T
Teneas
Guest
Alright, I read up on him some. I was mistaken by how many annulments he asked for. Still don’t think he was any kind of a nice guy, or holy by any means.
- Status
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
luckyfredsdad;6128863:
. This same bishop that Hart served under used to use the Roman Catholic Catechism as his catechism.Padrej;6128824:
luckyfredsdad;6128575:
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
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.
Are you in the Continuum?
I should think that many on this thread would find Our Lord and His Apostles highly controversial as well.
G
GKC
Guest
The absolutely best book for a general understanding of Henry is HENRY VIII, by J. J. Scarisbrick.
Henry was not a particularly nice guy, no. But he was a fascinating train wreck, and the history of that part of the 16th century is equally fascinating and complicated.
You needn’t cut Hank too much slack. He received 3 annulments in his career, with respect to Catherine, Anne Boleyn and Anne of Cleves, for reasons that fit the system of impediments/decrees of nullity in existence at the time. All were granted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, after the break. Any bishop theoretically could have granted such a decree, but again, the history is complicated.
GKC
Henry was not a particularly nice guy, no. But he was a fascinating train wreck, and the history of that part of the 16th century is equally fascinating and complicated.
You needn’t cut Hank too much slack. He received 3 annulments in his career, with respect to Catherine, Anne Boleyn and Anne of Cleves, for reasons that fit the system of impediments/decrees of nullity in existence at the time. All were granted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, after the break. Any bishop theoretically could have granted such a decree, but again, the history is complicated.
GKC
T
Teneas
Guest
Ah…hmm…didn’t get to see the 3 annulment part on Wiki, but I guess I was right in that regard. If that is the case, perhaps one can understand why the Church would not let him have another one? I know history is complicated, and at time some members of the Church were into politics way way to much. Deals are made, things happen, etc.
I just can’t see how “Hank” could be justified in his splitting from the Church. Seems to me, that the Anglican Church was started by a murdering, adulterous, horrible man. While intentions of the current Anglicans may be pure, not saying that they are, it was started out of severe sin, and simply to get what one man wanted out of it. At least from what I understand of it. I could be wrong.
P
Padrej
Guest
Padrej;6129129:
I should think that many on this thread would find Our Lord and His Apostles highly controversial as well.
If I am in the continuum or not is of no matter to YOU, although I am considered part. Robt. Hart’s brother Dr. David Bentley Hart is actually the only recognized one of his family worth his salt in writing and even then it is in the matters of the Orthodox church to which he belongs. I would be careful in getting my theology from Robert Hart as it tends to be tainted.
When I first met him (Robt. Hart) he was a tongue speaker which got corrected very fast by the bishop as not being Anglican or Catholic. He tried to argue that during the consecration his tongue speaking “in Hebrew” was normal operating procedure for early Catholics. Although what he did not know was the bishop that he served was a convert from Judaism and knew he was not speaking in Hebrew as he claimed.
BTW Hart’s Bible contained more than 66 books too.
G
GKC
Guest
Note that the annulments were after the break. None but the one relative to Catherine of Aragon was ever adjudicated at all under the RCC, though the same system was followed.
The decree of nullity with respect to Anne Boleyn was for an impediment related to premarital agreement she had with another, prior to marrying Henry. That was a diriment impediment of the justice of public honesty, and was a common ground for granting decrees of nullity at the time. As I mentioned, what Henry did, seeking a decree of nullity, was commonplace. The RCC had designed the entire system to accommodate such things, with respect to marriages of state.Of course, Anne Boleyn’s case was just to keep things tidy. She was executed for treason, anyway.
Anne of Cleves was a case of Henry buying a pig in a poke. The marriage lasted about 30 mins. after Hank first saw her (and Thomas Cromwell didn’t last much longer). Again, this was how the system worked, in the 1500s. Trent had to cut it back a little (Session XXIV).
I do recommend Scarisbrick’s book.
GKC
The decree of nullity with respect to Anne Boleyn was for an impediment related to premarital agreement she had with another, prior to marrying Henry. That was a diriment impediment of the justice of public honesty, and was a common ground for granting decrees of nullity at the time. As I mentioned, what Henry did, seeking a decree of nullity, was commonplace. The RCC had designed the entire system to accommodate such things, with respect to marriages of state.Of course, Anne Boleyn’s case was just to keep things tidy. She was executed for treason, anyway.
Anne of Cleves was a case of Henry buying a pig in a poke. The marriage lasted about 30 mins. after Hank first saw her (and Thomas Cromwell didn’t last much longer). Again, this was how the system worked, in the 1500s. Trent had to cut it back a little (Session XXIV).
I do recommend Scarisbrick’s book.
GKC
F
FrJohnB
Guest
[/quote]
[/quote]
The person who posted that did a multi-quote post and you have put my name on a post that I DID NOT write or post. Please do not associate me with the Protestant posting that went with it. I do not agree with, nor have I have ever agreed with what was put there that you have erroneously attributed to my name. If you want to know the writer of the post look to someone else. My guess look to luckyfredsdad and you will find the complete post.
[/quote]
[/quote]
The person who posted that did a multi-quote post and you have put my name on a post that I DID NOT write or post. Please do not associate me with the Protestant posting that went with it. I do not agree with, nor have I have ever agreed with what was put there that you have erroneously attributed to my name. If you want to know the writer of the post look to someone else. My guess look to luckyfredsdad and you will find the complete post.
[/quote]
F
FrJohnB
Guest
The complete post is 253 where one can see that it is not me that said those things.
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
FrJohnB said:
**I have just read your post and whilst ,if it was my fault, I must then apologise. I have not knowingly done anything to either embarrass you or indeed offend you!
But , having said that, I feel whatever has happened, you must be a terribly insecure man to respond in such a way?
I can understand in one sense, neither would I like to be thought anyway involved with either yourself or the ideas you purvey!**Still your rudeness is appalling!
P
Padrej
Guest
You know when I was growing up I was taught whenever you point a finger of blame at another person three more point back where the real problem is!!! (AKA the accuser)
When I got older I learned the sins we point out most in others are the ones most evident in self. See the above highlights and see if this doesn’t ring true?
F
FrJohnB
Guest
T
Teneas
Guest
Fr. B.
Real priest?
Real priest?
F
FrJohnB
Guest
No offense taken. It seems this thread is getting a bit strange when you go post next as it posts the wrong name if you are not careful. I am glad that you noticed that other Protestants don’t seem to agree with Luckyfredsdad, I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who noticed this.
God Bless you
Fr John
God Bless you
Fr John
F
FrJohnB
Guest
T
Teneas
Guest
Simply glad to see a Priest on here with us. I know others are as well, but I respect priests words more than any other walking the earth with us, until Christ comes back.
Thank you for your commitment to the Church, and to us lay people.
F
FrJohnB
Guest
Thank you and God bless you.Simply glad to see a Priest on here with us. I know others are as well, but I respect priests words more than any other walking the earth with us, until Christ comes back.
Thank you for your commitment to the Church, and to us lay people.
I wish there were others as respectful of positions as you. When I was young I was raised to respect the clergy of all denominations, I may not always agree with what they say, but I was raised to show respect due to them. That Is why I try to show respect to Padrej on this thread, even though I know he is Protestant, I know that he is also ordained and an Anglican Bishop. He and I are not always going to agree, in fact on one thread we did not, but we can treat each other with respect. If a non-Catholic sees me treat a Protestant that way, I figure that I might win a convert easier than if I fought them tooth and nail and always looked at what was wrong with them.
I pray God strengthens you in your faith journey.
God bless you.
Fr. John
P
Padrej
Guest
It appears Fr John that you and I have similar approaches to winning a soul. I too prefer not to argue over points of contention. The world outside the church walls has enough of that, the Church and its people should be people of PEACE. I know that debates on this forum tend to get heated and it can be a shame when a newbie to the faith comes on board and sees us acting like a bunch of spoiled brat kids arguing over who is right. I don’t think that is what Jesus had in mind when he said, “unless you become as a little child you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” Childlike trust and faith are one thing but fighting like children is another.
Why CAN"T we look for what is similar and what is right with us rather than what makes us different and “wrong?” It is the different and wrong things that keep us separated. I don’t care what Henry VIII (Or Martin Luther for that matter) did back in the day, I was not born then, what do I have to do with that? By the same token Protestants bring up the Inquisition and Pope Honorius and any of the other popes listed in the Catholic Encyclopedia as “Anti- Popes” and expect today’s Catholics to be just as responsible for their actions. Last I have observed, no Catholic is that old either. In my mind the only thing that is properly done by looking backwards is rowing a boat; last I checked we are supposed to be fishers of men (people), not rowers of the boat looking back to the past.
F
FrJohnB
Guest
All I can say to that is a resounding AMEN!!!
When it comes down to it most Protestants DO have more in common that what they want to admit, and what we want to admit as well.
I want to try and clear something up and maybe you can help.
It bothers me when some claim to BE Catholic because they have 7 sacraments but yet don’t follow the Pope which makes them Protestant. (this according to the continuum link posted earlier on this thread) I know that this is describing some of the Anglican sects which you are part of, and I know from previous post you agree with this. But when the prayer book of their own church in the 39 articles list them as Anti- Papacy (Hence Protestant) I cannot for the life of me figure out why claim to be Catholic if it is worship style only?
P
Padrej
Guest
Fr JohnAll I can say to that is a resounding AMEN!!!
When it comes down to it most Protestants DO have more in common that what they want to admit, and what we want to admit as well.
I want to try and clear something up and maybe you can help.
It bothers me when some claim to BE Catholic because they have 7 sacraments but yet don’t follow the Pope which makes them Protestant. (this according to the continuum link posted earlier on this thread) I know that this is describing some of the Anglican sects which you are part of, and I know from previous post you agree with this. But when the prayer book of their own church in the 39 articles list them as Anti- Papacy (Hence Protestant) I cannot for the life of me figure out why claim to be Catholic if it is worship style only?
I will try as best as I can to describe some of the actions of my Anglican “brethren” on this matter. True we do retain 7 sacraments and the historic teachings, and apostolic succession going back to the 12 apostles so in that sense many in the Anglican world like to view themselves as being “Catholic.” They point out that they kept the teachings of before Trent and Vatican 2 so we are the “pure church,” HOWEVER, this is where there is a major difference in Anglican thinking. There are some in Anglican circles who take the views of the aforementioned and say, “we are Catholic” no ifs ands and buts even though when cornered like Robert Hart’s bishop that ordained him will tell you “We are Protestant in that we do not follow the teachings of Rome, we are only Catholic in teaching and tradition.” I find it interesting that Fr. Hart left this tidbit out of his article that he posted to his blog that was linked on this thread.
Other Anglicans will blatantly tell you, “because we do not follow Rome we are Protestant, the Prayer book says so” right off the bat, “We are part of a worldwide communion.” These same Anglicans retain the same 7 sacraments, historic teachings, apostolic succession etc as the other group of Anglicans who say “We are Catholic.”
The Anglo Catholic Party within Anglicanism has always been very vocal about their “Catholicity” so this is why we have a member of this thread who does everything Protestant in that he is not under Rome, but claims to be Catholic because of the teachings, sacraments, etc maintained by his church.
I hope that makes it clearer.
F
FrJohnB
Guest
Almost makes you want to say, “whose on first”
Thank you I think I got it. This explains quite a bit more about Rev. Hart’s positions on his blog. I wish he HAD put that piece in there about the bishop that ordained him, it would have added much more clarity. It is good that you know his background so it makes his writings clearer.
- Status