Regarding Anglicans: Have I got this right?

[GKC]

No, that’s before it is administered, but after it is consecrated, not after it’s in the mouth.

Have you been watching closely?

GKC

You’re probably right. Nevertheless, I think the Catholics will continue to exploit liberalization within the Anglican church (the Anglicans of course a part of the liberal tradition of England, home to the enlightenment and many of its greatest thinkers, and most of the ideas that form the basis of our own democracy).

The problem is the more intelligent you tend to be the more socially liberal you’re inclined to be. Obviously there’s exceptions to this rule, but generally speaking there is a strong correlation between education and tolerance. These same very smart people, particularly in England, have little inclination toward religion. In other words the natural “customers” of the Anglican Church (an enlightened English citizenry) aren’t inclined to believe things like a god-man rose from the dead 2,000 years ago, or an invisible spirit spoke to some guy in the desert a couple thousand years before that.

I’m not sure what, if anything, will attract these individuals back into church. Those who remain religious, in the UK, are mostly from the working classes, typically lack a university education, and tend to be overwhelmingly socially consvervative. Once again, there’s exceptions to this; I’m only speaking of general trends. These social conservatives have good reasons to gravitate toward the RCC. First, there’s not much of a difference in terms of liturgy. I’ve been to an Episcoplian church & a Catholic church enough times to know the differences are subtle (and it’s easy to see how an Anglican would be very comfortable worshiping in a Catholic church). Second, and most obviously, the RCC remains rabidly conservative (they still believe a wafer of bread turns to human flesh as it travels down the esophagus).

Let’s face, if the current momentum continues, western Europe will be an atheist continent within the next two or three decades (if it even takes that long). Even the typical strongholds of theism (like Italy) are experiencing decline in religious participation. I suspect we’re also beginning to see this same decline in the United States (although it will take much longer here). It’s not impossible to think religion could collapse in America in one generation (but I tend to doubt that will happen, given that so many people are making millions from it and there’s so many large vested religious interests here).

However, don’t forget about other types of protestants (which could also probably move into a place like England and attract bitter Anglicans as easy as feeding candy to a baby). Different denominations will increasingly be fighting over a shrinking pie here in the western world, and will have to turn their sights to the third world (where virtual universal illiteracy makes it a fertile ground for theism of all sorts, from Pentecostals whipping about in a frenzy speaking in tongues, to the Islamist psychopaths).

I say with a smile … ahhh religion

I just wish our mythology were cooler, you know, not invented by desert nomads. What ever happened to good old Zeus or Thor

 

[bridgeforsale]

No, that’s before it is administered, but after it is consecrated, not after it’s in the mouth.

Have you been watching closely?

GKC

I was just joshing around (I’m intensely engaged on a project, which requires an unimaginable amount of reading – so I pop in here for the occassional diversion, I should have been nicer, my bad).

Honestly, I have no idea what the deal is with the whole communion thing (I know there’s supposed to be a “real presence” and that’s supposed to be something more than just a spiritual presence, and there’s been tons of ink spent on the subject). I guess I probably shouldn’t comment on it (since naturally a secular perspective may not be very kind to such a claim).

 

[GKC]

There is a set of definitions, regarding what is going on up there, and when, true. And a good jocular, or even secular, shot at it works best if you grasp the underlying concepts, ab initio.

Reading is good; I cannot imagine an unimaginable amount of it. Carry on.

GKC

I was just joshing around (I’m intensely engaged on a project, which requires an unimaginable amount of reading – so I pop in here for the occassional diversion, I should have been nicer, my bad).

Honestly, I have no idea what the deal is with the whole communion thing (I know there’s supposed to be a “real presence” and that’s supposed to be something more than just a spiritual presence, and there’s been tons of ink spent on the subject). I guess I probably shouldn’t comment on it (since naturally a secular perspective may not be very kind to such a claim).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m spellbound at your stubbornness and refusal to see the big picture, lucky. But so be it. From where you stand the pope is a dictator that usurped the entire Church and created this fiction of his power that he supposedly never had and all Roman Catholics are goobers who blindly follow a bishop who is blinding his flock with a catechism of falsehoods…meanwhile a denomination from England that broke off in the Protestant Reformation thanks to a king’s hormones, sexual appetites, and a corrupt fool (Cranmer) without an ounce of a conscience created a state-run religion that had a few Catholic trappings but in essence was and remains Protestant. With time this religion morphed into a “compromise” with a certain queen and then in the 19th century suddenly convinced itself that it was Catholic and kicked in the turbo thrusters with clerical garb, holy water, confessionals, Marian dogma, some incense, and a few mitres for good measure. And this denomination, in 2010 is in utter disarray and total confusion as to what it even is, struggles with sexuality and ordaining women, hasn’t a clue about church polity or morality, and is slipping into oblivion…right, gotcha, that’s where the “true” church lay while the Roman Catholic Church is a pack of lies…gotcha. I’m convinced! The lawsuits, declining numbers, overlapping boundaries, floating bishops, gay rights movement, pro-abortion crowd, Zen Buddhist interloppers, and guys like Rowan are truly guiding the church in Christ’s direction. Yep, you got me! I’m the lunatic! I’m the fantasy-loon. You caught me…

Regarding Cyprian, it is well known that he sparred heavily with Stephen, the Pope of Rome. And guess what? STEPHEN WON…And the irony is that you, an Anglican, are arguing in favor of Cyprian when in fact it is the ruling of Stephen that you yourself live by as an Anglican regarding re-baptism. But why should I bother to explain…you’ll quote some secondary source from the 1800’s, some crusty Englishman no one has heard of :banghead:

You seem more motivated by what Anglicanism DOESN’T STAND FOR (i.e. the papacy, Trent, the catechism, infallibility) than what Anglicanism actually DOES stand for?

But I digress…this discussion is pointless because it’s like a dog chasing its tail…it was fictional and silly from the point that it began with the notion that the Celtic Church was this utopia of non-papal Catholicism when history, the Church, and anyone with any credibility knows it was not. And the Anglican Church that you’re a part of is unravelling and on a collision course…

Have you ever read any pro-Catholic writings or literature of any kind? Any primary sources? Do you just read Anglican and Protestant views of history?

Just where pray, does this quote,[in the papacy] originate?

Now to revert to S.Cyprian.
“The episcopate is one, an [undivided ] share of which is held by the Bishops in such wise as that they are, each of them, joint tenants of the whole” [De Unit, Eccl,5 Opp,i 214.].
This is the theme of S.Cyprians teaching.

Throughout its life the province of North Africa had no doubts at all of the Catholic Faith and its expression through Tradition and the Councils. On two very famous occasions they told the Bishop of Rome not to interfere in Church business in Africa and not to indulge himself with faked or forged Canons purporting to originate from Nice when they obviously didn’t. As far as they, and Cyprian, as well as Augustine , stood authority rested with the locak bishops
You do not appear to understand that Africa, (Carthage,) was colonised from Italy, or Rome. Therefore there is no doubt that they sought the help of the Bishop of Rome. He was Patriarch also of the Italian mainland south of Rome and the Islands. {Suburbicarian,Italy,) as well as being the virtual head of a Dept, of State for the Emperors, as well as that person’s PP. Is it any surprise that he and the Africans looked to Rome? But the Africans did not accept the Pope as anything else than a senior bishop and in fact told him on two occasions to get off their back! The Bishop****s included SS. Augustine and Cyprian!

My statements stand friend, I have no qualms or doubts about their correctness.

**That the Lord said many things to Peter, I have no doubts at all!

What I, or we, want to know is, how did it get put on the shoulders of the Bishop of Rome? I must say that for all your twisting and turning, bobbing and weaving, there’s never been a satisfactory answer given. You ignore fully, the tenets of your own Communion that scripture should be seen and interpreted through the writings of the Ancient fathers. (Trent 1564).**

 

[bridgeforsale]

Reading is good; I cannot imagine an unimaginable amount of it.

I can tell you’re not a lawyer

 

[GKC]

I can tell you’re not a lawyer

Most people can.

GKC

 

[luckyfredsdad]

I’m spellbound at your stubbornness and refusal to see the big picture, lucky. But so be it. From where you stand the pope is a dictator that usurped the entire Church and created this fiction of his power that he supposedly never had and all Roman Catholics are goobers who blindly follow a bishop who is blinding his flock with a catechism of falsehoods…meanwhile a denomination from England that broke off in the Protestant Reformation thanks to a king’s hormones, sexual appetites, and a corrupt fool (Cranmer) without an ounce of a conscience created a state-run religion that had a few Catholic trappings but in essence was and remains Protestant. With time this religion morphed into a “compromise” with a certain queen and then in the 19th century suddenly convinced itself that it was Catholic and kicked in the turbo thrusters with clerical garb, holy water, confessionals, Marian dogma, some incense, and a few mitres for good measure. And this denomination, in 2010 is in utter disarray and total confusion as to what it even is, struggles with sexuality and ordaining women, hasn’t a clue about church polity or morality, and is slipping into oblivion…right, gotcha, that’s where the “true” church lay while the Roman Catholic Church is a pack of lies…gotcha. I’m convinced! The lawsuits, declining numbers, overlapping boundaries, floating bishops, gay rights movement, pro-abortion crowd, Zen Buddhist interloppers, and guys like Rowan are truly guiding the church in Christ’s direction. Yep, you got me! I’m the lunatic! I’m the fantasy-loon. You caught me…

Regarding Cyprian, it is well known that he sparred heavily with Stephen, the Pope of Rome. And guess what? STEPHEN WON…And the irony is that you, an Anglican, are arguing in favor of Cyprian when in fact it is the ruling of Stephen that you yourself live by as an Anglican regarding re-baptism. But why should I bother to explain…you’ll quote some secondary source from the 1800’s, some crusty Englishman no one has heard of :banghead:

 

[bridgeforsale]

Most people can.

GKC

I only say that because we do a lot of reading in my profession (to the point where it loses any recreational value).

 

[GKC]

I only say that because we do a lot of reading in my profession (to the point where it loses any recreational value).

As I surmised. But you should turn to reading as an intellectual avocation, outside the vocational toil.

I’ve been at it for many years. It scratches an itch. Loads the house down with 20,000
books, too.

GKC, librosatinea

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Padrej;6122234:

Padre

I am sure you have heard of the expression, “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” It still amazes me to think that a person who feels that even though Laud was called by the colleagues to be “catholic” he was still part of the Church of England that was Protestant. Granted Laud’s prayer book was the most Catholic like of the Anglican Prayer books it still was not Catholic in that it was not done with the blessings of Rome or direction of Rome.
I highly doubt you will hear about his bishop as he would probably debunk what ever is said on this forum.

I am 'British/English, and have been an Anglican Catholic from some two weeks after my birth.
As for the Church of England? I was speaking ,or writing about the Catholic Church’s arrival in Britain. It came early, that is incontestable! It doesn’t need the approval of yourself or Rome for its genesis. It is history! There was no break at the Reforrmation and what it was it continued to be until some few years past. Unlike modern Rome, which had its provenance to my mind at the Council of Trent! Certainly, in England the Roman Church was created out of the secession from the traditionalists by the followers of the papacy in 1570 AD, at the behest of Pius 5th. You shouldn’t knock William Laud, not only was he a martyr for the faith, but he was the man, who regularised the position of your Church! After the reformation vulgarians went about asking your supporters ,‘Where was your Church before Trent’. A valid question in my eyes! Many people asserted that a new Church was formed at that time! Certainly it was so in England. It was Laud and the High Church who said that whilst Rome was in gross error, they still held to the rudiments of catholic teaching! What they had done in fact was to add to the deposit!

 

[luckyfredsdad]

luckyfredsdad;6107042:

You say to be an Anglican is to be a Catholic where you live, could you kindly divulge the location? Not physical address but town and country. Last I heard of this being the case was Celtic Britain.
If you do not follow the Pope you are “Protestant” you cannot have it both ways. The 39 articles say that the Pope has no power over the Anglican Church which means we are definitely Protestant. Are you going to conveniently leave that article out because it does not suit you calling yourself “Catholic?”
I guess at this point you should clarify what makes you call yourself “Catholic” when you have the word “Anglican” in there. Even and Anglican use Roman Catholic parish uses the 73 book Catholic Bible. Other historic Anglican churches with the accept ion of the Reformed Episcopal Church use the same. How is it your little part of the Anglican world/ or “pretend Catholic” uses a Protestant Bible and not a Catholic one?
Who is your bishop? that I may get into dialogue with him.

Please don’t bluster it is demeaning! Especially in onee who claims Holy orders!
The Anglican Church holds to the Revelation of Christ [S.Jude] , This to be recorded within Scripture and to be interpreted and explained by the Holy fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. That is the essence of catholicity and is what,after baptism, makes a catholic.

 

[Padrej]

FrJohnB;6123088:

Padrej;6122234:

Padre

I am 'British/English, and have been an Anglican Catholic from some two weeks after my birth.
As for the Church of England? I was speaking ,or writing about the Catholic Church’s arrival in Britain. It came early, that is incontestable! It doesn’t need the approval of yourself or Rome for its genesis. It is history! There was no break at the Reforrmation and what it was it continued to be until some few years past. Unlike modern Rome, which had its provenance to my mind at the Council of Trent! Certainly, in England the Roman Church was created out of the secession from the traditionalists by the followers of the papacy in 1570 AD, at the behest of Pius 5th. You shouldn’t knock William Laud, not only was he a martyr for the faith, but he was the man, who regularised the position of your Church! After the reformation vulgarians went about asking your supporters ,‘Where was your Church before Trent’. A valid question in my eyes! Many people asserted that a new Church was formed at that time! Certainly it was so in England. It was Laud and the High Church who said that whilst Rome was in gross error, they still held to the rudiments of catholic teaching! What they had done in fact was to add to the deposit!

Have you ever heard of the Anglican authors EJ Bicknell and Dom Gregory Dix? Both would greatly disagree with your theories.
While you are correct there was nor break at the reformation, it was broken with Henry VIII and his tiff with Rome. From thence the Anglican church ceases to be part of the Catholic church but only followed Catholic traditions, THAT my friend is where you are confused.

You keep speaking of “Trent” being the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church and you alluded to it here again. Could you please cite reliable sources to back these theories.
Once again, your post asks, “AFTER the reformation Vulgarians (WHO???) went about asking your supporters, 'Where was your Church before Trent?” A valid Question in my eyes. Many people asserted (Source please) a new Church was formed at that time! Certainly it was so in England." I thought you said the Anglican church was not effected by the Reformation and here you say it is. No source is sited for this claim either. Of course it is a Protestant claim that the Roman Catholic Church was formed at Trent So am I surprised that you are name calling, “Trentinist” and then hiding behind your veil of “I am Catholic.” You cannot have it both ways and say I am a Catholic and continue to be Protestant and use Protestant barbs.

 

[Padrej]

Padrej;6122234:

luckyfredsdad;6107042:

Please don’t bluster it is demeaning! Especially in onee who claims Holy orders!
The Anglican Church holds to the Revelation of Christ [S.Jude] , This to be recorded within Scripture and to be interpreted and explained by the Holy fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. That is the essence of catholicity and is what,after baptism, makes a catholic.

Nobody is “blustering.”
Great, if you are following the Ecumenical Councils then you would be using the 73 book Catholic Bible as determined by them.
I noticed you also don’t want me speaking to your bishop, is there a reason? If you had nothing to hide you would have freely given his name, and jurisdiction.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

luckyfredsdad;6128575:

Padrej;6122234:

I noticed you also don’t want me speaking to your bishop, is there a reason? If you had nothing to hide you would have freely given his name, and jurisdiction.

** Whether or not you speak to my bishop is up to you! * As it is, you have not given me any indication of which sect you belong to, obviously it isn’t Rome. It certainly is not Anglican, for to be Anglican one has to be a catholic!

Have you read the Anglican Continuum for today? Read Father R.Hart’s Article on Anglicans in England. Then put your thoughts to paper and I will answer you! Otherwise it’s questionable!***

 

[luckyfredsdad]

luckyfredsdad;6128563:

FrJohnB;6123088:

Have you ever heard of the Anglican authors EJ Bicknell and Dom Gregory Dix? Both would greatly disagree with your theories.

As it is I have only read passages from Bicknell as for Dix, I disagree strongly with his Papalism.]

While you are correct there was nor break at the reformation, it was broken with Henry VIII and his tiff with Rome

. From thence the Anglican church ceases to be part of the Catholic church but only followed Catholic traditions, THAT my friend is where you are confused.

Henry’s tiff with Rome?

What did Henry do that was against the Holy Ghost?
He, through the Church in England, said that foreign bishops had no authority out of their own sees. That is the ruling of the Councils of the Catholic Church through the Ecumenical Councils! It is these Councils wherein the magisterium is held. It was Rome who went against the teaching and this teaching the Church had held from the beginning!
As for Catholic Tradition, it was lost finally when the Church of England agreed to Women priests.

You keep speaking of “Trent” being the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church and you alluded to it here again. Could you please cite reliable sources to back these theories.

I read and study various books and pieces. I know that the Catholic Church and Teaching is based on tradition. The Great Councils were
called at the behest of Bishops by the Roman Emperors of East & West! That State Commissioners orgabised and overlooked the business of the Council and that the State distributed the findings.

None of this was done at Trent, it was the efforts of the papal beaucracy at the behest of their paymaster!
Only people cleared by the papacy were called and everything for the agenda had to be cleared by the papacy! Nothing had to be discussed regarding papal matters without permission and at the end the papacy had to resort to paying the suburbicarian bishops to ,‘pack,’
the Council. Finally the Council was split in to two groups, neither had to meet, if it could be helped and there was to be no discussion of the other half’s business and very little of their own. The end product was a Creed or profession of the Council of Trent which was binding on the faithful. This inspite of the fact that Nice anathematised anyone or group that tried to impose another creed on Catholics. [By the way this creed or profession is still in use in the North of England at least!]
The Council also named the New Church, Roman Catholic Church!
There’s still one more gem, that I missed out! The bishops attending were not allowed to finalise the proceedings by a vote, it had to go before Pius first. They had no say in the matter!

The Lutherans as well as the English Catholics not being silly, assumed as I do, that what they had witnessed was not just a Latin Council of the west, but a coup detat , by the papacy*! The Northern Bishops of the catholic Church, had in my opinion, surrendered their responsibilities on to the shoulders of one man, the pope. They were
not and are still not free agents as the early bishops were. They aare appointed by theee papacy and regulated bfrom that source.

Read, Littledale’s Council of Trent!

Once again, your post asks, “AFTER the reformation Vulgarians (WHO???) went about asking your supporters, 'Where was your Church before Trent?” A valid Question in my eyes. Many people asserted (Source please) a new Church was formed at that time! Certainly it was so in England."
**Use your head, the Church in England simply put the pope in his historical place, Primate of the West, it was the Pope who did the separating! There was no departure from catholic teaching by the Church! It rejected the papacy and medievalism not catholicity!
**

**As for sources? You do surprise me.
Wakeman, / Pullan Reformation, G.B.
Kidd. 39 Articles.
All of these Church Text Books. Rivington’s [1900.circa]
Hist. of The Church. Bate. " "

. Of course it is a Protestant claim that the Roman Catholic Church was formed at Trent So am I surprised that you are name calling, “Trentinist” and then hiding behind your veil of “I am Catholic.” You cannot have it both ways and say I am a Catholic and continue to be Protestant and use Protestant barbs.

**

What the protestants do is their and perhaps your business, it is not in this case mine! For you and anyone else who’s interested, I am not in this instance ,‘name calling,’ it is to my mind defing! I have no reason to call Roman’s names. It is simply that I use the terms of antiquity that I have been taught.

For the business of,‘Where was your Church before Trent?’ read John Evelyn’s Diary, Jan. 1686, he uses the term Church of Trent there. [Or something very near! ] For the rest read the writngs of Bishop Hickes, the Non Juring Primate , can’t remember the names and I’m too full of cold to go treacling up the stairs to get them.

 

[Teneas]

Um…didn’t Henry separate himself by getting divorce after divorce after divorce, not to mention the killings? The Church took a stance against that, and he got mad from what I understand. Through his kingly power, decided he was going to start up his own version of Catholicism, or a “branch” of I am sure he thought.

 

[GKC]

In answer to your opening question, no. Henry sought, as was commonplace at the time, a decree of nullity with respect to his marriage to Catherine, based on a supposed impediment of affinity in the first degree, collateral. After that, things got very complicated.

GKC

Um…didn’t Henry separate himself by getting divorce after divorce after divorce, not to mention the killings? The Church took a stance against that, and he got mad from what I understand. Through his kingly power, decided he was going to start up his own version of Catholicism, or a “branch” of I am sure he thought.

 

[Teneas]

In answer to your opening question, no. Henry sought, as was commonplace at the time, a decree of nullity with respect to his marriage to Catherine, based on a supposed impediment of affinity in the first degree, collateral. After that, things got very complicated.

GKC

Yes, but how many annulments was that going to be? I am asking seriously here, as I know little of him or Anglicans. I thought it was like the 3rd time or so he wanted an annulment.

 

[Padrej]

Padrej;6128824:

luckyfredsdad;6128575:

Padrej;6122234:

** Whether or not you speak to my bishop is up to you! * As it is, you have not given me any indication of which sect you belong to, obviously it isn’t Rome. It certainly is not Anglican, for to be Anglican one has to be a catholic!

Have you read the Anglican Continuum for today? Read Father R.Hart’s Article on Anglicans in England. Then put your thoughts to paper and I will answer you! Otherwise it’s questionable!***

I know Father Robert Hart and used to be the assistant to the bishop that ordained him in Easton Maryland. Now does that tell you what sect I am with???
To tell you the truth. Hart had MANY objections to his ordination to Deacon and Priest, but those were over-ridden by the bishop in violation of his own cannon law. This same bishop that Hart served under used to use the Roman Catholic Catechism as his catechism.

Interesting side not about Hart when he lived in Easton: Hart wanted his writings to be given in imprimatur by a local rabbi who also teaches at Georgetown University, the Rabbi refused until he read the works in their completed state. It would seem fishy to ask for your works to be asked to be given such prior to writing. That would be like me saying to the New York Times, “I am going to write a book and I want you to endorse it before I write it,” Not going to happen.
Here is the blog you reference for the edification of the rest of those here.
anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/

I think those on this thread would find Hart’s viewpoints highly controversial to say the least.

BTW My lines of succession are in the same as Apb. Chambers but with the addition of a Roman Catholic Bishop.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

[/quote]

As far as I was taught school The Church in Ireland was Celtic and traditional until the 10th, or 11th, Cent, and it was not till that time that it even came in to union with Rome. It chose to support the break away Church of Trent, 1564, presumably because the English followed the traditional teachings. Mind you, not every one became Trentistas some continued in the old way following the Church of Ireland! Sadly this became , or allowed itself to become the Church of English intruders. That the pre 10th, Century Church played a great part in restoring Catholicism to the Britains is true enough. The British and Irish Bishops along with Saxon Converts restored the faith. It is to be noticed that the Roman contingent departed to Gaull and never returned. Gregory’s onslaught faded without even a whisper.

You are talking about blustering in the post preceding. Your own posts are filled with a curious combination of jingoism, British Imperialism masking itself as religion and outright rudeness.

I’m trying! But perfection eludes me!
[/quote]