Regarding Anglicans: Have I got this right?

[Bluegoat]

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!)

Which isn’t to say it wouldn’t be catholic. My sister had a hamster named Norm. He was pretty abnormal - a one-eyed hamster.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

“Go to the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church!”

And you will simply find, just that, The CRCC!
There’s a better one in our Prayer Book.

 

[Justy90]

And you will simply find, just that, The CRCC!
There’s a better one in our Prayer Book.

Amen to that my friend!:byzsoc:

 

[GKC]

I like Peter Ellis. My wife collects historical mysteries of that genre. Ellis Peters most particularly.

GKC

 

[GKC]

And a Merry Christmas to you.

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholicus * (of that ilk)

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.

By and large, traditional (read: non-revisionist) Anglicans are evangelical Protestant in theology, with widely varying sacramental theologies and practices.

More’s the pity, IMO. English speaking Catholics have had to rely on the dwindling numbers of GKCs ilk to retain any sense of beauty in the English liturgical tradition since the wreckovators started ripping out our altar rails post VatII.

The last thing we want is more Sydney diocese style crypto-Calvinism worming its way into the Anglican tradition.

aaaand with that, I bid you all a Merry and Blessed Christmas. (yes, even the Calvinists)

 

[GKC]

And, as Peter Tremayne, has written some fantastic stuff, in addition to Sister Fidelma.

GKC

 

[Justy90]

and a Merry Christmas to you too.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

The Anglican Church, is simply a manifestation of the Catholic Church in Britain. We claim no more. It appeared in the British Isles, sometime shortly after the death ofChrist, the Celtic Historian Gildas Albanicus ,claimed, as indeed did many of the early fathers! i.e. Tertullian, S.Dorortheus of Tyre. One early writer Sabellius in the 6th, Chapter of his 7th, Book,claimed,
“Christianity was privately confessed elsewhere, but the first nation that proclaimed it as their religion and called itself Christian, after the Name of Christ,was Britain.”
This is probably somewhat exaggerated, but adds weight to the principle of an early start!
Again, I should like to reiterate that most if not all the early Roman commentators such as, Robert Parsons, SJ, or Persons ] claimed Christianity came from the East!. Three Conversions of England.]
You have nothing to substantiate your claim that the Church in Britain ,
“Submitted to Rome”.The Bishop of Rome, as Patriarch of the West obviously held an esteemed place in the Church, it was not his by Divine Right, but by the Gift of the Fathers. They gave the exact authority and Power to the patriarch of the East, The Bishop of Constantinople.

 

[GKC]

Concur.

GKC

 

[Justy90]

You speak for yourself because this is obviously not the opinion of other Catholics here.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

**It is the opinion of the Church??
That same Church that had its genesis in the Robber Council of Trent?

I’m sure we shall worry.
Thank you!

Merry Christmass by the way and God Bless!
**

 

[Justy90]

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.

That would not be Anglicanism at all.

 

[Justy90]

I won’t beat a dead horse here. GKC and Father Mark Brown have both summed up the situation rather accurately and succinctly here. The New York Catechism is an Episcopal catechism. Justy90 claimed it was Roman Catholic trying to catch Catholics with a “you Catholics worship the Pope as if he were Christ!” argument. He got caught with his pants down here because he couldn’t find where this “source” of his (that he head in a debate with Ankerberg and Pacwa) came from!

 

[GKC]

gurneyhalleck1;6074012:

You did nothing of the sort. I made a genuine point by which it can be supported with many other sources including a papal encyclical by Pope Leo XIII entitled, “The Reunion of Christendon” 1885 which states that the pope holds “upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” Now, let’s work on refuting that one next.

Well, we can start. Leo XIII issued three encyclicals in 1885. That phrase occurs in none of them. What you are referring to is his PRAECLARA GRATULATIONIS PUBLICAE, from 1894. He’s referring to the Papal role as Vicar of God, hence his primacy, in the Church, not of being God or Godlike. If that was what you were worried about. Six paragraphs further on, he writes (referring to the Eastern Churches)

The Principal subject of contention is the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. But let them look back to the early years of their existence, let them consider the sentiments entertained by their forefathers, and examine what the oldest Traditions testify, and it will, indeed, become evident to them that Christ’s Divine Utterance, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, has undoubtedly been realized in the Roman Pontiffs. Many of these latter in the first gates of the Church were chosen from the East, and foremost among them Anacletus, Evaristus, Anicetus, Eleutherius, Zosimus, and Agatho; and of these a great number, after Governing the Church in Wisdom and Sanctity, Consecrated their Ministry with the shedding of their blood. The time, the reasons, the promoters of the unfortunate division, are well known. Before the day when man separated what God had joined together, the name of the Apostolic See was held in Reverence by all the nations of the Christian world: and the East, like the West, agreed without hesitation in its obedience to the Pontiff of Rome, as the Legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, the Vicar of Christ here on earth.

Should you wish to read it, and see what he says to other Christians, it’s here:

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

Where do you get your info, by the way?

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[luckyfredsdad]

From one Anglican to another, with friends like you the Church doesn’t need enemies!

 

[GKC]

From one Anglican to another, with friends like you the Church doesn’t need enemies!

Can’t fight history. Things are what they are.

And Merry Christmas. How’s Fred?

GKC

 

[luckyfredsdad]

gurneyhalleck1;6074012:

You did nothing of the sort. I made a genuine point by which it can be supported with many other sources including a papal encyclical by Pope Leo XIII entitled, “The Reunion of Christendon” 1885 which states that the pope holds “upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” Now, let’s work on refuting that one next.

Pope Innocent 111, [1198/1216] claimed that only the Roman Pontiff had power to transfer and separate bishops ,** it is not a man that ****separates ,but God"…because the pope acts not only as a **man but as the true God’s vice Governor on earth. " Then the document goes on he,"dissolves not with human, but with divine authority."

Bad luck for the Holy Ghost then?

Further,
In the Bull of Pope Innocent ivth, 1st,Council of Lyons. 1245 AD.

It was said**,**“we hold on earth the place of Jesus Christ.”****
[Decrees of the Councils…Sheed & Ward.1990 ]

"We, moreover, proclaim, declare and pronounce that is is altogeether necessary to salvationfor every human being to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

[The Bull Unam Sanctam]

All this without any semblance of proof in either scripture or tradition!

 

[GKC]

Well, sure. All bishops, acting as bishops, perform episcopal functions by divine, not human authority. The RCC merely puts one such bishop above the rest, as God’s regent/vicar/numero uno on Earth. Bishops are not divine. Episcopal authority is.

And Unum Sanctum is an expression of EENS.

Innocent IV? At Lyons in 1245? Name the Bull.

Never mind. It’s the Bull deposing Frederick II. Once again, as seen in the context, it’s the vicarage point:

*We therefore, after careful discussion with our brother cardinals and the sacred council on his wicked transgressions already mentioned and many more besides, since though unworthy we hold on earth the place of Jesus Christ, and to us in the person of the blessed apostle Peter has been said, whatever you bind on earth etc., denounce the said prince, who has made himself so unworthy of the empire and kingdoms and every honour and dignity and who also, because of his crimes, has been cast out by God from kingdom and empire; we mark him out as bound by his sins, an outcast and deprived by our Lord of every honour and dignity; and we deprive him of them by our sentence. We absolve from their oath for ever all those who are bound to him by an oath of loyalty, firmly forbidding by our apostolic authority anyone in the future to obey or heed him as emperor or king, and decreeing that anyone who henceforth offers advice, help or favour to him as to an emperor or king, automatically incurs excommunication. Let those whose task it is to choose an emperor in the same empire, freely choose a successor to him. With regard to the aforesaid kingdom of Sicily, we shall take care to provide, with the counsel of our brother cardinals, as we see to be expedient.
GKC

Justy90;6095241:

Pope Innocent 111, [1198/1216] claimed that only the Roman Pontiff had power to transfer and separate bishops ,** it is not a man that **

separates ,but God"…because the pope acts not only as a **man but as the true God’s vice Governor on earth. " Then the document goes on he,“dissolves not with human, but with divine authority.**”

Bad luck for the Holy Ghost then?

Further,
In the Bull of Pope Innocent ivth, 1st,Council of Lyons. 1245 AD.

It was said**,**“we hold on earth the place of Jesus Christ.”****
[Decrees of the Councils…Sheed & Ward.1990 ]

"We, moreover, proclaim, declare and pronounce that is is altogeether necessary to salvationfor every human being to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

[The Bull Unam Sanctam]

All this without any semblance of proof in either scripture or tradition!

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Well, sure. All bishops, acting as bishops, perform episcopal functions by divine, not human authority. The RCC merely puts one such bishop above the rest, as God’s regent/vicar/numero uno on Earth. Bishops are not divine. Episcopal authority is.

And Unum Sanctum is an expression of EENS.

Innocent IV? At Lyons in 1245? Name the Bull.

Never mind. It’s the Bull deposing Frederick II. Once again, as seen in the context, it’s the vicarage point:

*We therefore, after careful discussion with our brother cardinals and the sacred council on his wicked transgressions already mentioned and many more besides, since though unworthy we hold on earth the place of Jesus Christ, and to us in the person of the blessed apostle Peter has been said, whatever you bind on earth etc., denounce the said prince, who has made himself so unworthy of the empire and kingdoms and every honour and dignity and who also, because of his crimes, has been cast out by God from kingdom and empire; we mark him out as bound by his sins, an outcast and deprived by our Lord of every honour and dignity; and we deprive him of them by our sentence. We absolve from their oath for ever all those who are bound to him by an oath of loyalty, firmly forbidding by our apostolic authority anyone in the future to obey or heed him as emperor or king, and decreeing that anyone who henceforth offers advice, help or favour to him as to an emperor or king, automatically incurs excommunication. Let those whose task it is to choose an emperor in the same empire, freely choose a successor to him. With regard to the aforesaid kingdom of Sicily, we shall take care to provide, with the counsel of our brother cardinals, as we see to be expedient.
GKC

luckyfredsdad:
**You are evading the whole business aren’t you?

For someone who claims to be an Anglican you do not approach the question, either of them , from an Anglican standpoint!

“God’s true vice Governor on Earth?”

“We hold on earth the place of Jesus Christ?”

All of these, or any of them show an arrogance that is shocking from anyone, but from a descendant of the Apostles is sick.

Certainly to my mind anyone who makes claims such as these is being offensive .

Once again, I would point out that S.Peter has some claim from his place in the New Testament, there’s none at all for the Papacy or the
pope.

In history, mention of the bishop of Rome is muted for the first three hundred years, he is a simple bishop albeit , a powerful one for political reasons. His prestige was enhanced by the Emperor who used him to polis the Church. The Bishop of Rome used the Roman Stasi to do this job. The Church made him Patriarch of the West, for political reasons and for the same made Constantinople Patriarch of New Rome.
The claims above are obscene!**

Further! Any reading , discussion or use of scripture by Catholics should be screened through the Councils and Fathers!

 

[GKC]

You do jump to conclusions.

I’ve said nothing about what I think. I’ve pointed out what the documents say, in context. I like finding sources on stuff; primary, when possible.

I like history. It’s historical.

GKC

And Unum Sanctum is an expression of EENS.

Innocent IV? At Lyons in 1245? Name the Bull.

Never mind. It’s the Bull deposing Frederick II. Once again, as seen in the context, it’s the vicarage point:

*We therefore, after careful discussion with our brother cardinals and the sacred council on his wicked transgressions already mentioned and many more besides, since though unworthy we hold on earth the place of Jesus Christ, and to us in the person of the blessed apostle Peter has been said, whatever you bind on earth etc., denounce the said prince, who has made himself so unworthy of the empire and kingdoms and every honour and dignity and who also, because of his crimes, has been cast out by God from kingdom and empire; we mark him out as bound by his sins, an outcast and deprived by our Lord of every honour and dignity; and we deprive him of them by our sentence. We absolve from their oath for ever all those who are bound to him by an oath of loyalty, firmly forbidding by our apostolic authority anyone in the future to obey or heed him as emperor or king, and decreeing that anyone who henceforth offers advice, help or favour to him as to an emperor or king, automatically incurs excommunication. Let those whose task it is to choose an emperor in the same empire, freely choose a successor to him. With regard to the aforesaid kingdom of Sicily, we shall take care to provide, with the counsel of our brother cardinals, as we see to be expedient.
GKC

**You are evading the whole business aren’t you?

For someone who claims to be an Anglican you do not approach the question, either of them , from an Anglican standpoint!

“God’s true vice Governor on Earth?”

“We hold on earth the place of Jesus Christ?”

All of these, or any of them show an arrogance that is shocking from anyone, but from a descendant of the Apostles is sick.

Certainly to my mind anyone who makes claims such as these is being offensive .

Once again, I would point out that S.Peter has some claim from his place in the New Testament, there’s none at all for the Papacy or the
pope.

In history, mention of the bishop of Rome is muted for the first three hundred years, he is a simple bishop albeit , a powerful one for political reasons. His prestige was enhanced by the Emperor who used him to polis the Church. The Bishop of Rome used the Roman Stasi to do this job. The Church made him Patriarch of the West, for political reasons and for the same made Constantinople Patriarch of New Rome.
The claims above are obscene!**

Further! Any reading , discussion or use of scripture by Catholics should be screened through the Councils and Fathers!