Regarding Anglicans: Have I got this right?

[GKC]

The Baltimore Catechism I read doesn’t have that language.

GKC

In reference to the “New York Catechism” that has been the subject of discussion, is it possible that it was the Baltimore Catechism that was in use during the times mentioned?

The Baltimore Catechism was one of the first Catechisms used by the CC in this country.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not going to take the time to reply to each reply. You would simply refer to any author that I cite as spurious or a moron since it wouldn’t jive with your pre-conceived notions about the Celtic Church. I’m sure if I ever mentioned Eamon Duffy in a debate about pre-Reformation England, you’d denounce him as a goon.

You know full-well that I was referring to the Bishop of Rome and that the Celtic Church revered and respected him. When I said “roman” western Christendom, you assume I meant it religiously. Roman–politically. The Roman Empire did exist at that time. Hopefully you wouldn’t dispute that. The Christendom that was in the British Isles, largely monastic at that time, was loyal to Rome. After the fall of Rome it became more insular and developed its own traditions for a while. I already talked about this. And when you say, “congrats, at least it’s finally starting to sink in,” I was being fececious and sarcastic, not serious.

When you make a statement that the Church in England came from the East, you’ve lost all credibility with me. Nonsense. Next thing you’ll tell me the Lost Ark is buried somewhere outside of Glasgow.

I find it terribly rude how you choose to call my study of things a “perusal” while somehow your inquiries into the history of Western Christendom are intense and deep. You assume someone with a different view of history than yours to be a ninny who peruses with Cliff Notes. I find you to be an intelligent guy, please don’t be condescending with me and do me the injustice of thinking me a fool. Your characterizations of the British having a disrespect for the papacy are wild and the opinions of a few do not constitute a majority. And as for “Anglo Catholic rubbish,” wow, what to even say to that? Now that you’ve alienated an entire segment of the Anglican communion and the Oxford Movement Tractarians, etc. I’m befuddled as to how to repond to that at all.

You also fail to mention in your comments that Honorious was anathemized forty years AFTER HIS DEATH. The British were loyal to his pontificate while he was Bishop of Rome. I didn’t say they worshipped his every decree.

I will also say that just because you have not heard of a historian or writer does not make the said writer suspicious. This is the height of arrogance. As a teacher, I feel that I am always learning, never all-wise or all-encompasing enough to know every single historian or scholarly source.

I suppose you will also proceed to tell me that the Anglican Church that was created at the time of the Reformation, more specifically during the time of Elizabeth I, was a re-creation of the long-lost Celtic Church that Rome had “ruined?” And would you also say that women’s ordination, ordination of openly-gay clergy, elevating women to bishoprics, indaba meetings, overlapping boundaries, contraception, and no penitential system were also part of the Celtic Church?

There wasn’t a ‘Roman’, Western Christendom at that time! [First six hundred yrs.] Only the Catholic Church.There was a Bishop of Rome who was Western Patriarch, who was no more than the Emperors Civil Servant for the duration of the states residence in Rome or the West! Whilst he was probably respected as patriarch, he doesn’t appear to have known much about Britain?
Certainly the rest of the Church outside Italy didn’t pay a great deal of attention to him either,otherwise why should he resort to the Stasi, as in the case of S.Hilary. Or why would he need to resort to the state at all?

Well, congratulations! At last it is beginning to sink in!
If it wasn’t so, why did William the Butcher receive the blessing of the papacy and remove all the Saxon Hierarchy on his conquering England, as well as removing all the abbots and senior churchmen?

It probably never entered their head, it was a different world and you’r
twisting it to fit in a 21st Century frame of mind.

What Patrick Wormald writes about is his business, as it is I’ve never heard of him which I find most suspicious.The Historians who are known and respected, such as Collier say slightly different thing, as you can imagine. Further, even you’r early Roman commentators such as Parsons, tell us that the Church in England came from the East!

Everyone and every manifestation of the Catholic Church has its own characteristics, look at Rome as an instance, the Church in Britain was no different. It did however help bring Christ to the Northern Europeans and it was independent of Rome. Did your perusal of Wormald tell you that it was not till very late before the Celtic Church in Britain [9th, Cent, ] even admitted Continental Catholics to Communion. In Ireland it was after the Conquest!
There are two letters from S.Columbanus Continental or Latin, shortcomings as regards tolerance where the question of Easterwas discussed! Also, he took the Pope to task for his attitude regarding the Three Chapters were concerned! Telling the pope,“For Christ’s sake clear your reputation which is mangled amongst the nations.” He said furtther, regarding Pope Vigilius and the 5th, General Council,“If you know that Vigilius himself died so infected,[of heresy], why do you in conscience attest him”.
Does it look as though the British Catholics held any regard for the Bishop of Rome? They were polite as to his Church given prerogatives, but that is all.

.
Loyal to Honorius who was anathamatised by the 6th, Council? A heretic? Nonsense

**My aunt, God Bless Her, used to say that," there are men of Ireland and Irish men!" I totally agree with her! Both Kelly and Moorman are modern writers who have absorbed all the Anglo Catholic rubbish of their times and have lost all idea of the true nature of the Church! They are Neo Anglicans, not tradionalists.

I do not criticise you for their lack of knowledge or understanding!.**

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

So then are the writings and teachings of Bishop Spong fair game in characterizing the theology, nature of, and beliefs of Anglicanism? Anything is fair game? Hans Kung’s writings are fair game in understanding the teachings of Catholicism?

Even, offical, semi offical or non offical teachings of the Roman Catholic Church can be caught out . Roman Bishops in 1810 in a Synodical Declaration stated, “Infallibility not part of Catholic Religion” Whilst, Keenens Catechism, declared “Infallibility” to be a protestant invention.!
Bet they had egg on their faces?
What it means is circumstances alter cases?

 

[Bluegoat]

I suppose you will also proceed to tell me that the Anglican Church that was created at the time of the Reformation, more specifically during the time of Elizabeth I, was a re-creation of the long-lost Celtic Church that Rome had “ruined?” And would you also say that women’s ordination, ordination of openly-gay clergy, elevating women to bishoprics, indaba meetings, overlapping boundaries, contraception, and no penitential system were also part of the Celtic Church?

I’m not sure that for the more sensible, the point of bringing up the Celtic Church is to say that what happened in the Reformation tried to somehow recreate it. Rather, it points to a rejection of a political/theological understanding of the papacy that has it’s basis in history. Catholics regularly argue that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ, and the Church is meant to be unified, and so we all ought to be Catholic. But of course the Early Church was not unified in the same way that we see the unity of the modern Catholic Church, and the Celtic Church is one example of this earlier relationship. I think it is a better example if one considers it in conjunction with the Orthodox model - really, the period of “strong” rule of Britain by Rome and the Vatican was quite short in the great scheme of things.

But some people do seem to try to get more out of it than it really can bear.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

While I understand your point, I think history points more to the fact that unity of Catholicism was indeed based on obedience and respect for Rome. Historical barbarian invasions mitigated some years of a firm relationship with Rome but essentially all of the Church in the early centuries yielded to Rome. This has been hotly debated in here for years but, in the end, there is a wealth of evidence that the Bishop of Rome was the final say in all matters. And I’d say, respectfully, that the fruit that has been born out of the “we can have non-papal Catholicism and still be Catholics” has been rotten indeed. We have realignment after realignment, massive amounts of heresy from TEC, lay “consecrations” in Australia, women being “ordained” in many if not most provinces (even Africa is jumping on board the PC bandwagon!), horrible attendance numbers, Anglican groups suing the pants off one another, overlapping bishoprics from different provinces claiming a diocese, low church evangelicals strong-arming high church anglo-catholics/marginalizing anglo-catholics, secular values dictating Anglican beliefs, and an overall incoherence of doctrine as it were. This fruit has come from the non-papal Catholicism belief. Orthodox have gone centuries increasing their numbers in trickles, keeping very quiet at a global level on morality yielding to the Holy Father to be the voice of Christendom, and their missionary efforts and spreading of the Great Commission is light years behind Catholicism.

The “Celtic Church” was brought to the British Isles by Roman legions and the Roman Church long after Claudius invaded Great Britain. It was established by Romans and didn’t appear out of thin air. The episcopal oversight in England was established by Roman missionaries and they were loyal to Rome. Around 410 the Romans withdrew from Britain for obvious reasons. Until 597 the Church in England was alone without Roman interaction that we know of. Did they declare themselves free of the Roman Catholic Church during this time? Was there a rebellion and assertion of a new, independent Church or just a sad de facto parting for a time due to barbarians and war?

All missionary activity in Ireland and England during the Saxon times between 410 and 597 or so were from Rome. St. Patrick was loyal to Rome as a missionary there. For goodness sakes he was a relative of St. Martin of Tours. At the synod of Whitby in 664, despite debate about some small matters, the Celtic contingent yielded to Rome.

Bottom line from the Catholic point of view is this:
Celtic Church was established by Roman missionaries, supported by Rome for centuries, invaded for a brief amount of time and cut off from Rome in a time of persecution, when given the chance to reunite with Rome it did quickly. There was no utopia of non-papal Catholicism basking in the ‘freedom’ of not being linked with the pope. It was not what Anglicans imagine it. It was Roman Catholic.

I’m not sure that for the more sensible, the point of bringing up the Celtic Church is to say that what happened in the Reformation tried to somehow recreate it. Rather, it points to a rejection of a political/theological understanding of the papacy that has it’s basis in history. Catholics regularly argue that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ, and the Church is meant to be unified, and so we all ought to be Catholic. But of course the Early Church was not unified in the same way that we see the unity of the modern Catholic Church, and the Celtic Church is one example of this earlier relationship. I think it is a better example if one considers it in conjunction with the Orthodox model - really, the period of “strong” rule of Britain by Rome and the Vatican was quite short in the great scheme of things.

But some people do seem to try to get more out of it than it really can bear.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

rYou would simply refer to any author that I cite as spurious or a moron since it wouldn’t jive with your pre-conceived notions about the Celtic Church. I’m sure if I ever mentioned Eamon Duffy in a debate about pre-Reformation England, you’d denounce him as a goon.

I would not denounce Duffy as a goon, you’r getting over excited! Duffy, whose books I read, has his own ideas, they do not have to be correct in every aspect, to be interesting,do they? The Reformation is not an easy subject to study, especially if you read Anglo Catholic literature, which I try not to, from the middle or last quarter of the 19th, Cent, Anglo Catholic ideas changed! This progressed rapidly in the later years of the 20th, Cent, whereas ,I, have always followed the High Church School, which is more traditional!

You know full-well that I was referring to the Bishop of Rome and that the Celtic Church revered and respected him. When I said “roman” western Christendom, you assume I meant it religiously. Roman–politically. The Roman Empire did exist at that time. Hopefully you wouldn’t dispute that. The Christendom that was in the British Isles, largely monastic at that time, was loyal to Rome. After the fall of Rome it became more insular and developed its own traditions for a while. I already talked about this. And when you say, “congrats, at least it’s finally starting to sink in,” I was being fececious and sarcastic, not serious.

**!So was I, as it happened.
Yesterday, I sent a post regarding the attitude of the early Church in these Isles, the Celtic Church, or the Catholic Church in the British Isles. I cited S.Romanus, don’t know what happened to it, must be the weather. I referrred to him, because he is an accepted saint, who is internationally known and wrote at least two letters to the pope on matters pertaining to the Church and there was no idea given that he was speaking to anyone but a bishop. He was polite but firm.

**

When you make a statement that the Church in England came from the East, you’ve lost all credibility with me. Nonsense. Next thing you’ll tell me the Lost Ark is buried somewhere outside of Glasgow.

**Regarding your comments above, I’m at a loss!

Glasgow, by the way, is not in England, it is Scottish!

The comments came from Robert Parsons or Persons, a well known Roman author and apologist of the Elizabethan Age. Three Conversions of Britain.] Bede [740] writes that the “Celts , are contrary to the whole Roman World and enemies to the Roman Customs,not only in their mass but in their tonsure!”
Polydore Virgil, a Roman historian, comments,“Britain partly through Arimathea, was the first that received Christianity.” Not to emphasise Arimathea, it was still thought that the Faith came from the East! Unless, you want to claim that Arimathea and or Simon Zelotes came from Rome! [Orthodox Martyrology] .The Roman, General Councils of Pisa, Constance , Vienne all claim that Christianity came from the East to Britain!
**
I find it terribly rude how you choose to call my study of things a “perusal” while somehow your inquiries into the history of Western Christendom are intense and deep. You assume someone with a different view of history than yours to be a ninny who peruses with Cliff Notes. I find you to be an intelligent guy, please don’t be condescending with me and do me the injustice of thinking me a fool. Your characterizations of the British having a disrespect for the papacy are wild and the opinions of a few do not constitute a majority. And as for “Anglo Catholic rubbish,” wow, what to even say to that? Now that you’ve alienated an entire segment of the Anglican communion and the Oxford Movement Tractarians, etc. I’m befuddled as to how to repond to that at all.

**I’m sorry you have the thoughts you manifest above, you misunderstood, I have never classed you in the same league as some on this board but that’s you business, I’m sorry. How-and-ever,the English attitude towards the papacy is a matter of history and should not be viewed through a fit of hysterics either!
Regarding the English Anglo Catholics? The papacy is welcome to them as far as I am concerned, at a time of struggle for the faith, they dithered and were definetly found wanting! You mention the Oxford Movement and the Tractarians? Now you are found wanting, if only in understanding, these people were,for the most part, High Church men originally! Their strain of A/C, developed much later.
**

You also fail to mention in your comments that Honorious was anathemized forty years AFTER HIS DEATH. The British were loyal to his pontificate while he was Bishop of Rome. I didn’t say they worshipped his every decree.

The British were ,‘loyal,’ as you term it to the ‘Primate of the West,’ as the Councils refer to him. So am I and the Church in England, it is his political and theological adventures that put people off!

Again, the early provenance of the Church in Britain, is a matter of history and all your efforts to distort it will not avail. Two thousand years
can’t be hidden friend or denied successfully!
To be a Catholic, one has to believe in the faith of the early Church of the Apostles and Councils.That many Anglicans have fallen away is true enough, but Rome is willing to take them in? What does that say to you?
Also from a group that was formed by a coup at Trent your comments leave a lot to think about!

 

[Bluegoat]

While I understand your point, I think history points more to the fact that unity of Catholicism was indeed based on obedience and respect for Rome. Historical barbarian invasions mitigated some years of a firm relationship with Rome but essentially all of the Church in the early centuries yielded to Rome. This has been hotly debated in here for years but, in the end, there is a wealth of evidence that the Bishop of Rome was the final say in all matters. And I’d say, respectfully, that the fruit that has been born out of the “we can have non-papal Catholicism and still be Catholics” has been rotten indeed. We have realignment after realignment, massive amounts of heresy from TEC, lay “consecrations” in Australia, women being “ordained” in many if not most provinces (even Africa is jumping on board the PC bandwagon!), horrible attendance numbers, Anglican groups suing the pants off one another, overlapping bishoprics from different provinces claiming a diocese, low church evangelicals strong-arming high church anglo-catholics/marginalizing anglo-catholics, secular values dictating Anglican beliefs, and an overall incoherence of doctrine as it were. This fruit has come from the non-papal Catholicism belief. Orthodox have gone centuries increasing their numbers in trickles, keeping very quiet at a global level on morality yielding to the Holy Father to be the voice of Christendom, and their missionary efforts and spreading of the Great Commission is light years behind Catholicism.

The “Celtic Church” was brought to the British Isles by Roman legions and the Roman Church long after Claudius invaded Great Britain. It was established by Romans and didn’t appear out of thin air. The episcopal oversight in England was established by Roman missionaries and they were loyal to Rome. Around 410 the Romans withdrew from Britain for obvious reasons. Until 597 the Church in England was alone without Roman interaction that we know of. Did they declare themselves free of the Roman Catholic Church during this time? Was there a rebellion and assertion of a new, independent Church or just a sad de facto parting for a time due to barbarians and war?

All missionary activity in Ireland and England during the Saxon times between 410 and 597 or so were from Rome. St. Patrick was loyal to Rome as a missionary there. For goodness sakes he was a relative of St. Martin of Tours. At the synod of Whitby in 664, despite debate about some small matters, the Celtic contingent yielded to Rome.

Bottom line from the Catholic point of view is this:
Celtic Church was established by Roman missionaries, supported by Rome for centuries, invaded for a brief amount of time and cut off from Rome in a time of persecution, when given the chance to reunite with Rome it did quickly. There was no utopia of non-papal Catholicism basking in the ‘freedom’ of not being linked with the pope. It was not what Anglicans imagine it. It was Roman Catholic.

I think we need to be careful about equating “Roman” with “Roman Catholic”. It seems to me to be making any number of assumptions. A bunch of Roman soldiers bringing their religion with them is not the same at all as a mission from the Roman Church, and implying that it is tends to make the argument stronger than it deserves. If I move to Mars and teach the Martians about Christianity, that does not make them members of the Anglican Communion. We really don’t know very much about the earliest Christians in Britain - yes, it seems likely they were transplanted Romans. To say more is speculating.

Clearly there has been an issue with retaining catholicity in the Anglican Church. Is it really due to cutting ties with Rome? I wouldn’t say yes definitively on this, since the East cut ties with Rome long ago and has not had the same problem. I think there are other factors at play. I have wondered if it is not related to ways of thinking inherited from Catholicism itself, that is to say Western Christianity.

And I would never try to argue that there shouldn’t be an important place for the Roman pontif. But to say that is NOT to say that it is the place now claimed, which is not one I have seen made convincingly.

I often hear the bizarre argument that we can trust this version of events because Peter was given the authority by Christ, and when asked how we know that is the correct interpretation of those traditions and scriptural references, the answer is that it is how the CC interprets them so it must be true. Talk about begging the question!

 

[GKC]

Naw. I don’t think I have time to follow up on this. I’ll delete it.

GKC

 

[manualman]

Justy,

The reason people are so worked up over your citation is that it includes a concept utterly foreign to catholicism. I’ve been a catholic all my 39 years, went through catholic schools, read the catechism and NEVER came across anybody that taught that the pope IS christ for us.

My understanding is that the pope is the successor of Saint Peter. As such he retains that special role of holding the “keys of the Kingdom” and still today has the assignment of “whose sins you forgive on earth will be forgiven in heaven and whose sins you retain on earth will be forgiven in heaven.” (parapharase from memory) He holds a position unique among the bishops as shown in Acts of the Apostles when he clearly ‘holds the gavel’ (so to speak) in the Jerusalem councils of the apostles. We believe Jesus meant something special when he “breathed on” Peter and told him to “feed my sheep” and that this assignment was for Peter’s OFFICE, not just the person.

I’m no scholar myself, but I’ve learned that there is always a danger in trusting a citation you read in somebody else’s book. Scholars are supposed to go to the primary source and verify it, not use secondary (is that the word for it GKC?) citations as you did. Us amatuers use secondary citations all the time, but we DO need to be careful when doing so to make sure we are using only trustworthy ones.

Catholics must beware of this as well, I’ve found that some of the citations in Mssgr. O’Hare’s “The Facts About Luther” have been found to be difficult to verify at best upon examination. Boettner simply isn’t a guy to trust on such matters. He appears to have been guilty of using secondary citations himself without checking (assuming the best of him). Unlike you and I, he IS claiming to be a scholar and there is no excuse for such a shortcut for him.

 

[GKC]

Primary sources are best, yes. In this case, the primary source would be the supposed New York Catechism itself. Anything else would be secondary. But secondary sources can be satisfactory and often are the ones used, in more popular works. In this case, a good secondary source would be a neutral work (and that could be RC, like Duffy, Anglican, like Kelly, or Orthodox, like Pelikan. Or like Pelikan when he as Lutheran). To be a satisfactory secondary source would require some info as to the original source, not merely a name, as Boettner did. Boettner actually possessed the credentials to produce a satisfactory secondary source, as he did in his book on reformed theology. But he failed that standard in ROMAN CATHOLICISM.

Your comment about Fr. O’Hare, on Luther, is a good example of a problematic source.

And I agree. The quote doesn’t pass the smell test.

GKC

,

Justy,

The reason people are so worked up over your citation is that it includes a concept utterly foreign to catholicism. I’ve been a catholic all my 39 years, went through catholic schools, read the catechism and NEVER came across anybody that taught that the pope IS christ for us.

My understanding is that the pope is the successor of Saint Peter. As such he retains that special role of holding the “keys of the Kingdom” and still today has the assignment of “whose sins you forgive on earth will be forgiven in heaven and whose sins you retain on earth will be forgiven in heaven.” (parapharase from memory) He holds a position unique among the bishops as shown in Acts of the Apostles when he clearly ‘holds the gavel’ (so to speak) in the Jerusalem councils of the apostles. We believe Jesus meant something special when he “breathed on” Peter and told him to “feed my sheep” and that this assignment was for Peter’s OFFICE, not just the person.

I’m no scholar myself, but I’ve learned that there is always a danger in trusting a citation you read in somebody else’s book. Scholars are supposed to go to the primary source and verify it, not use secondary (is that the word for it GKC?) citations as you did. Us amatuers use secondary citations all the time, but we DO need to be careful when doing so to make sure we are using only trustworthy ones.

Catholics must beware of this as well, I’ve found that some of the citations in Mssgr. O’Hare’s “The Facts About Luther” have been found to be difficult to verify at best upon examination. Boettner simply isn’t a guy to trust on such matters. He appears to have been guilty of using secondary citations himself without checking (assuming the best of him). Unlike you and I, he IS claiming to be a scholar and there is no excuse for such a shortcut for him.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Justy,

My understanding is that the pope is the successor of Saint Peter. As such he retains that special role of holding the “keys of the Kingdom” and still today has the assignment of “whose sins you forgive on earth will be forgiven in heaven and whose sins you retain on earth will be forgiven in heaven.” (parapharase from memory)

**B]The question now arises where does this appear in the Scriptures? It is not supported in Holy Tradition! i.e. the Ecumenical Councils [7 of them.] Neither amongst fathers in the first 4 Centuries! **

He holds a position unique among the bishops as shown in Acts of the Apostles when he clearly ‘holds the gavel’ (so to speak) in the Jerusalem councils of the apostles. We believe Jesus meant something special when he “breathed on” Peter and told him to “feed my sheep” and that this assignment was for Peter’s OFFICE, not just the person./

**“We believe Jesus meant something special”?
Well you might, but when something as especial as this turns up some 3.or 4 hundred years after the event, as Catholics we are obliged to ask,‘Where is the proof?’
After all, it was The Bishop of Jerusalem, an apostle of his ,‘brother Christ,’ who decided the matter and spoke to the crowd at Jerusalem, [Acts 15.] Even before that history scripture, shows us quite clearly that the Bishop of Rome played no part, if there was a question to be solved why was not the current pope called in to play, after all it was a major crisis? It was S.James, who chaired the meeting, who when S’s Barnabas and Paul had made their contribution, gave the authoritive decision saying,’ My sentence is we trouble not them…but we write to them. His decision was made the Act of the Council. Further the Council used significant language,'It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us!" Where does this leave the Bishop of Rome?
Again in the quote ,“Feed My Sheep,” you believe,? With all due respect we need something more than your personal beliefs. Vincent of Lerins tells us to look to the Fathers and Councils,not to Fathers of the middle ages, but revelation and Councils.

**

I’m no scholar myself, but I’ve learned that there is always a danger in trusting a citation you read in somebody else’s book. Scholars are supposed to go to the primary source and verify it, not use secondary (is that the word for it GKC?) citations as you did. Us amatuers use secondary citations all the time, but we DO need to be careful when doing so to make sure we are using only trustworthy ones.

**
Most interesting and I for one agree, but there is more in to it than just these simple rules!

Trent, one of your Councils held that scripture must be seen and understood through the teachings of the fathers and Councils! rough trans.]Yet very few of the Romans on this thread do it **!

 

[manualman]

luckyfredsdad,

Naturally you and I don’t agree on the papacy. My intent was not to hurl down dogma and demand that Justy (or you or anybody else) accept it, but to contrast what he posted with the actual teaching of the catholic church. Whether or not you agree with my (admittedly amatuer) description of the catholic view of the papacy, you must admit that it bears no resemblance to the strawman constructed in the (apparently) fradulent quote Justy cited from Boettner.

Nor do I intend to further sidetrack the thread debating the actual catholic position. That’s been done over and over by people far more elquent than myself. To the OP’s question: Yes, Anglicans thinking about ‘going Rome’ ARE going to have to resolve the problem of authority before converting. If you haven’t come to be convinced that God really did intend there to be a Vicar of Christ (pope) on earth then you aren’t ready to cross the Tiber.

 

[emeraldcoast]

If you haven’t come to be convinced that God really did intend there to be a Vicar of Christ (pope) on earth then you aren’t ready to cross the Tiber.

I agree!

Merry Christmas!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well just a few things, Lucky. First of all, please don’t insult my intelligence by telling me that Glasgow is not in England but Scotland. I am not an idiot. Geography is not one of my weaker areas. I never said it was in England if you go back and read the post.

BTW, I’m not overly-excited or hysterical or whatever you are infering from my reply to you. Tone is hard to gauge and a person’s mental state of mind is equally difficult to ascertain by reading a post on a message board. Trust me, I wasn’t jumping in my seat with animated, emotional antics when replying to you. Hard to get that excited or angry about Celtic Church discussions.

You have a reputation in CAF for being completely cynical about writers from the twentieth century onward. I’ve been told that by many. You trashed anyone I mentioned as being spurious or suspicious. That’s your perogative of course but I tend to disagree. Eamon Duffy has just as good of credentials as the other folks I’ve mentioned yet you’re ok with him.

The British attitude toward the papacy is mixed, as with anyone anywhere. You can choose to cite saints and famous personalities that were anti-papacy. That’s fine. But what you fail to mention is, as Duffy points out, that England had a great love for the papacy, Catholicism, the hierarchy, and their daily church life right up until the Reformation, which I choose to call the Deformation, as well. Celtic Christianity was founded by Roman missionaries loyal to the Holy Father, were separated for 150 years or so, and very quickly and easily re-joined union with the Holy See of Rome. They were not converted at sword-point by Rome. As for the Arimathea myths, no one takes those seriously. That’s just silliness. Monty Python fodder.

And one can easily read anti-papal reactions in England and anti-monarchy rhetoric as well during the Interdict that Innocent III laid down on England thanks to the idiotic King John trying to interfere with ecclesiastical appointments. That fiasco angered just about everyone and John used the situation to confiscate church property and wealth. And it’s just such a motivation that really brought on the English Reformation—land, wealth, greed, and power. The bad blood between some royals and popes created a tension that brought some anti-papal sentiment, naturally. And the propaganda that Cranmer, Ridley, and company laid down on the English people would manage to sway many against the Church. But there were many recusants, pro-Catholic loyalists in England, who stayed true to the Church when Catholics were terribly persecuted. England was never in a solidarity of anti-papal hatred. Most of it came from the Reformers’ propaganda and laws prohibiting Mass to be said, and edicts from the crown like Elizabeth I.

As I said, the Church of England is dying and one of these days just might be extinct. Anglicanism as a whole is dying or diffusing and/or morphing into something else. It is a church built on a political compromise between two extreme groups in a historical time of upheavel. It stands for little and has never had any solid structure, authority, or coherence. Despite ‘realignment’ the Anglican Communion is ailing in $$$, attendance, spirit, and mission. The fruit of history is evident on the platter. It’s rotten. We can debate the origins of the “celtic church” until doomsday but the fruit of Anglicanism, which claims a pedigree/lineage from the celtic church, is wholly full of worms and foul scents.

You’re right, history cannot and should not be hidden. But the origins of the Church in the British Isles is from Roman missionaries loyal to the Pope, the Church rejoined Rome at first opportunity, and Rome was ultimately pushed out of England by greedy opportunists with a pro-Geneva agenda and a desire to confiscate monasteries, bask in wealth and new-found real estate, free themselves of financial obligations to the Holy See, and it was a time of political rebellion and the rise of nation-states. The British government forced Anglicanism on its populace, that is also a matter of historical fact. More Catholic priests were drawn and quartered, gutted, murdered, and humiliated under Henry, Edward VI, and Elizabeth than “bloody” Mary Tudor x 5. Catholicism was made illegal and squashed by a greedy gov’t with an agenda all its own, not the populace and the folks. And yet here in 2009, Catholicism is on the rise in England and dwarfs CofE attendance on Sunday. God is good…

I would not denounce Duffy as a goon, you’r getting over excited! Duffy, whose books I read, has his own ideas, they do not have to be correct in every aspect, to be interesting,do they? The Reformation is not an easy subject to study, especially if you read Anglo Catholic literature, which I try not to, from the middle or last quarter of the 19th, Cent, Anglo Catholic ideas changed! This progressed rapidly in the later years of the 20th, Cent, whereas ,I, have always followed the High Church School, which is more traditional!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

St. Patrick and others who brought Christianity to the British Isles, were Roman and loyal to Rome, as in the Roman Catholic Church. Christianity most certainly was not brought to England in the style, say, of Roman soldiers bringing Mithra worship to Ostia, etc. Roman soldiers would not have the ability or right to mission to the heathens in Ireland/England without episcopal oversight and correct form. Priests and bishops baptize and convert, not centurions from a Roman garrison. So I think it safe to say there were no soldiers converting anyone. The mission was of the Church. Your argument, that Romans as individuals converted the barbarians, is not compelling, with respect. Christian mission didn’t work that way.

I hope, Bluegoat, that if we ever do delve deeper into the atmosphere and topography of Mars, that you will be given the honor of leading the mission! The Martian people need you!

You’re correct about the difficulty with retention of orthodox (small o) catholicity in the Anglican world. The reason is simple. It wasn’t and has never been catholic. It’s based on Calvinism, some Catholicesque liturgy, sola scriptura, the 39 Articles, and has never been confessional in praxis. It lacks a penitential system, has dubious apostolic succession in many parts, has a divergent notion of what constitutes a priesthood from what Orthodoxy and Catholicism believes, and it has many other troubling attributes. Anglicans often cite the Orthodox in their arguments. Why? Because they split with Rome. And yet what Anglicans are very reluctant to do is discuss how the Orthodox, by and large, loath or reject Anglicanism as merely Protestantism with mitres.

The Orthodox are indeed catholic but they lack the unity of the Pope. They are largely based on ethnic boundaries, are rather quiet on the world stage about abortion, the culture of death, scientifically unethical sinful exploration, and other social issues. They are also diverse in beliefs and in many cases have caved in to birth control and other liberal teachings. I would go along with Pope Benedict’s characterization that they are catholic and legitimate but defective. I also disagree with the argument that Protestantism and Catholicism are two sides of the same coin–a common Orthodox argument.

I would also disagree with you that the argument for the papacy has not been convincing. In any case, may God bless you!!

I think we need to be careful about equating “Roman” with “Roman Catholic”. It seems to me to be making any number of assumptions. A bunch of Roman soldiers bringing their religion with them is not the same at all as a mission from the Roman Church, and implying that it is tends to make the argument stronger than it deserves. If I move to Mars and teach the Martians about Christianity, that does not make them members of the Anglican Communion. We really don’t know very much about the earliest Christians in Britain - yes, it seems likely they were transplanted Romans. To say more is speculating.

Clearly there has been an issue with retaining catholicity in the Anglican Church. Is it really due to cutting ties with Rome? I wouldn’t say yes definitively on this, since the East cut ties with Rome long ago and has not had the same problem. I think there are other factors at play. I have wondered if it is not related to ways of thinking inherited from Catholicism itself, that is to say Western Christianity.

And I would never try to argue that there shouldn’t be an important place for the Roman pontif. But to say that is NOT to say that it is the place now claimed, which is not one I have seen made convincingly.

I often hear the bizarre argument that we can trust this version of events because Peter was given the authority by Christ, and when asked how we know that is the correct interpretation of those traditions and scriptural references, the answer is that it is how the CC interprets them so it must be true. Talk about begging the question!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

To address the OP, it is my understanding that his characterization is correct. And I agree with Father Mark Brown that the Holy Father is not doing the old bait and switch, or some hoodwinking Anglicans with false promises. And the idea is preserving Anglican traditions (ones that are not tainted with Calvinism that is) that are appropriate and dignified, and to allow them to be truly Catholic at the same time. I only wish my old Anglican parish here in town were not viewing this wonderful ordinariate opportunity with so much cynicism and grouchy rebellion. I would love anyday to go back to my old Anglican parish and worship there as a Catholic with an Anglican liturgy. I prefer Anglican liturgical style anyday to the typical Novus Ordo mass in my Catholic parish. But alas, the Anglican parish in my town will not submit to Rome. Instead they’re having about 40 people at mass on Sunday, no children, financial nightmares, lawsuits from TEC, and little hope. The entire diocese here is poo-pooing the pope’s offer and brushing it off with laughter so any hope for me ever going back into that charming brick building and worshipping is about nill…

 

[masuwerte]

That’s unfortunate, gurney. But you followed your conscience and did what you thought was best, as those people who have remained Anglican have also done. You’d be welcome to visit sometime

 

[manualman]

And it’s just such a motivation that really brought on the English Reformation—land, wealth, greed, and power. The bad blood between some royals and popes created a tension that brought some anti-papal sentiment, naturally. And the propaganda that Cranmer, Ridley, and company laid down on the English people would manage to sway many against the Church.

Hillaire Belloc makes this argument quite well. “How the Reformation Happened.” The seizure of all the wealth (mostly real estate) of the monasteries and convents inarguably could not have occurred without the rupture with Rome. Sadly with humans, ‘follow the money’ is a strategy for detectives with an impressive winning streak…

 

[Bluegoat]

I hope, Bluegoat, that if we ever do delve deeper into the atmosphere and topography of Mars, that you will be given the honor of leading the mission! The Martian people need you!

I’m afraid my husband has vetoed moving to Mars. No grouse, pheasants, etc.

You’re correct about the difficulty with retention of orthodox (small o) catholicity in the Anglican world. The reason is simple. It wasn’t and has never been catholic. It’s based on Calvinism, some Catholicesque liturgy, sola scriptura, the 39 Articles, and has never been confessional in praxis. It lacks a penitential system, has dubious apostolic succession in many parts, has a divergent notion of what constitutes a priesthood from what Orthodoxy and Catholicism believes, and it has many other troubling attributes. Anglicans often cite the Orthodox in their arguments. Why? Because they split with Rome. And yet what Anglicans are very reluctant to do is discuss how the Orthodox, by and large, loath or reject Anglicanism as merely Protestantism with mitres.

Well, safe to say I disagree over Anglicanism and its catholicity. The Orthodox - well, I’m not Orthodox for a reason, (though I suppose I would become Orthodox before I became a Catholic - though either would have serious difficulties.) However, I think that a big part of the Anglican problem is something the Orthodox probably rightly ascribe to Rome - an over-emphasis on reason and its fruits. Now, I can’t say much more than that, because it is still something I am thinking about, but it seems to me that Tradition is not adequately represented somehow, or perhaps the unknowable aspects of the Divine. Catholics have gotten away with this to some extent because they have a strong central authority (though not totally, given that I think they have “innovations” that are clearly outside of what is proper.) In Anglicanism it has simply been a disaster in the last 80 years or so.

The Orthodox are indeed catholic but they lack the unity of the Pope. They are largely based on ethnic boundaries, are rather quiet on the world stage about abortion, the culture of death, scientifically unethical sinful exploration, and other social issues. They are also diverse in beliefs and in many cases have caved in to birth control and other liberal teachings. I would go along with Pope Benedict’s characterization that they are catholic and legitimate but defective. I also disagree with the argument that Protestantism and Catholicism are two sides of the same coin–a common Orthodox argument.

I don’t see any reason the Orthodox need the unity of the Pope. Overall, they are slower and quieter about new ideas, including rejecting them - which I don’t think is always a bad thing. I also think the political cultures they have existed in recently has contributed to their quiet on the social stage. I disagree that they do not oppose abortion strongly, though their theological position has a slight variance to the Catholic position, I don’t think that one can dismiss it as “pro-choice” or whatever. Their response to birth control again has varied somewhat, but again I think this is largely because they have not yet come to a consensus - and of course their theology of marriage is not the same as the CCs and so leads to slightly different conclusions. (I am not counting here individual members who simply do what they “feel” especially since I had a Catholic lady tell me today her priest told her this was a matter of individual conscience.)

]I would also disagree with you that the argument for the papacy has not been convincing. In any case, may God bless you!!

They have always been unconvincing to me that the papacy in its present form is what it is supposed to be according to God - perhaps I just haven’t heard the good ones yet?

 

[GKC]

Hillaire Belloc makes this argument quite well. “How the Reformation Happened.” The seizure of all the wealth (mostly real estate) of the monasteries and convents inarguably could not have occurred without the rupture with Rome. Sadly with humans, ‘follow the money’ is a strategy for detectives with an impressive winning streak…

Said argument found roughly in pp 107-118, of that book, the best one Belloc wrote on what happened then, as far as with respect to England. But not the best book one might read on that period; that would be J. J. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII. I do love Belloc. But I recommend reading widely on that point.

GKC