Episcopalian Vs. Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter StarPaintedBlue
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
deborahaz said:
if you like and have the time you can? i don’t think i have read your rendition of the story GKC. would be interested in reading what you have learned.
i will have to read it later though, because i am getting ready to go out for a bit.
Click to expand...
Thanks to the magic of C&P, it will be here when you return. Since I don’t have as much time for posting as I once did, I keep some of the things I’ve done in the past on file. Here 'tis.

Henry liked sparklies. Was always on the look-out for a new and nifty title, or gee-gaw to add to his collection. In 1512, he petitioned Julius II to award him the title possessed by Louis XII, “Most Christian King” (you didn’t just call yourself something like that; it was awarded). Not sure if “Most Christian” was a zero sum title, but Julius did award it to Henry, and, for good measure, secretly gave him the French throne. All he had to do to claim it was to defeat Louis in the then on-going unpleasantness between the Holy League and France. That part never happened, though Henry tried, after Ferdinand of Spain finked out on him. But Henry got his “Christianissimus” title.

In 1515, Henry wanted something else to pad his resume. Various ideas were passed around: “Protector of the Holy See”, maybe “Defender”, were suggested from the English side. The first was turned down because it already belonged to the Holy Roman Emperor, the second was the property of the Swiss. Some in Rome countered with “King Apostolic” (interesting combination) or “Orthodox”. The Pope vetoed both. In 1516, the title of “Defender of the Faith” was proposed from England. Leo ignored it, and Henry sulked.

Henry gave up until May, 1521, when Wolsey wrote once again to Rome, asking for a pretty for Henry. Leo passed it to a committee of Cardinals. Forthcoming were suggestions for titles:

“Rex Fidelis”, "“Orthodoxus”, “Ecclesiaticus” ,
“Protector”, “Anglicus” (that last was a little weak).

When the Cardinals inquired just why Henry warranted another honor, the part he had played fighting for the Holy See against Louis, 9 years before, was mentioned. And there was the Assertio (that is, the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum), sort of written by Henry, against Luther’s De Captivitate Babylonica). Rome had heard of this work of Hank’s (it was in draft in May 1521, printed in July, sent to Rome in September, after the Cardinals had been considering the matter of a title for a few months). So, even before the *Assertio *was received and presented to Leo, a list of titles for Henry to choose from was shipped over to England.

The Assertio probably tipped the scales for approval. About the time it was presented to Leo, Henry chose the same title that had been suggested by England 6 years before: *Defensor Fidei *. Leo granted it six weeks after he received the book. Doubtless directly inspired by the Assertio, some cardinals then wanted to add a flourish to the title, such as *Gloriosus *or Fidelissimus, but Leo vetoed it. Moderation in all things.

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. Parliament thought it looked nice, and attached it to the Throne, in 1543. Mary took it off, Elizabeth put it back, and it’s there now by legislative fiat.

GKC
 
deborahaz said:
i think from your post, i have just had insight into the reformation. you are saying that there was never a need for reformation of doctrine, just that the church needed to be morally reformed? which could have been done from within? but the reformation also wanted to reform the doctine as well as the moral reform?
Click to expand...
The Church is ALWAYS in need of moral reform: starting with me.

Heresy is often the product of disillusionment triggered by something other than the orthodox faith. Luther’s dismay over the abuse of indulgences coupled with his own scrupulosity and lack of faith in the mercy of God started to simmer in a stew that led to the wholesale negation of ANY human role in “working out our faith with fear and trembling.” It took Calvin to carry that out to Islalmic proportions. But as GKC will tell us: this is complicated. It did not happen in a day nor did it happen because of ONE thing.

There was a perfect storm of politics, abuses in the Church, and technology. The role of the printing press, the rise of nation states and the emergence of the mercantile class cannot be overestimated.
 
mercygate said:
The Church is ALWAYS in need of moral reform: starting with me.

Heresy is often the product of disillusionment triggered by something other than the orthodox faith. Luther’s dismay over the abuse of indulgences coupled with his own scrupulosity and lack of faith in the mercy of God started to simmer in a stew that led to the wholesale negation of ANY human role in “working out our faith with fear and trembling.” It took Calvin to carry that out to Islalmic proportions. But as GKC will tell us: this is complicated. It did not happen in a day nor did it happen because of ONE thing.

There was a perfect storm of politics, abuses in the Church, and technology. The role of the printing press and the rise of nation states cannot be underestimated.
Click to expand...
Concur. And, as Belloc says, the Black Death.

GKC
 
thanks GKC. i think i had read that somewhere. either i had read your earlier post or read it on the internet somewhere.

anyhow, thanks for refreshing my memory. it seems like henry had had a few problems with the Pope even before he asked for his annulment if he had suggested the same title 6 years earlier that he was finally bequeathed.

yes, the Reformation was too huge and took off so fast that it could not have been started by only one complaint about the Catholic Church.

it almost could be seen as a civil war within the Church, that, unfortunately, could not be resolved without the schism.
 
mercygate said:
Exactly. This was a novel and deviant teaching, and separate from the screaming need for moral reform in a politically and financially corrupt hierarchy.
Click to expand...
The need for doctrinal reform was precisely because of the moral problems of the church. Lex orandi, lex credendi.
 
deborahaz said:
thanks GKC. i think i had read that somewhere. either i had read your earlier post or read it on the internet somewhere.

anyhow, thanks for refreshing my memory. it seems like henry had had a few problems with the Pope even before he asked for his annulment if he had suggested the same title 6 years earlier that he was finally bequeathed.

yes, the Reformation was too huge and took off so fast that it could not have been started by only one complaint about the Catholic Church.

it almost could be seen as a civil war within the Church, that, unfortunately, could not be resolved without the schism.
Click to expand...
You’re very welcome. If you read it in that form, it was me. That’s my stuff.

Henry had no real or particular problems with the Papacy, before the Big One. No more, that is, than any other major ruler, dealing with the Pope and Rome at that time. That point about the Holy League, for example. That was a conflict between France and Rome, with Henry on the Pope’s side. That sort of stuff happened all the time, with the partners changing like a square dance.

GKC
 
yes, it was hard to separate politics and church in those days because it was all about power and sometimes they went hand in hand.

thanks GKC.
 
TriuneUnity said:
The need for doctrinal reform was precisely because of the moral problems of the church. Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Click to expand...
There was NO need for doctrinal reform. None. Nada. Nem.

There WAS a need for the way in which teachings played out in the common culture. E.g., there is absolutely nothing wrong with the theology of indulgences. SELLING indulgences is an appalling abuse. You don’t cancel a doctrine because it has been abused.
 
Hey Debbie,

I just wanted to let you know that our church doors are a very pretty seafoam green…🙂

God Bless!
 
mercygate said:
There was NO need for doctrinal reform. None. Nada. Nem.

There WAS a need for the way in which teachings played out in the common culture. E.g., there is absolutely nothing wrong with the theology of indulgences. SELLING indulgences is an appalling abuse. You don’t cancel a doctrine because it has been abused.
Click to expand...
In your opinion there wasn’t. We could go back and forth for ages on that one 🤷
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Many good points but I hesitate to accuse Luther of “corruption.” I tend to give the guy the benefit of the doubt that he was truly distressed by the corruption, decadence, and grandiose innovations that the Roman Church had embraced in the Middle Ages. Luther felt he was never good enough and was a rampant and dedicated penitent who went to daily confession. He truly embraced Romans and Galatians at a deep level and felt that we are justified by faith alone. Indulgences sickened him, a disregard (as he saw it) for scriptural scholarship, hypocrisy within the ranks of cardinals and popes morally (mistresses and even in some cases—orgies!), and an over-emphasis on works and earning salvation made him feel the need to speak up. When it came to the Peasant’s Rebellion, Luther hated the fact that Thomas Muntzer and other protestants used the reformation for bloodshed and blatant disregard for human life. Luther did not instigate the peasant revolt, he was against it. He believed in “render unto Cesar what is Cesar’s” and did not like some reformers using his ideas as catalysts for rebellions. In fact, Nicholas Storch and Thomas Müntzer were famous for saying — “let not your sword grow cold from blood”

Luther, to my knowlege, was not an executor. He made many violent comments, even about the pope, but I’ve never read of his participation in mass executions. Perhaps I’m unlearned in this area…

I think it’s just a little presumptive to call him corrupt. Luther took great personal risk with his theology and bold reforms. When he was excommunited by the pope, he lost all human rights as a European. Excommunicated people in the medievel times were not afforded any rights or dignity. He could have been killed, tortured, or mistreated by anyone anytime after his excommunication. I think he risked a lot for his principals whether you agree with him or not.

Calvin I tend to agree more with when it comes to strict, calculating, excessive power-mongering.

But I think the Catholic Church was far more bureaucratically corrupt, decadent, crooked, and out of touch than Luther at that time. If the Catholic Church were this pillar of morality and virtue, a reformation would’ve been a tough pill to swallow even for german princes and nobles. Just IMO of course…
Click to expand...
I agree with most of your history points. As far as I know Luther was involved in the burning of four or five accused witches. At times he was remorseful about the Peasant Wars. Perhaps corruption is not the best term. My point still is I expect more of someone that is changing the theology of the Church that existed for 1500 years.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
You’re correct, there were many reformers before Luther–John Huss, Wycliff in England, Lolards, etc. Most of them were executed by the Roman Catholic Church so their reforms didn’t last long! lol…Luther’s the one that got away from 'em!
Click to expand...
That is kinda the point. When they took power they were the same as the people they refuted. Calvin executed 58 people and excommunicated, I believe 70 something people in five years. In a population of 13,000 - 15,000 people that is a lot. If the RCC did this we would have killed millions of people instead of 5,000 over hundred of years (inquisitions). Again my point is not to attack them as much as to state why would we take them as inspired

I am not sure I am following all the of the points that differ between Episcopalian and Catholics. Is it mostly driven by papal infallibility?
 
PerryJ said:
Can you be specific, Mary remaining a virgin, being sinless, assumption, veneration. Did I miss any?
Click to expand...
Immaculate Conception and the main, and first dogma: Mary, Mother of God. Episcopalians accept the “Mother of God” title. Many Episcopalians (I was one of them) accept ALL of the Marian dogmas. The difference is that they are not held at the level of the Creeds.
 
emeraldcoast said:
Hey Debbie,

I just wanted to let you know that our church doors are a very pretty seafoam green…🙂

God Bless!
Click to expand...
interesting. i think the red doors maybe go back to the colonial days. i am not sure if any of the churches in england had red doors. all of the episcopal churches i have attended either have glass, brown, or red doors. seafoam green is a new one !!

if you ever hear of an anglican use rite mass being offered in any of the catholic churches around you, you might want to consider attending one. i hear they are very beautiful.
 
emeraldcoast said:
Hi Mercygate,

What do you think of the following link? Thanks!

episcopalchurch.org/6947_62309_ENG_HTM.htm

God Bless!
Click to expand...
ARCIC did some very good work. One of my seminary classmates (now on his way to my side of the Tiber) served on ARCIC for many years and was instrumental in working out these joint statements.

While these statements are “substantial” they still leave it to the individual to take the final walk.

BTW, my friend often found himself in the position of defending the strict Catholic teaching on the Marian dogmas against the “pooh-poohs” of Catholic members on the team who wanted to downplay them for the sake of ‘peace.’
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top