I’m afraid my husband has vetoed moving to Mars. No grouse, pheasants, etc.
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.
Regarding Duffy it is a question of attitude !
That is where I would not accept Mr Duffy’s conclusions. The English were believers in to Catholicism, but not particularly of papalism! The Saxons had not been particularly friendly to the Bishop of Rome, especially since he gave his blessing to William the Butcher! That is why William got rid of all the leadership of the Saxon Church, as a thank you to the pope! But he refused fealty to the Papacy, because his Saxon Forebears had not paid it either!
**Very nice and clear cut, just where is the proof?As I have told you even Parsons a Roman believer claimed that the faith came from the east! As did Cardinal Pole. Plus the Roman or Latin Councils of the middle ages.
Could you compare this attitude with that of other European monarchs? How did the attitude of the English differ? Please give *specific *examples of Continental subservience to the papacy which cannot be found in England.
Indeed. This was still a genuine option in the minds of many devout early-sixteenth-century Catholics, even though the Popes had done their best to stamp it out. And I think the best that can be said for Anglicanism is that it’s a messed-up, imperfect, even twisted way of hanging onto that conciliarist vision within the Western Church, in the hope that eventually it can be implemented in a healthier way. (Note: the “twisting” has to do with the power of monarchs historically, and more broadly with the limitation of Anglicanism to a particular ethnic/cultural tradition and its subsequent subservience to the dominant cultural patterns of the English-speaking world.)
I’m sorry! I cannot answer your question! You will probably have a better idea than I have All I know is that the European Monarchs were a cynical crowd and at one time it appears that Henry expected Francis to join with him in an anti papal pact. But Francis was frightened of the Emperor ! Sorry again! However, from the laity, there must have been a deep antipathy to papalism. Otherwise Protestantism wouldn’t have spread so far as it did. Whilst I deride Trent, from a Roman point of view it was a splendid success and when you consider various factors, religious conservatism, fear, after the various Massacres and other cruelties it must have been a very strong emotion to drive the continentals to protestantism.
I do not think that a virulent anti-papalism was rife in England, Conciliarism had a quite long history in this country! Even Edward iind, visited Constance according to one source!
And how do you know that? Can you prove it? If so, please prove your allegations.
I think you could argue this by definition. Since they won’t be Anglican, it won’t be an Anglican service.And how do you know that? Can you prove it? If so, please prove your allegations.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
I think this line of thinking could involve a logical fallacy. In any case, since you’ve said “Anglican-style”, it rather makes the point.Just like Christianity is Judaism fullfilled, an Anglican-style Mass obedient to the Holy Father and in line with the Catholic Church is Anglicanism fullfilled, home.
Men of Ireland and men who live in Ireland!
So long as you stipulate that by definition an Anglican service is not a Catholic one
Anglicanism is by definition, English Catholicism!So long as you stipulate that by definition an Anglican service is not a Catholic one
(Don’t mind me, I’m just being a pain today!)
Well, most Anglicans aren’t English (or even English speaking), and most would take issue with what you and I might call the “more specifically Catholic” elements within Anglicanism. So I’m not sure that definition is accurate.
(yes, even the Calvinists)IYHO. As usual.
Hail Holy Queen would be that one for me.
The point he was trying to make is that the Celtics existed outside the realm of Rome whether Rome wants to admit it or not. There was and mostassuredly IS a world outside of Rome.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?