C
Contarini
Guest
It depends on how you define “Anglicanism.” I did not use the word “Anglican.” I simply said that the See of Canterbury is very ancient, and thus no one but a vindictive bigot would want to abolish it in favor of, say, the See of Westminster (in the happy event of a reunion between Canterbury and Rome).
Define “Roman Catholic.” If you mean that they were in union with Rome, then of course that is true. Obviously they did not hold to the definitions of Trent or Vatican I, which had not yet occurred.
It’s really not possible to have a decent dialogue if so modest a claim on my part (that the See of Canterbury and other currently Anglican sees ought not to be abolished in the event of a reunion) is going to be taken as dishonoring the martyrs on your side. This is the kind of rhetoric I hear from hardline Protestants–we can’t possibly grant any validity to Rome, because this dishonors the martyrs who died for Protestantism. If you want to be that way, I can’t stop you. Fortunately the Pope doesn’t seem to think as you do.
That is not what I said. Please do not put words in my mouth.
If denial of the current claims of Rome is heretical, then the Orthodox are heretical too. . . . we may indeed be heretics, but that is not the point. Heresy and schism are not mutually incompatible.
We don’t deny either of these things, though admittedly we have historically denied transubstantiation.
I assume you mean actively gay and lesbian ministers (the ordination of celibate gays may possibly be imprudent, though I disagree-but it is certainly not hereticall). Still, this is not heresy, but moral laxity (something on which we have no monopoly). The claim that sexual acts between members of the same sex can be morally licit is heretical. However, the denial that the ordinations of homosexuals are valid is also heresy–if it’s directed against active homosexuals, it’s the ancient heresy of Donatism, and if directed against celibates of homosexual inclination, it is a new heresy linked to the innovative reasons your communion has come up with for denying women’s ordination, and casting serious doubt on the orthodoxy of those reasons.
Again, I think you mean that maintaining these things to be legitimate is heretical. The Church of England, in contrast to the Episcopal Church, does not do this, by the way, though they’re getting pretty close. (Note that even Charles and Camilla could not be married in a church ceremony, at least not technically. I know this plays havoc with the caricature of Anglican origins common among Catholics, but facts often play havoc with stereotypes.)
You are right that traditionally we have denied that the five “other” sacraments are really sacraments; however, today it is more common to say that they are not on the same level as the two “sacraments of the Gospel.”
I think you are unaware how much of the road has already been hoed. Have you read any of the ARCIC documents?
And, as usual, your anger is making you unjust and inaccurate. Perhaps you should consider the fact that the only thing I “denied” was the claim that ancient sees would have to be disbanded in favor of 19th-century ones in the event of a reunion. I fail to see why this has stirred so much ire on your part. I suspect that you did not pay much attention to what I was actually saying.
Good heavens! I need to do something about that. . . . probably not tonight though!
I have had some skirmishes on the Anglicanism article on wikipedia, trying to eliminate some blatant Anglo-Catholic propaganda (i.e., the sort of argument you think I am making–and indeed I am, in a very limited and modest sense).
Edwin
