Regarding Anglicans: Have I got this right?

[josie_L]

Madam! The King James Version is the product of the Church in England,the Catholic Church in this country!
So then, as a ‘Catholic,’ you can very well imagine why I have it and why it is the accepted version for the Church.

You are a Protestant claiming to be a Catholic nothing more.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Awaiting the list of facts I have misquoted, recalling p. 37 of MacCulloch, with amusement.

GKC

I simply asked if the poster was related to you? A fair question, I would have thought! He wastes his time on irrelevant things as do you and Josie!

 

[GKC]

Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. Facts stand alone.

If you wish to find padrej’s lines, you can check Brandreth or, better, Anson.

GKC

I simply asked if the poster was related to you? A fair question, I would have thought! He wastes his time on irrelevant things as do you and Josie!

 

[luckyfredsdad]

You are a Protestant claiming to be a Catholic nothing more.

Again, prove it!! I find that claim rich coming from a Roman Catholic whose church evolved from Trent in 1564!

 

[josie_L]

Whilst S.Peter was a co-founder of the Church at Rome he also had his chair at two other cities Alexandria and Antioch. S.Gregory the Great, in a letter to Eulogius of Alexandria gives his view of this situation…"I cordially accept …what is spoken of the Chair of Peter is spoken by an occupant of the Chair.[Eulogius,] …who does not know that the Holy Church is established on upon the firmness of the Prince of the Apostles,… to whom it is said by the Voice of Truth,…“Feed My Sheep,? Therefore only one See has grown strong in authority’; but that See is in three places, though still the See of one.” This by S.Gregory the Great! Who very obviously doesn’t see Rome as paramount and claims that authority is in all three Sees. It is the Churches, that held the Apostolic Succession that were sought out, because they held the teaching of the Apostles.

You see that part I emboldened, that refers to the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter the Rock on which the (universal) Church was established (in other words the church which you are a part of is not built on rock for it is not in communion with the successors of St. Peter). Furthermore, Rome is where St.Peter (and St. Paul) was martyred (after 25 years of being bishop to Rome) and where his bones have remained, thus making it preeminent amongst the Petrine sees (and every other see in the Church).

**Eusebius of Caesaria , in his The Chronicle (c. 303), describes one of the earliest formulations of the length and tenure of St. Peter in Rome:

Second year of the two hundred and fifth olympiad (i.e,. 42 AD) : the Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years .… During the fourth year of the two hundred and eleventh olympiad (67 AD): Nero is the first, in addition to all of his other crimes, to make a persecution against the Christians, in which Peter and Paul died gloriously in Rome . **

catholicpreaching.com/content/docs/PetrineSee.pdf

Also,

**“The fact that Peter and Paul both died in the city of Rome (when they could have been killed on countless other occasions in innumerable other cities) seems to show the hand of God in choosing Rome.” **

catholicpreaching.com/content/docs/PetrineSee.pdf

Moreover, the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch were not referred to as the successors of St. Peter even though their sees were founded by him. So this in no way contradicts what I said earlier about the early Church fathers referring to the Bishops of Rome as the successors of St. Peter.

catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp

p.s. St. Gregory the Great is not denying the papacy since he makes it clear that it is St. Peter who is the head shepherd as per the “Voice of Truth”.

 

[josie_L]

Again, prove it!! I find that claim rich coming from a Roman Catholic whose church evolved from Trent in 1564!

I did, by showing you that you read from (and accept with authority) a Bible that contains 66 books (instead of 73 books that all Catholics pre and post reformation have contained in their Bible).

All PROTESTANTS HAVE A 66 BOOK BIBLE.

p.s. There is no continuity between your Church and the Catholic Church of the first millenia otherwise you would have the 73 book Bible that I and other Catholics read.

 

[Padrej]

I did, by showing you that you read from (and accept with authority) a Bible that contains 66 books (instead of 73 books that all Catholics pre and post reformation have contained in their Bible).

All PROTESTANTS HAVE A 66 BOOK BIBLE.

p.s. There is no continuity between your Church and the Catholic Church of the first millenia otherwise you would have the 73 book Bible that I and other Catholics read.

Thank you Josie L for making my point so eloquently! If luckyfredsdad were to look in the 39 Articles of Religion of the Anglican Faith that He espouses Article VI speaks of the “Sufficiency of Holy Scriptures for Salvation.” In this article it states, “And other Books (as Heirome saith) the Church doth read for example and instruction of manners; but yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are the following:
The Third book of Esdras, the Fourth book of Esdras, The Book of Tobias, The Book of Judith, The Rest of the Book of Esther, The Book of Wisdom, Jesus the Son of Sirach, Baruch the Prophet, The Song of the Three Children, the Story of Susanna, Of Bel and the Dragon, The prayer of Manassas, The First book of Maccabees, The Second book of Maccabees.” You will not find those books in a 66 book King James Version Bible.

Now if he has a Bible of only 66 books and CLAIMS to be a practicing Anglican Catholic, he would be going against the historical teachings of his own faith, UNLESS he was part of the Reformed Episcopal Church as they reject the Apocrypha as not being part of Gods word and only will use a 66 book King James Bible as their standard. However, he called himself a “High church Anglican” which indicates to me that he has no parts of the Reformed Episcopal Church who are Very Low and are more prayer service oriented and are as you described them PROTESTANT; and ultra Protestant at that especially in their using of a Bible that contains only 66 books. So you are correct in saying that He is a “Protestant claiming to be Catholic and nothing more.” If you ask me by his own admission, he is not even following the historic teachings of his own faith to be called Anglican, but rather a Protestant worshiping in the Anglican style. I say this because he posted, *“As for myself, I follow the traditional Anglican way as taught by my forefathers, in the Highchurch and Nonjuring Traditions.” *If he was following this tradition he would espouse the article that I quoted above and retain the 73 book Bible instead of the 66 that other Protestants have. In that he has dug his heels in and holds tight to the 66 book King James revised Bible, he has clearly pushed himself out of even the practicing historic Anglican tradition let alone the traditions held by the Roman Catholic Church for centuries. With as much rancor as he is fighting this battle you would think he is actually a Baptist.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

I’m curious but as a “Catholic” how many books are there in your Catholic Bible?

Above is the question I was asked! My answer was 66 in all of them that I posess. I told the truth. That is the exact number. I have been taught about the ,‘numbers,’ game that josie L and the ,‘bishop,’ are playing, but alas, it is not one I’m going to play with them. I’m not interested, if I want to play games, I’ll throw balls for my dog!
I must say however that I think it is an idiots game to play in a time when Catholicity is ,in my opinion, declining, to spend time arguing about the inclusion of books in to scripture that can be bought seperately, especially when this arrangment is accepted by the bishops of my Church! Catholic Bishops in a Catholic Church!

 

[FrJohnB]

luckyfredsdad:
Above is the question I was asked! My answer was 66 in all of them that I posess. I told the truth. That is the exact number. I have been taught about the ,‘numbers,’ game that josie L and the ,‘bishop,’ are playing, but alas, it is not one I’m going to play with them. I’m not interested, if I want to play games, I’ll throw balls for my dog!
I must say however that I think it is an idiots game to play in a time when Catholicity is ,in my opinion, declining, to spend time arguing about the inclusion of books in to scripture that can be bought seperately, especially when this arrangment is accepted by the bishops of my Church! Catholic Bishops in a Catholic Church!

Sounds like you got pinned into a corner if you ask me. Nobody was playing games with you. As Padrej pointed out your 39 articles of the Articles contain that you must espouse them to be Anglican, plus you also in a previous post claim to follow the historic traditions of your forefathers as well as their Nonjuring ways. If you were you would have a Bible with more than 66 books. It would seem to me that if you were any type of man that you would admit an error and move on rather than throwing out barbs like “if I want to play games I’ll throw balls for my dog.” While it may be true that Catholic bishops do accept the 66 books, a true Catholic bishop would not allow you to only stick with a Bible containing just those 66 but move on to the complete Bible containing 73.

I have found that many Anglican Catholics love to call themselves “Catholic” but they are far from the Catholic Church when it comes to matters of polity, manners, doctrine, though they may be close in worship style to the old ways of the Roman Catholic church they are not Catholic. The only way they could be considered “Catholic” is if they took the meaning of the word “Catholic” to mean “universal” and then they could say maybe because we have churches all around the world we could be called Catholic.

 

[Padrej]

Originally Posted by luckyfredsdad View Post

Above is the question I was asked! My answer was 66 in all of them that I posess. I told the truth. That is the exact number. I have been taught about the ,‘numbers,’ game that josie L and the ,‘bishop,’ are playing, but alas, it is not one I’m going to play with them. I’m not interested, if I want to play games, I’ll throw balls for my dog!
I must say however that I think it is an idiots game to play in a time when Catholicity is ,in my opinion, declining, to spend time arguing about the inclusion of books in to scripture that can be bought seperately, especially when this arrangment is accepted by the bishops of my Church! Catholic Bishops in a Catholic Church!

Sounds like you got pinned into a corner if you ask me. Nobody was playing games with you. As Padrej pointed out your 39 articles of the Articles contain that you must espouse them to be Anglican, plus you also in a previous post claim to follow the historic traditions of your forefathers as well as their Nonjuring ways. If you were you would have a Bible with more than 66 books. It would seem to me that if you were any type of man that you would admit an error and move on rather than throwing out barbs like “if I want to play games I’ll throw balls for my dog.” While it may be true that Catholic bishops do accept the 66 books, a true Catholic bishop would not allow you to only stick with a Bible containing just those 66 but move on to the complete Bible containing 73.

I have found that many Anglican Catholics love to call themselves “Catholic” but they are far from the Catholic Church when it comes to matters of polity, manners, doctrine, though they may be close in worship style to the old ways of the Roman Catholic church they are not Catholic. The only way they could be considered “Catholic” is if they took the meaning of the word “Catholic” to mean “universal” and then they could say maybe because we have churches all around the world we could be called Catholic.

CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP:bowdown:
You go Fr. John:thumbsup:

 

[Bluegoat]

Sounds like you got pinned into a corner if you ask me. Nobody was playing games with you. As Padrej pointed out your 39 articles of the Articles contain that you must espouse them to be Anglican, plus you also in a previous post claim to follow the historic traditions of your forefathers as well as their Nonjuring ways. If you were you would have a Bible with more than 66 books. It would seem to me that if you were any type of man that you would admit an error and move on rather than throwing out barbs like “if I want to play games I’ll throw balls for my dog.” While it may be true that Catholic bishops do accept the 66 books, a true Catholic bishop would not allow you to only stick with a Bible containing just those 66 but move on to the complete Bible containing 73.

I have found that many Anglican Catholics love to call themselves “Catholic” but they are far from the Catholic Church when it comes to matters of polity, manners, doctrine, though they may be close in worship style to the old ways of the Roman Catholic church they are not Catholic. The only way they could be considered “Catholic” is if they took the meaning of the word “Catholic” to mean “universal” and then they could say maybe because we have churches all around the world we could be called Catholic.

Catholic, (by which I mean catholic) DOES mean universal - in time and space. The fact that the Catholic Church takes it as a proper name is pretty much irrelevant.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Sounds like you got pinned into a corner if you ask me. Nobody

**Is this the standard you hold to ? 88 books, rather tthan 66? What else could I expect from a Trentist? I can assure you I am not pinned in a corner by any of you. It is a none issue I Or at least one for children!
**

plus you also in a previous post claim to follow the historic traditions of your forefathers as well as their Nonjuring ways.

** What makes you the judge? Have no fear, I hold to the old Anglican Ways, Revelation, Scripture and Tradition, the pity is that you fail the test! Though it’s not a surprise.
**

If you were you would have a Bible with more than 66 books. It would seem to me that if you were any type of man that you would admit an error and move on rather than throwing out barbs like “if I want to play games I’ll throw balls for my dog.” While it may be true that Catholic bishops do accept the 66 books, a true Catholic bishop would not allow you to only stick with a Bible containing just thos

When did you ever meet one to judge?

I have found that many Anglican Catholics love to call themselves “Catholic” but they are far from the Catholic Church when it comes to matters of polity, manners, doctrine, though they may be close in worship style to the old ways of the Roman Catholic church they are not Catholic.

**As I have already explained, I am not, now or ever have been, an Anglo Catholic! The terms I have used as labels, have been Highchurchman or Anglican! How-and-ever ,to be Anglican is to be a Catholic where I live! You would enjoy being an ‘Anglo’, they have your standards. One man who has now joined your communion claimed he was Catholic because he believed in Six Candles, Incense, a Biretta and Vestments. I can’t believe even Rome deserved him. Anyhow, they admitted him and went public and made propaganda, or publicity out of his **conversion **** as it was termed by your bishop’s chaplain.

The only way they could be considered “Catholic” is if they took the meaning of the word “Catholic” to mean “universal” and then they could say maybe because we have churches all around the world we could be called Catholic.

I refer to you and your colleagues as Catholics, because the Church fathers claimed you were such, I refer to Bishop Field, Archbishop Laud and Thorndyke as well as Bishop Hickes, the Non Juror! The Anglican Reformation, Fathers. For myself I have my doubts!

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Thank you Josie L for making my point so eloquently! If luckyfredsdad were to look in the 39 Articles of Religion of the Anglican Faith that He espouses Article VI speaks of the “Sufficiency of Holy Scriptures for Salvation.”

**I have read the 39 Articles, thank you! They are still valid I agree,however, they have, according to Kidd to be read through the prism of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. It is these the Seven Ecumenical Councils and our acceptance of their doctrines that decide the catholic character of the Anglican Church! {Along with Revelation , Scripture and the Consensus of the Greek Fathers.
**

 

[Justy90]

Sounds like you got pinned into a corner if you ask me. Nobody was playing games with you. As Padrej pointed out your 39 articles of the Articles contain that you must espouse them to be Anglican, plus you also in a previous post claim to follow the historic traditions of your forefathers as well as their Nonjuring ways. If you were you would have a Bible with more than 66 books. It would seem to me that if you were any type of man that you would admit an error and move on rather than throwing out barbs like “if I want to play games I’ll throw balls for my dog.” While it may be true that Catholic bishops do accept the 66 books, a true Catholic bishop would not allow you to only stick with a Bible containing just those 66 but move on to the complete Bible containing 73.

I have found that many Anglican Catholics love to call themselves “Catholic” but they are far from the Catholic Church when it comes to matters of polity, manners, doctrine, though they may be close in worship style to the old ways of the Roman Catholic church they are not Catholic. The only way they could be considered “Catholic” is if they took the meaning of the word “Catholic” to mean “universal” and then they could say maybe because we have churches all around the world we could be called Catholic.

??? I thought we were talking catholic here, not Roman Catholic. Two different things.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

You see that part I emboldened, that refers to the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter the Rock on which the (universal) Church was established (in other words the church which you are a part of is not built on rock for it is not in communion with the successors of St. Peter)

To base the papal claim om Mattew16, is like basing a bridge on the petals of a flower.
**Launoy a 17th, Cent, Jean De Launoy spent time and trouble researching the matter of the Fathers, and their interpretation of Matt,16. He found that 17, considered Peter as the Rock. Whilst 44 thought that the Rock was Peter’s Confession of faith and 16 said that the Rock was Christ! Epist.7 Opp, Vol. pt 2. pg 99 Geneva 1773.] Astonishingly,80% of Church Fathers did not consider the person of S.Peter as the Rock. These findings were chosen by Archbishop Kendrick for his speech against infallibility at Vat.1. Further, It goes against the beliefs and statements of S,Cyprian of Carthage. **

Eusebius of Caesaria , in his The Chronicle (c. 303), describes one of the earliest formulations of the length and tenure of St. Peter in Rome
Furthermore, Rome is where St.Peter (and St. Paul) was martyred (after 25 years of being bishop to Rome) and where his bones have remained, thus making it preeminent amongst the Petrine sees (and every other see in the Church).

****Most early commentators claim that the Roman Church was founded jointly by Peter and Paul and it was these two who made Linus the Bishop. This idea was followed by Irenaus and Tertullian, who however made Clement the 1st Bishop, the consecration of Linus is thought to have taken place sometime before the death of either of the apostles. in later years the idea of whom was first bishop got twisted and the name given was Clement.Also remember that Eusebius was living in the fourth Cent, and many scholars claim that Clement being given the place of 1st,Bishop stems from a Gnostic writing. Lightfoot. S.Clement. Agreed by Rivington. Pg 327/33]
Harnacke put Peter’s stay in Rome at 5 years. Har,Chron.,239/718.]
Also, Harnacke says that ,‘they,’ committed the episcopate to Linus." **
**

The fact that Peter and Paul both died in the city of Rome (when they could have been killed on countless other occasions in innumerable other cities) seems to show the hand of God in choosing Rome."

**I must confess, I don’t agree! I’m sure you’ll understand why!

**The trouble with you Romans is that you pick and chose just what you will or will not believe.
The Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent decreed that Scripture must be read, interpreted and understood only through the comments of the Early Church Fathers!
It isn’t enough to pick the utterances of some passing vaganti, such we have on this board, it has to be a study of time and place as well as people. It has to be a consensus! ****

 

[GKC]

Fair enough conclusion, from the RC standpoint.

You may find Anglicans who have a different view of the matter (or the intent, or the form).

GKC

 

[Justy90]

Oh, I’m sorry, I should have clarified. I meant catholic as Christ views his Church, not Catholic as in being in full communion with Rome. I’m not at all concerned or consumed by Rome not recognizing the Anglican Communion. This is not important in the least.

 

[Justy90]

And the same can be said for Catholics that repeatedly bash Protestants.

 

[Padrej]

**I have read the 39 Articles, thank you! They are still valid I agree,however, they have, according to Kidd to be read through the prism of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. It is these the Seven Ecumenical Councils and our acceptance of their doctrines that decide the catholic character of the Anglican Church! {Along with Revelation , Scripture and the Consensus of the Greek Fathers.
**

Even if you read them through the prism of the councils you would still be using a 73 book Bible. You are not even using the Anglican trilateral of Scripture, Reason and Tradition here. The Greek Fathers even accept the Apocrypha and the Orthodox even have them in their Bible as well. Are you now going to turn you back on that tradition as well?

 

[GKC]

You are honestly stating what you should believe, given who you are. And I state what I believe, not to try to make someone think like an Anglican, but to illustrate how (one) Anglican (at least) thinks.

Neither exercise requires any vituperation (not that you are doing that, just an observation).

GKC