to rely on invective or insult - neither should Catholics. ##

If you care to fully read the writings of the Early Church Fathers (William Jurgens does a good low cost 3 volume set), you will see where Newman is coming from, they were all fully Catholic in belief, not man made adoptions on the theme as C of E most definitely is.

History is against you on this one, you cannot re-invent Papal Succession, Apostolic Succession, Church Councils which date back to the book of Acts or the Sacrifical nature of the Mass even noted in the Didache.

May the truth (With a littel help from history) set you free!

God Bless

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Exporter:

Some of you on this thread do not want Catholics to tell the truth. It seems you want to adopt the Politically Correct stance.

In the U.S. the news papers and TV news shows you will see any time there is a chance to blast a Catholic , they do it. You never hear of any Protestant scandal. Fot the News, Catholics are raw meat.

The reason the Anti-Catholics have gotten so rabid is because no one opposed them 30 years ago. If one remains quiet, one gets it’s toes stepped on. Finally destroying the being.

There is nothing “rabid”, or “not wanting Catholics to tell the truth”, in pointing out that it is unwise for us, who are Catholics, to dig up dirt in the life of the C of E. IMO, it is mere decency not to. If we do it to others, can we complain if it should happen that others do it to us ?​

If anyone is is being attacked, it is not us. And Anglicans are not our enemies or rivals - they are our brothers in Christ.

Let us by all means tell the truth; and be told it, too - this is not the same thing as insisting that Henry VIII’s attempts to have his first marriage invalidated are more important for Anglican self-understanding, faith, and theology, than they are. There is much more to the separation between Rome and England than his goings-on - as a reading of the texts, such as the 1559 Act of Settlement, can show. ##

 

[Gunner]

## There is nothing “rabid”, or “not wanting Catholics to tell the truth”, in pointing out that it is unwise for us, who are Catholics, to dig up dirt in the life of the C of E. IMO, it is mere decency not to. If we do it to others, can we complain if it should happen that others do it to us ?

If anyone is is being attacked, it is not us. And Anglicans are not our enemies or rivals - they are our brothers in Christ.

Let us by all means tell the truth; and be told it, too - this is not the same thing as insisting that Henry VIII’s attempts to have his first marriage invalidated are more important for Anglican self-understanding, faith, and theology, than they are. There is much more to the separation between Rome and England than his goings-on - as a reading of the texts, such as the 1559 Act of Settlement, can show. ##

If in Charity, we witness to C of E or any other denomination, there must be a reason (history and doctrine) why we wish to show them the fullness of truth does not reside with them. To do this we must highlight how and where the difference arose. This is reality. To deny this is uncharitable and we are culpable (Ezekiel 3.16).

I fully support the fact that after these points are respectfully (and not triumphantly) pointed out, they should not be laboured on. When I witness to my C of E brothers, I always highlight the differences and flaws on first encounters, always though in charity with much silent prayer. It is then up to the Holy Spirit to move them to the truth, and use us as necessary after that e.g. with further enquiries from our separated brothers. We are simply mere pawns at the Holy Spirits disposal.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

oat soda:

no, henry the 8th wasn’t heretical, just schismatic, adulterus, and a murderer ( in fact, he wanted the church of england to retain confession and clerical celebacy) why do you expect us to sugar-coat everything. you’re on a catholic forum, get use to it. if you don’t like the tone, find a episcopal one. we love our faith and are not going to tell you it is ok to be protestant or anglican. has the episcopalian church ever apologized for all the catholics they killed?? as a catholic, i look with contempt to the history of this church.

LOL!!! Wow, you really should read OUR church’s history, then (I’m a Catholic). We are in no position to look down on anyone else’s history. If one wishes to persuade souls to the unity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, one should use Scripture, Tradition, the Magisterium, AND history…but no one should assume that ours is blameless. Christ’s Church has a checkered past! Let’s be humbly grateful that He still is determined to call Her His Bride.

 

[jamesclaude]

sparkle:

I used to absolutely adore the Church of England, since I grew up in England. I was an Episcopalian for 10 years here, and adore their musicianship here in the States. (The best church choirs in all the U.S. are the Anglican/Episcopal Church choirs)!!! But when you actually look deeply into WHY the Anglican Church broke off from the Catholic Church, (for reasons of immorality), I could never go back there, although it is most tempting, because I love their worship, their music, their beautiful and welcoming churches.

So glad you found a good Catholic Church in the UK!!!

God Bless~~

If I were to employ that line of thinking to the Roman Catholic Church, I wouldn’t be a member of it due to a Borgia Pope ! How people DO hold onto the past - at peril to the present and the future. Henry VIII is LONG turned to dust - What’s here and now has nothing to do with him. Did you quit something you obviously loved dearly over a burp of history ? Would you now quit the Catholic Church over the misdeeds of a carnal Borgia Pope who clearly used the Church - hundreds of years ago ?

 

[Gunner]

jamesclaude:

If I were to employ that line of thinking to the Roman Catholic Church, I wouldn’t be a member of it due to a Borgia Pope ! How people DO hold onto the past - at peril to the present and the future. Henry VIII is LONG turned to dust - What’s here and now has nothing to do with him. Did you quit something you obviously loved dearly over a burp of history ? Would you now quit the Catholic Church over the misdeeds of a carnal Borgia Pope who clearly used the Church - hundreds of years ago ?

The key question is not the behaviour of sinners in any Church but the doctrine that Church proclaims and the faith and morals it teaches.

No Pope has ever infalllibly taught error or false morals as the Holy Ghost protects the Rock whereas C of E went very quickly from Schism to Heresy and now changes its beliefs to suit the times e.g. Women Priests, and the total acceptance of the immorality of Artificial Contraception.

It is all about Truth. I accept that many Catholics do not live up to the truths inherent in the Church, but the Church still teaches it as the ordinary roadmap to salvation.

 

[oat_soda]

henry the 8th was the fat jerk who founded anglicanism, yet the anglicans overlook all of his errors in judgment when he made himself the supreme head of the church of england over the pope.

if you judge a movement by their fruits, what are the fruits of anglicanism?? murdering catholics, destroying monasteries, and white-washing churches do not sound like good fruits to me.

to make matters worse, it was the lambeth conference in the early part of the 20th century which first allowed contraceptives in marriage. now look at our society. you can directly correlate the rise in divorce, homosexuality, and break down of families in our society to this decision and now you have openly gay anglican bishops who say that sodomy is sacramental.

i don’t think a “christian” church could be much worse. anyone who stays in this church is making a mistake.

 

[GKC]

oat soda,

“anyone who stays in this church is making a mistake.”

Generally, I agree. But I usually tell them slightly differently

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Maccabees]

Contarini:

Maccabees, bear in mind that Anglicanism exists all over the world, and in some parts of the world (such as Africa) is growing and vibrant. I understand that even in the C of E the evangelical wing is growing and thriving. I wouldn’t write us off just yet–although I don’t think the “us” is going to be valid much longer (i.e., I myself don’t find ECUSA a tenable place to be right now, and given my location I don’t see any other valid Anglican options).

In Christ,

Edwin

The weakness of the Anglican church is lack of unifromity in doctrine you have the uber orthodox in africa (whom I respect) and the nearly heretical Epsicopal church in the USA, It is true the Anglcian church has amazing growth in africa but that is the same with catholicism we are exploding down there. Overall the catholic church is in better shape because of the catholic church very strong presence in Latin America and parts of Asia and Eastern Europe and the catholic church in the Soutern United states is growing strong as well. All places where Anglicanism is week in presence.Both churches are dying a slow death in Western Europe.
I heard one Anglican Bishop give his opinion as to how to fix the problem in their communion was to make the Archbishop of Canteberry a Pope in their communion. Oh Gee what a neet idea its something they had once upon a time when they had the Bishop of Rome. By the way there have been many great ANglican converts to the Church of ROme ie Chesterton and Newmann, we could add Contarini to that list one day

 

[GKC]

“…we could add Contarini to that list one day”

which would be a good thing.

GKC

traditional Anglican

 

[cabaret]

oat soda:

henry the 8th was the fat jerk who founded anglicanism, yet the anglicans overlook all of his errors in judgment

Given the Popes of his time, it might be a good period for all of you Christians not to talk about errors of judgement - or fatness.

 

[RomanRiteTeen]

## Which may or may not be true - it doesn’t affect the points you called me on, I think.

The trouble is, that being “steeped in history” is a relative quantity. Newman had a better grasp of Church History in many respects than Catholics of 500 years before him - and it’s safe to say that knowledge of Church history has deepened considerably since his time. And, it is to be hoped that it will be even more thorough and solid in generations to come - not that one can ever take such developments for granted…

Go here, and scroll to the end of section 5.

Newman was referring, not to all Protestantism in general, still less to the sort of intellectually vigorous Protestantism of the 20th century which has brought us a renewal in Luther studies (for example), but to the sort of 1830s Protestantism which would have been considered redoubtable in an earlier century. But,one cannot expect the Caroline divines of the 17th century to be reckoned as redoubtable historians by the standards of 1840. And the same applies applies to Catholics - which is why an historian such as Tillemont - who is one of Gibbon’s sources - is not an author commonly read today. And why Chateaubriand is not a household name, even though he was just a generation earlier than Newman.

One of the great changes in the situation since Newman wrote, is that a vast mass of documentation has been printed and edited, which mere students are now expected to be able to consult intelligently. 200 years ago, most of it was available only if one knew the “right people” in Venice, Madrid, Rome, Paris, Edinburgh, and a host of other places. This is now no longer true. The century saw a vast increase in historical knowledge - we are its beneficiaries. Newman’s 1838 study of the “Arians of the Fourth Century” would need rewriting - the study of the Fathers has also benefitted; the revolution in the study of the Bible is part of this movement in historical understanding. Books which impressed by their learning in 1600 or 1700 are no longer good enough.

Newman’s remark is not a timeless truth - it may be true, but then again, it may not. Protestant historians - as Contarini is perfectly well able to point out - are a well-informed lot these days. Protestants does not need to rely on invective or insult - neither should Catholics. ##

Greetings in Christ the King,

My good friend, while I admire you for reminding us to retain charity when speaking of any of our Brothers and Sisters in Christ, there is even less profit in defending the English Church. She was birthed in incest and adultery, into schism from her first breath, and today she slips further down into the abyss of heresy.
As a former High Anglican, I must say it is a very depressing thing to hear others speak for the Communion, when she has already said enough about herself. There is little good left in her, in America she no longer extends her arm to help others, she fights to keep herself alive. It is impossible to see her living much longer.
Heretics flock to her, and those who wish to live in sin. So shall it be, a church of unrepentant sinners, a blasphemy to Christ’s body.

Do not defend her, she spends all her time attempting to do it herself.

 

[oat_soda]

Given the Popes of his time, it might be a good period for all of you Christians not to talk about errors of judgement - or fatness.

maybe, but they didn’t found a new religion. my faith as a cathoic was not started or founded on any decision by an un-moral pope in the 16th century like anglicanism was founded by henry the 8th. actually, we catholics define ourselves by that faith which can trace itself through an unbroken linage of popes to peter who christ said he would build his church on.

if henry the 8th made all of these mistakes, including murder, why do anglicans assume he made a correct decision when he broke off the church of england from the catholic church. how did anglicanism improve a formerly catholic england?