How has the Anglican Communion gone wrong?

[PRmerger]

The Catechism says that the faithful are to receive the teachings of the church with docility.

Amen!

But we are to question, grapple, and use our reason to come to an understanding of the truth.

The Church does not just put the food on our plates. We must eat it, too. Of our own accord.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Amen!

But we are to question, grapple, and use our reason to come to an understanding of the truth.

The Church does not just put the food on our plates. We must eat it, too. Of our own accord.

I think we talking about two different things. I am not talking about coming to terms with church teaching, wrestling with it or whatever. I am asking, what happens if I do that and genuinely decide that the church erred in some fashion. Just an example-I decide that Transubstantiation is a wrong.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You said truth was LOL…

It pains this birthday boy to say it, but I didn’t understand one word of the initials thing? I must be too brain dead for puzzles tonight!

Yes, LOVE is. Where did I say “something else” is the heart of religion?

BTW: PRmerger:

P-initial of DH
R-initial of me
m-initial of DD#1
e-initial of DD#2
r-initial of DD#3
g-initial of DD#4
e-initial of last name

And “r” added just to make it sound look a noun.

 

[PRmerger]

I think we talking about two different things. I am not talking about coming to terms with church teaching, wrestling with it or whatever. I am asking, what happens if I do that and genuinely decide that the church erred in some fashion. Just an example-I decide that Transubstantiation is a wrong.

I would answer with this question: what do you believe happens if, after wrestling with a teaching, you genuinely decide that Jesus erred in some fashion?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And you’re correct, Johnny, that reason doesn’t enter into this equation. The Catholic is to believe it because the pope said so, end of story. That is the way Catholicism functions. Pope declares, Catholic accepts. Reason and the individual parishoner mulling it over and analyzing it is unnecessary and logic doesn’t enter into it. It’s all faith in the pope being what Catholics believe matt 16:18 says he is.

I think we talking about two different things. I am not talking about coming to terms with church teaching, wrestling with it or whatever. I am asking, what happens if I do that and genuinely decide that the church erred in some fashion. Just an example-I decide that Transubstantiation is a wrong.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If the believer believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God, erring is a non-event impossibility. The pope is not Jesus and it takes faith for the individual to believe what Catholics say the pope is. Jesus as son of God is incapable of error. One would have to reject Jesus completely rather than buy only some of his teachings.

I would answer with this question: what do you believe happens if, after wrestling with a teaching, you genuinely decide that Jesus erred in some fashion?

 

[PRmerger]

And you’re correct, Johnny, that reason doesn’t enter into this equation. The Catholic is to believe it because the pope said so, end of story. That is the way Catholicism functions. Pope declares, Catholic accepts. Reason and the individual parishoner mulling it over and analyzing it is unnecessary and logic doesn’t enter into it. It’s all faith in the pope being what Catholics believe matt 16:18 says he is.

This post shows great contempt for Catholicism, and great ignorance of my faith.

Reason and faith are both wings upon which the human spirit soars to contemplate the truth.

(Not *my *sentiments, BTW, but words of my beloved Holy Father. And words echoing the 2000 year tradition of the Church).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What in the name of the Lord are you talking about PR? Seriously? What are you getting all revved up about? What great contempt for Catholicism is there here? Ignorance of “your” faith? I happen so be back in the Catholic Church muhself here? I struggle with some teachings but am going with the flow of the pope obediently. How could I show contempt for a faith I myself have returned to? I truly don’t see how you got all hoppin’ angry here?

This post shows great contempt for Catholicism, and great ignorance of my faith.

Reason and faith are both wings upon which humans spirit soars to contemplate the truth.

(Not *my *sentiments, BTW, but words of my beloved Holy Father. And words echoing the 2000 year tradition of the Church).

 

[JohnnyReb]

I would answer with this question: what do you believe happens if, after wrestling with a teaching, you genuinely decide that Jesus erred in some fashion?

I would cease to be a Christian. Perhaps I would become an agnostic while I sought what the truth was. I know the CC and Catholics equate what Jesus taught with what Catholics teach. I don’t-at least at the moment, nor do I want this to become a debate about that.

 

[JohnnyReb]

This post shows great contempt for Catholicism, and great ignorance of my faith.

Reason and faith are both wings upon which the human spirit soars to contemplate the truth.

(Not *my *sentiments, BTW, but words of my beloved Holy Father. And words echoing the 2000 year tradition of the Church).

Ok gentlemen, lets take a step back and take a couple of depth breaths shall we? Its almost midnight and I will be going to bed soon anyway. Gurney respects the Catholic church greatly. I don’t think he means any harm. His post does demonstrate how some people view Catholicism. Maybe they misunderstand, but who is responsible for communicating what the church teaches to those not in it?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

PR is getting mad and thinking I am insulting her religion when I’m now a part of it? I am speaking from personal experience as well. I personally have a real problem with a few Church teachings. I seriously don’t find indulgences logical, biblical, or wise. I am choosing to defer to Rome’s wisdom at this point on it. I also don’t like what the catechism says in CCC841 about Islam but I’m defering to the pope on this. I also have trouble with several other things but am trying to be obedient. She is mistaking my statement that obedience is the key ingredient to mean that I think Catholics are dullards who cannot think. Obviously that’s NOT what I’m saying; I am saying that obedience trumps individual wisdom and conclusions of individual logic. That is obviously true, right?

Ok gentlemen, lets take a step back and take a couple of depth breaths shall we? Its almost midnight and I will be going to bed soon anyway. Gurney respects the Catholic church greatly. I don’t think he means any harm. His post does demonstrate how some people view Catholicism. Maybe they misunderstand, but who is responsible for communicating what the church teaches to those not in it?

 

[JohnnyReb]

You and I ever disagree about anything? Parish the thought.

Hey Johnny,

It’s pretty rare when we disagree but I think you’re right, we do diverge here. The Assemblies of God and other Protestants pay lip service to Augustine, Aquinas, and even Anselm and the boys in seminary, but do they choose to look at targeted beliefs from those fathers and saints or do they look at the complete picture? That’s what I’m saying. I’m not saying Protestants are dullards who have no clue about the fathers. But I am saying that these seminaries tend to target one aspect and not the whole picture. For example, let’s take St. Augustine of Hippo. Protestants, beginning with Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Calvin, Zwingli and the other Reformers, looked at very specific, targeted teachings of Augustine—predestination, the fallen and corrupt nature of humanity, grace, justification through faith, etc. They focus on those things more than anything else because they want support for their agenda. They neglect to discuss how Augustine was emphatically pro-Rome, pro-episcopal polity only, and accepted Catholic views on so many other things.

I do think your point is valid. In our seminary it was about finding early Christian evidence for our doctrines-entire sanctification, Baptism in the Holy Ghost, etc…they do use the earliest Christians as a means of supporting their beliefs, and attempting to show that those beliefs have basis in early Christian thought and antiquity.

Some of these seminaries might study the Fathers to see how they fought against gnosticism or arianism, but do they focus on the Eucharistic views of the Fathers or their views on the episcopacy, the sacrifice of the Mass, works with faith, sacramental theology, and the rest? That’s my point. They might quote Ignatius of Antioch to support their own view of “orthodoxy” in one area but they’ll ignore Ignatius’s statements that the flock should regard the Bishop of their diocese as Christ Himself!

They will ignore the statement or at the very least “reinterpret” Ignatius statement. While the Catholic beliefs are well attested to by the Fathers on such things as Episcopal polity, the Eucharist etc…(you get no issues from me there)-their views I have found are NOT uniform. There is plenty of evidence that there is basis for such beliefs as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. No I do not believe these statements are being misinterpreted. When it is shown that other “Fathers” held to Catholic beliefs, it just shows that the church was not as uniform-and to argue so requires some revisionist history to be written.

As to the other discussion, is the Holy Spirit using Evangelicals? I don’t know? I think one could try to make the case that the Holy Spirit is guiding Mormons and JW’s and I would wholly disagree but it’s all speculation. Tough to tell what the HS is doing.

Certainly it can be. That is why we must seek the Lord individually and corporately as much as we can. I guess my point is that Evangelicalism shows the biggest gains among Orthodox Christians-which would exclude JWs, Mormons. I think this is rooted in Evangelicalisms missionary Ethos, and reliance on the power of God to empower them in their witness. The Assemblies of God were founded in 1914. Today they have over 75 million members worldwide, about 2 million in the USA. At one time Catholicism had a healthy missionary zeal to it, but it doesn’t seem that way anymore. Perhaps the church needs to recover it.

Is Catholicism growing solely because of Latinos? Possibly. But so are evangelical groups…I think Catholic media like EWTN, Catholic Answers, and all the other outlets are also having a positive impact. After September 11th a lot of people in my area re-evaluated their lives and there was a tremendous spike in attendance that didn’t just spike temporarily, it stuck. We’ve had this HUUUUGE attendance ever since 9/11 and the people in these parts have stuck to it I think.

I worded what I said poorly. Latinos are having a huge impact on Catholic growth in America, but I do see other means. I do acknowledge that Catholicism does grow by conversion, birth rate etc…I do not have the numbers in front of me, but I was shown evidence at one time that among native born Americans, those practicing the Catholic faith have and continue to drop (unfortunately). Up to 10 percent of America is now made up of “former Catholics” , according to that info.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I would say it takes faith to accept Catholicism and all Papal teachings, as required by LUMEN GENTIUM.

When considering Catholicism, I can see some good and “reasonable” arguments justifying the Catholic view regarding the “Chair of Peter.” Yet, I can turn to Orthodox writings and also find good and “reasonable” arguments regarding their views on the “primacy of Peter.”

In order to convert to Catholicism, I would have to have faith that the Pope holds the authority he claims to hold.

For all, in Covenant with the Holy Trinity, it has always been about Faith.

Hebrews 11
1Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3By **faith **we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

4By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks. 5By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. 6And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. 7By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.

8By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9By **faith **he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. 10For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. 11By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. 12Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.

13These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.

17By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, 18of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 19 He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. 20By faith Isaac invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau. 21By faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, bowing in worship over the head of his staff. 22By faith Joseph, at the end of his life, made mention of the exodus of the Israelites and gave directions concerning his bones.

23By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw that the child was beautiful, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict. 24By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, 25 choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward. 27By faith he left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king, for he endured as seeing him who is invisible. 28By faith he kept the Passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the Destroyer of the firstborn might not touch them.

29By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as on dry land, but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned. 30By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days. 31By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies.

32And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— 33who through **faith **conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. 35 Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. 36Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated— 38of whom the world was not worthy— wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.

39And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

 

[Anna_Scott]

**“Reason” **is a tricky area. As so clearly demonstrated by our Thread topic, TEC is using “reason” to arrive at certain conclusions. Documents are being written to approach the Scriptures with “reason” and what are considered, by some, as logical deductions derived from Biblical principles—i.e. the claim that same-gender relationships are not a sin. I do not have **faith **in the “reasoning” used to arrive at such conclusions. Here, I think reason fails.

Which brings us back to FAITH.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Exactly. And that’s all I was trying to say to PR. Faith is the prime ingredient that moves us all to religion—Catholic, Protestant, Othodox, heck even Hindu or Muslim. Our faith sustains us because it’s not about ‘proof.’

I think feelings, emotions, and sentiment play a mammoth role but many don’t like to acknowledge that I think. In a religious forum, people tend to be well-read, philosophical, history buffs, and debaters. You can grab some Orthodox and Catholics and let 'em argue the papacy till they’re blue in the face. They’ll do it all day. Inevitably they’ll use quotes from the Fathers, some from the Bible, a ton from other learned saints, history, etc. But where the rubber hits the road is faith. There are a few posters in here who have even phd’s and they can’t figure out the truth. Christ tells us the “wise” don’t always “get it.” Sometimes they get tripped up by their intellect and pridefulness. So it’s a toughie. I think my own brain (not like I’m saying I’m Bill Gates here! ) can be my own worst enemy sometimes. And my emotions play a huge part. And they combine with my intellect to make me shaky.

I think images as a child influence me—the crucifix, the stations, my prayer book I’d read at Mass, what my family would tell me, the smell of incense, always the belief there that I was attending the True Church and the others that my friends belonged to as a kid were groups that had strayed from the True Church into pridefulness. I always thought that as a kid. Hearing an Ave Maria, seeing the “collar,” they are emotions that play a part. And I think there are comfortable images, memories, elements that play a role in Orthodoxy (though they’d likely NOT admit it) and with Anglicans and Lutherans and the rest as well to some degree.

But in the end, hopefully faith trumps everything and the Holy Spirit doesn’t just make us “wise” but make us “faithful” and “humble.” That’s what I pray for.

**“Reason” **is a tricky area. As so clearly demonstrated by our Thread topic, TEC is using “reason” to arrive at certain conclusions. Documents are being written to approach the Scriptures with “reason” and what are considered, by some, as logical deductions derived from Biblical principles—i.e. the claim that same-gender relationships are not a sin. I do not have **faith **in the “reasoning” used to arrive at such conclusions. Here, I think reason fails.

Which brings us back to FAITH.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Exactly. And that’s all I was trying to say to PR. Faith is the prime ingredient that moves us all to religion—Catholic, Protestant, Othodox, heck even Hindu or Muslim. Our faith sustains us because it’s not about ‘proof.’

I think feelings, emotions, and sentiment play a mammoth role but many don’t like to acknowledge that I think. In a religious forum, people tend to be well-read, philosophical, history buffs, and debaters. You can grab some Orthodox and Catholics and let 'em argue the papacy till they’re blue in the face. They’ll do it all day. Inevitably they’ll use quotes from the Fathers, some from the Bible, a ton from other learned saints, history, etc. But where the rubber hits the road is faith. There are a few posters in here who have even phd’s and they can’t figure out the truth. Christ tells us the “wise” don’t always “get it.” Sometimes they get tripped up by their intellect and pridefulness. So it’s a toughie. I think my own brain (not like I’m saying I’m Bill Gates here! ) can be my own worst enemy sometimes. And my emotions play a huge part. And they combine with my intellect to make me shaky.

I think images as a child influence me—the crucifix, the stations, my prayer book I’d read at Mass, what my family would tell me, the smell of incense, always the belief there that I was attending the True Church and the others that my friends belonged to as a kid were groups that had strayed from the True Church into pridefulness. I always thought that as a kid. Hearing an Ave Maria, seeing the “collar,” they are emotions that play a part. And I think there are comfortable images, memories, elements that play a role in Orthodoxy (though they’d likely NOT admit it) and with Anglicans and Lutherans and the rest as well to some degree.

But in the end, hopefully faith trumps everything and the Holy Spirit doesn’t just make us “wise” but make us “faithful” and “humble.” That’s what I pray for.

Gurney,
I can always count on you to speak honestly and openly.

I think one of the things you and I have in common, on the forums, is that our struggles in the Christian journey have played out very publicly. I’m not sure that has worked to our advantage in the way we are perceived by others; but we do keep plugging along–dealing with the issues regardless of how gut wrenching they may be.

PRmerger was right that we do have to “question, grapple, and use our reason to come to an understanding of the truth.” Yet, in Catholicism, it seems that at the end of the “questioning, grappling, and reasoning”; you’re expected to arrive at the truth presented to you by the Magisterium. So, when all is said and done; it takes faith to seal the deal.

Still a work in progress,
Anna

 

[fkjuliano]

In the final analysis, our Anglican friends went wrong when the tyrant Henry VIII decided to create an English Church separate from the rest of the Catholic communion and then usurped the authority of the Pope and faithful local bishops to himself. Everything that went wrong after that, including “marriage” of sodomites, flowed naturally from that damnable act.

 

[Anna_Scott]

In the final analysis, our Anglican friends went wrong when the tyrant Henry VIII decided to create an English Church separate from the rest of the Catholic communion and then usurped the authority of the Pope and faithful local bishops to himself. Everything that went wrong after that, including “marriage” of sodomites, flowed naturally from that damnable act.

fkjuliano,
I think that is an oversimplification of Anglican history. Remember the Orthodox removed themselves from Papal authority, as well; and they have managed to hold on to Christian orthodoxy rather well.

Anna

Edited to add P.S.: Florida and Brazil? I’m really jealous.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree with Anna that this is Anglican history uber Reader’s Digest version soundbyte edition. The Anglicans would tell you that a Church existed in England very, very early on that pre-existed Rome’s occupation. So the Anglicans don’t see any sense of usurping the Pope but rather “taking back” their Church. That’s their angle.

As for a “damnable act,” that is debatable. I’m not a fan of how the English Reformation was handled one bit. The treatment of Catholic clergy, episcopal and pastoral, was outrageous and inhuman. I find the Calvinist infiltration of theology disturbing, and the way it unfolded over the next couple of centuries, with the exception of Hooker and Andrewes, wasn’t that pretty either.

But I also think the pope’s excommunication of Elizabeth I was a foolish blunder that put a wedge between the English recusants trying to revive Catholicism and their loyalty to the throne, which ended up doing more harm than good to English Catholicism. I think papal attitudes and actions with Elizabeth and the English government were disastrous.

England was a bloody place, sadly. The English Catholics were brutalized by Henry, Edward, Elizabeth, James, and Mary was quite the butcher with the Anglicans. And before the Reformation Sir Thomas Moore’s time was quite full of executions.

The Reformation was “complicated” as GKC would say

In the final analysis, our Anglican friends went wrong when the tyrant Henry VIII decided to create an English Church separate from the rest of the Catholic communion and then usurped the authority of the Pope and faithful local bishops to himself. Everything that went wrong after that, including “marriage” of sodomites, flowed naturally from that damnable act.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I agree with Anna that this is Anglican history uber Reader’s Digest version soundbyte edition. The Anglicans would tell you that a Church existed in England very, very early on that pre-existed Rome’s occupation. So the Anglicans don’t see any sense of usurping the Pope but rather “taking back” their Church. That’s their angle.

As for a “damnable act,” that is debatable. I’m not a fan of how the English Reformation was handled one bit. The treatment of Catholic clergy, episcopal and pastoral, was outrageous and inhuman. I find the Calvinist infiltration of theology disturbing, and the way it unfolded over the next couple of centuries, with the exception of Hooker and Andrewes, wasn’t that pretty either.

But I also think the pope’s excommunication of Elizabeth I was a foolish blunder that put a wedge between the English recusants trying to revive Catholicism and their loyalty to the throne, which ended up doing more harm than good to English Catholicism. I think papal attitudes and actions with Elizabeth and the English government were disastrous.

England was a bloody place, sadly. The English Catholics were brutalized by Henry, Edward, Elizabeth, James, and Mary was quite the butcher with the Anglicans. And before the Reformation Sir Thomas Moore’s time was quite full of executions.

The Reformation was “complicated” as GKC would say

For a moment there, I thought I was reading GKC. Where is he, btw?
Anna