Homosexual Episcopalian "Bishop" is Blasted

[StJeanneDArc]

:

St. Jeanne d’Arc wrote:

:Thank you to GKC, Contarini, and others who have educated us on the details of Henry VIII’s break with Rome. The details are interesting but don’t change the salient point about his break with Rome.:

Well, that remains to be seen.

: Regardless of the reasons and emotion behind his dispute with the Pope, Henry **disobeyed **and placed himself above Christ’s Church.:

That begs the question. We know you guys see it that way. But not being part of your communion, we don’t see it that way. Simply ranting about our “disobedience” will accomplish nothing. If you want to convince us, you have to understand how we see ourselves and deal with us on that level. If you don’t want to do that, simply let us be. But the sort of boorish bombast that’s been thrown around on this thread only annoys us and makes us feel justified in our separation from Rome. Be careful–I’d very much like to have an excuse for not becoming Catholic right now. If you help give me one, you’re doing something pretty serious.

: It was that act of disobedience that set a precedent that’s still being followed today.:

Essentially, I’m inclined to agree with you. It’s late in the day for the Anglican Communion to try to turn itself into an international church with authoritative structures, when our break with Rome largely consisted of denying the validity of such structures.

:If you don’t think that the separation from Rome is the key moment in Anglican history, then what is?:

The formation of the See of Canterbury in 597.

: I thought that moment was the creation of that chuch.:

You were wrong. It was the moment when we became independent of Rome.

Don’t think an analogy with the United States. Think of an analogy with the Commonwealth of Virginia. The reason that’s the better analogy is that like Virginia, we had essentially the same structures and institutions that we have today long before we separated from the “mother country.”

In Christ,

Edwin

Dear Edwin,
I certainly didn’t mean to come across as boorish and bombastic. I’ll watch my tone from now on.
I can see how we’re talking past each other a little bit. My point about Henry’s disobedience was really one on the issue of authority. This is really central to Catholicism. We all know there have been breakaway sects, both heretical and schismatic, and this rejection of the authority of Christ’s Church has led to however many 10’s of thousands of Christian denominations today. I know that submitting to the authority of the Church is hard (I personally have had my own journey on that one), but it is what Christ asked of us. Once you jump off the barque of Peter you’re swimming on your own.
Your analogy of Virginia is interesting. However, I’m a southerner and so I tend to think of the union as being held together by the consent of the individual states (I know the reality may be very different). It really doesn’t compare with the Catholic Church.

 

[oat_soda]

But the sort of boorish bombast that’s been thrown around on this thread only annoys us and makes us feel justified in our separation from Rome.

the reason why you are not catholic is because it requires too much humility. you first have to submit yourself to the authority of the pope and realize that england is not really that important. then, you would have to acknowledge the evils of contraceptives (and stop using them). you also would have to go to a priest for confession and believe in transubstantiation- that crazy scholastic philosophy. finally, you would have to totally accept Mary’s immaculate conception and take seriously her absolute role in our salvation as the mediatrix of grace. i think this is why you’re not catholic, not because of bombast.

the sad thing is you or any “anglo-catholic” can’t make one logical convincing argument why you are episcopalian and not catholic other than accepting sola scriptura -which is a stupid theory and totally un-reasonable.

 

[GKC]

oat soda:

the reason why you are not catholic is because it requires too much humility. you first have to submit yourself to the authority of the pope and realize that england is not really that important. then, you would have to acknowledge the evils of contraceptives (and stop using them). you also would have to go to a priest for confession and believe in transubstantiation- that crazy scholastic philosophy. finally, you would have to totally accept Mary’s immaculate conception and take seriously her absolute role in our salvation as the mediatrix of grace. i think this is why you’re not catholic, not because of bombast.

the sad thing is you or any “anglo-catholic” can’t make one logical convincing argument why you are episcopalian and not catholic other than accepting sola scriptura -which is a stupid theory and totally un-reasonable.

Contarini,

Now that oat soda has explained it, I see that you’ve been hiding things from me. A closet Anglo-Catholic, eh? Sola scriptura, no less. Dear, dear.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus.

 

[mean_owen]

I’d say Anglo-Catholics are about as far away from Sola Scriptura as you could get, without being Eastern Orthodox.

 

[GKC]

mean_owen:

I’d say Anglo-Catholics are about as far away from Sola Scriptura as you could get, without being Eastern Orthodox.

As to those two points, agreed. And that’s even of one doesn’t know Contarini, a little.

GKC

 

[mercygate]

oat soda:

the reason why you are not catholic is because it requires too much humility. you first have to submit yourself to the authority of the pope and realize that england is not really that important. then, you would have to acknowledge the evils of contraceptives (and stop using them). you also would have to go to a priest for confession and believe in transubstantiation- that crazy scholastic philosophy. finally, you would have to totally accept Mary’s immaculate conception and take seriously her absolute role in our salvation as the mediatrix of grace. i think this is why you’re not catholic, not because of bombast.

the sad thing is you or any “anglo-catholic” can’t make one logical convincing argument why you are episcopalian and not catholic other than accepting sola scriptura -which is a stupid theory and totally un-reasonable.

Oat Soda:

As an Anglican:

I (along with Michael Ramsey, the Archbishop of Canterbury) acknowledged the primacy of Peter, regretted the separation of the English Church from her parent and was involved in efforts to heal the rift.

Did not contracept.

Regularly made Sacramental Confessions.

Accepted the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed ever-Virgin Mary (although did not believe that these doctrines needed to be held as equal to the doctrines of the Creed).

Accepted Sacred Tradition along with the authority of Scripture.

Frequently explained to disbelieving Roman Catholics why the doctrines of their Church were true.

Yes, humility was an issue. And by the grace of Our Lady’s intercession, after the collapse of too many moral and doctrinal issues, I finally realized that Anglican efforts at union was no longer a reasonable hope for my lifetime. I submitted.

Bombast, my brother? Te cognosce.

 

[mean_owen]

Mercygate: That’s not terribly different from my experience. However, I don’t think it’s necessarily a lack of humility on my or other Anglo-Catholics part that keeps us from Rome. (I’m sure I’m a lot humbler than Oat Soda, for example). Part of it is that papal primacy may be one thing; infallibility is another. Then there’s the whole Novus ordo thing, but that’s another issue.

 

[mercygate]

mean_owen:

Mercygate: That’s not terribly different from my experience. However, I don’t think it’s necessarily a lack of humility on my or other Anglo-Catholics part that keeps us from Rome. (I’m sure I’m a lot humbler than Oat Soda, for example). Part of it is that papal primacy may be one thing; infallibility is another. Then there’s the whole Novus ordo thing, but that’s another issue.

I hear ya, mean_owen. When I started functioning out of logic rather than my ancient and deep anti-Catholic emotions, I realized that for the Church to BE the Body of Christ, she REQUIRED the note of infallibility. It still took a while for me to accept that it should reside particularly in Peter, but that fell into place also – especially in view of Rome’s teaching that the Apostolic charism is shared by all the bishops. As for the Mass of Paul VI, it is a valid Mass – though my High Church still aches for the beauty of Anglican liturgy. (I’m volunteering to work with our altar servers this year: Watch out!)

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Whoa, oatsoda!
Thou leapeth to a LOT of conclusions.
Item the first: I am Roman Catholic. My father and my older sister were/are Episcopalians. So the jibes to me about “justifying my religion” are not only ill-mannered (i.e., snotty), but incorrect.

Item the second: Leaping through hoops to justify your interpretations might be good exercise, but little else. No less an authority than HILLAIRE BELLOC, Roman Catholic, in his How the Reformation Happened, addresses your concerns, and quite capably explains not only the English but also the German, French, Holland (i.e., Netherlands and Belgium), Papal States and Spanish conditions and contributions to the Reformation.

If you won’t take MY word for the founder(s) of the church known as Anglican and the history behind the Reformation, perhaps you would deign to accept Mr. Belloc’s scholarship. I’m sure you can find–or request through inter-library loan–his book. Since I have a copy, I’d be glad to discuss any points with you as you read along. It is fascinating reading, and quite a tonic to the typical college texts or mainstream works on the Reformation, which are so often written from a Protestant perspective.

Henry VIII was a very complex individual (as indeed, most humans are) and life is not lived in hindsight. Rather than relying on vague generalizations and popular “history”, not to mention personal invective and mass labeling of people, you might wish to educate yourself sufficiently to know, not just the bare “facts” that have been set out in some book, but the entire who, what, when, why and how ABOUT said fact.

Another excellent book I recommend, regarding a DIFFERENT English King, is Josephine Tey’s “The Daughter of Time”. In it, (paraphrased) is a description by one of the characters of a written, historical fact–the “massacre of Tonypandy in Wales” which NEVER TOOK PLACE. The facts of the matter are given, but still, books and people continue to flat-out state that this NON EVENT EXISTED.

The characters make a solid case (by dint of RESEARCH, as opposed to historical reading–the two are related but, as one character says, “historians tell you what a character , research workers tell you what a character actually DID”) for the innocence of Richard III in the matter of the killing of his two nephews. Yet, though vindications of Richard III have existed since the 17th century, by eminent writers, you will still find in the typical text book that “Richard III killed his two nephews in the Tower”.

Popular bias is what keeps urban legends going–not to mention old “gospel-true” historical events that never happened.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

oat soda:

the reason why you are not catholic is because it requires too much humility. you first have to submit yourself to the authority of the pope and realize that england is not really that important. then, you would have to acknowledge the evils of contraceptives (and stop using them). you also would have to go to a priest for confession and believe in transubstantiation- that crazy scholastic philosophy. finally, you would have to totally accept Mary’s immaculate conception and take seriously her absolute role in our salvation as the mediatrix of grace. i think this is why you’re not catholic, not because of bombast.

the sad thing is you or any “anglo-catholic” can’t make one logical convincing argument why you are episcopalian and not catholic other than accepting sola scriptura -which is a stupid theory and totally un-reasonable.

The sense in which Our Lady is Mediatrix is still far from certain - there are several possible positions among Catholic theologians. So we cannot be more decisive than the Church is, seeing that the Pope has not defined the matter.​

She is certainly nowhere near as important as her Son.

And I object to anti-English remarks - we virtually invented the Immaculate Conception ##

 

[Exporter]

Pardon me for asking. Having been a Catholic (the Roman Rite) for almost 50 years, I have a question.

What are some of the posters trying to say when they use “ANGLO-CATHOLIC”? What is an “Anglo-Catholic”. I am Anglo-American and my neighbor is a Mexican-Anerican. But, what is an Anglo-Catholic? Until now I have never heard of it.

 

[Contarini]

St. Jeanne d’Arc,

Sorry for my oversenstive reaction. This is a conservative Catholic board and if I come here I shouldn’t expect otherwise. I appreciate your kindness and humility in responding as you have. I’m touchy these days because frankly I don’t think I can go on being an Anglican any longer (certainly not an Episcopalian, and with all due respect to GKC I’m not sure that any of the other Anglican options are live ones for me). Being the ornery sort of guy I am, I stick up for Anglicanism most stubbornly precisely at the point where I’ve more or less given up on it myself. I guess I figure on some level that this is causing me so much distress that smug Catholics have no business sounding off on it in what I often think are rather simplistic ways.

As for the Virginia analogy, my point is that in at least one Anglican view the Church really is rather like the Southern view of the U.S. I quite recognize that Catholics think otherwise–you are, so to speak, staunch Unionists. But in Anglican self-identity the “particular church” remains itself whether it is part of a larger whole or not, which is not to say that being part of the larger whole is unimportant. I don’t expect Catholics to agree–I’m simply saying that you won’t get very far with Anglicans saying things like “Henry VIII founded your church.” You will get much further if you press us on whether we have legitimate reasons for remaining out of communion with Rome; or whether we have any ground for expecting national churches to listen to the Lambeth Conference when we refused to listen to the Council of Trent (or for that matter a number of previous councils from II Nicea to Florence, even though some of us see ourselves as bound by at least some of those); or whether the Nicene Creed to which we hold so firmly (take or leave the odd heretical bishop) would ever have been adopted if the early Church had acted by Anglican principles. These, at least for me, are the really troubling issues.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Contarini,

I thank you for the acknowledgement and I understand. And I have been expecting you to make the leap for some time. If that’s your home, go to it, and don’t worry about wet feet. But for heaven’s sake, get away from ECUSA.

Me, I’m where I am, for the time being. Valid orders, historic, Apostolic episcopate, valid sacraments. It is enough.

GKC

 

[mercygate]

Exporter:

Pardon me for asking. Having been a Catholic (the Roman Rite) for almost 50 years, I have a question.

What are some of the posters trying to say when they use “ANGLO-CATHOLIC”? What is an “Anglo-Catholic”. I am Anglo-American and my neighbor is a Mexican-Anerican. But, what is an Anglo-Catholic? Until now I have never heard of it.

Modern-day descendents of the Tractarians.

 

[GKC]

mercygate:

Oat Soda:

As an Anglican:

I (along with Michael Ramsey, the Archbishop of Canterbury) acknowledged the primacy of Peter, regretted the separation of the English Church from her parent and was involved in efforts to heal the rift.

Did not contracept.

Regularly made Sacramental Confessions.

Accepted the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed ever-Virgin Mary (although did not believe that these doctrines needed to be held as equal to the doctrines of the Creed).

Accepted Sacred Tradition along with the authority of Scripture.

Frequently explained to disbelieving Roman Catholics why the doctrines of their Church were true.

Yes, humility was an issue. And by the grace of Our Lady’s intercession, after the collapse of too many moral and doctrinal issues, I finally realized that Anglican efforts at union was no longer a reasonable hope for my lifetime. I submitted.

Bombast, my brother? Te cognosce.

merycygate,

A not un-representative list. As for the Blessed Sacrament, A-Cs might have experienced Benedication, adoration of the Blessed Body, and might readily affirm Trent, Session XIII, Canon 1, while not objecting overly to Canon 2.

This, and all of what you list, may be found easily at my Anglican parish.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[GKC]

mercygate:

Modern-day descendents of the Tractarians.

Scions of the Ritualists, too.

GKC

 

[oat_soda]

Part of it is that papal primacy may be one thing; infallibility is another. Then there’s the whole Novus ordo thing, but that’s another issue.

you can’t have papal primacy without infallibility. how can you have primacy without infallibility? otherwise you’re basically eastern orthodox who can’t agree on anything since their last recognized council. as a result, they condone contraception. second, the novus ordo is a asthetic issue, not the more important aesthetic one. as a catholic, i can go to a latin novus ordo (ad orientem), tridentine mass, divine liturgy, domican/benedictine/anglican rite, plus all the other eastern rites. we have it all.

I am Roman Catholic. My father and my older sister were/are Episcopalians. So the jibes to me about “justifying my religion” are not only ill-mannered (i.e., snotty), but incorrect.

i don’t care if your parents are worshipers of thos of doom, what does that have to do with anything?

Popular bias is what keeps urban legends going–not to mention old “gospel-true” historical events that never happened.

what have i said that is urban legend? instead of telling me how complicated history is, why not show some evidence that the anglican position is valid. my whole problem with anglo catholics is that they are inconsistent in what they believe. you can’t call yourself catholic unless you’re part of the one universal church founded by Jesus on the rock of the see of Peter. anglicans have no criteria on what they decide to believe or not. they are protestants who appreciate catholic aesthetics.

 

[oat_soda]

Part of it is that papal primacy may be one thing; infallibility is another. Then there’s the whole Novus ordo thing, but that’s another issue.

you can’t have papal primacy without infallibility. otherwise you’re basically eastern orthodox who can’t agree on anything since their last recognized council. as a result, they condone contraception. second, the novus ordo is an esthetic issue, not the more important ascetic one. as a catholic, i can go to a latin novus ordo (ad orientem), tridentine mass, divine liturgy, domican/benedictine/anglican rite, plus all the other eastern rites. we have it all.

I am Roman Catholic. My father and my older sister were/are Episcopalians. So the jibes to me about “justifying my religion” are not only ill-mannered (i.e., snotty), but incorrect.

i don’t care if your parents are worshipers of thos of doom, what does that have to do with anything?

Popular bias is what keeps urban legends going–not to mention old “gospel-true” historical events that never happened.

what have i said that is urban legend? instead of telling me how complicated history is, why not show some evidence that the anglican position is valid. my whole problem with anglo catholics is that they are inconsistent in what they believe. you can’t call yourself catholic unless you’re part of the one universal church founded by Jesus on the rock of the see of Peter. anglicans have no criteria on what they decide to believe or not. they are protestants who appreciate catholic aesthetics. if i’m ignorant of the facts, please show me.

 

[oat_soda]

A not un-representative list. As for the Blessed Sacrament, A-Cs might have experienced Benedication, adoration of the Blessed Body, .

too bad you’re probably worshiping a piece of bread. why not stay at home and stare at some wonder bread? you can save on gas money. this is the most ridiculous thing i ever heard. why are you trying so hard to look catholic but not be catholic? isn’t clearly stated in the bible that Jesus wants all christians to be one?

and might readily affirm Trent, Session XIII, Canon 1, while not objecting overly to Canon 2. This, and all of what you list, may be found easily at my Anglican parish

but then again they might not. why might you accept the council of trent but reject pope leo’s rejection of anglican orders? how do you know the catholic church is right on anything?

 

[GKC]

oat soda:

too bad you’re probably worshiping a piece of bread. why not stay at home and stare at some wonder bread? you can save on gas money

Why the “probably”? You aren’t questioning Apostolicae Curae, are you?

this is the most ridiculous thing i ever heard. why are you trying so hard to look catholic but not be catholic?

Ah, but we are Catholics. Anglican Catholics. Nobody agrees with us, to be sure.

isn’t clearly stated in the bible that Jesus wants all christians to be one? but then again they might not. why might you accept the council of trent but reject pope leo’s rejection of anglican orders? how do you know the catholic church is right on anything?

When you get it right, you get it right. The Real Presence is easily demonstrated scripturally, and in the writings of the ECFs. The judgement against Berengarius was in line with the early Church.

GKC