Rome tells Anglicans: it's time to decide if you are Protestants or Catholics

[Primrose]

the channel Islands, Isle of man and Isle of Whight are England and the Orkneys, Hebrides and Shetlands, Faroes are Scotland.
Primrose:thumbsup:

As a half-Shetlander by ancestry, I can tell you that most Shetlanders do not think of themselves as Scots. They are aware that Shetland was originally pawned to Scotland in lieu of a dowry and that the Scots illegally held on to it when the Norwegians later tried to redeem it. They don’t want to go back to Norway, but they see the Scots primarily as invaders. Many Shetlanders want autonomy of some sort. Even those who don’t still see themselves as something quite different from Scotland. I won’t claim that all do, but this is how many of my relatives talk.

Also, the Faroes belong to Denmark, not Scotland (they have the kind of autonomy that some Shetlanders are pushing for).

Edwin

Apologies. Having been married to an Irishman I know how proud the celts are of their identity ( although I don’t know if Shetlanders are celts or scandinavian now you’ve enlightened me). I am an Aussie who moved to Cornwall as a child, the Cornish feel they aren’t English. A bit like the Bretons in France (Brittany) who feel they aren’t french, they’ve even got their own language (like Cornwall although the language will soon die if people don’t learn it). I’m full of trivia

Primrose

 

[Contarini]

**It may interest those OPs not aware of this, that the Presbyterians condemned Masonry in 1736 - just two years before the first Papal condemnation of 1738. **​

I’m amazed the SBs (very Tolkienian, that) don’t reject it.

It would no doubt vary from one pastor to another. The Southern Baptist pastor who baptized me and my parents (though we never joined his church) was uncomfortable with Masonry, but said that he didn’t dare take a stand against it since many of his church members were Masons and he wanted to “pick his fights.” In other words, he didn’t approve but didn’t think it was a life-and-death issue (which would frankly be more or less my position–it bothers me a bit that Episcopalians are completely OK with it, but it isn’t high on my list of worries compared to abortion, for instance). Generally this was a point of difference between Southern Baptists and Independent Baptists. Typically the Independents thundered against the SBs for tolerating Masons as members.

Again, I don’t think the SB pastors were generally happy about their people being Masons (at least in our very conservative area), but it wasn’t a make-or-break issue in terms of membership.

I will contemplate further the resemblance between the SBs and the S-Bs. I think there are quite a few. Both are obnoxious but not truly evil, and I would be sorry to see them destroyed by the forces of Sauron!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Apologies. Having been married to an Irishman I know how proud the celts are of their identity ( although I don’t know if Shetlanders are celts or scandinavian now you’ve enlightened me). I am an Aussie who moved to Cornwall as a child, the Cornish feel they aren’t English. A bit like the Bretons in France (Brittany) who feel they aren’t french, they’ve even got their own language (like Cornwall although the language will soon die if people don’t learn it). I’m full of trivia

Primrose

So am I. I also have an Australian background (my Shetlander grandparents moved to Australia when my dad was only a year old. He moved back to Britain at the age of 18, married my mother who was of American parentage, and we all moved to the U.S. when I was 6!).

Shetlanders are primarily Scandinavian in origin, although of course there’s been a lot of mixture (I have one Irish ancestor, supposedly) and the Picts were the earliest inhabitants of whom we have historical record.

Edwin

 

[Lilyflower]

My mistake! It was Cromwell not Wolsey… so many Thomases!

Cromwell was what the British call ‘a thug’ and what the Americans call ‘a gangster’.

Blessings and peace

 

[Lilyflower]

**It may interest those OPs not aware of this, that the Presbyterians condemned Masonry in 1736 - just two years before the first Papal condemnation of 1738. **​

---

I’m amazed the SBs (very Tolkienian, that) don’t reject it.

You are lumping all masonry together. Now that just is not cricket!

European masonry is futher apart from USA Canada UK and Australian masonry than Catholic is from SDA

The Church has only one objection to the latter masonry.

Sorry to de-rail the thread

Blessings and peace

 

[Lepanto]

Something of a follow-up:

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/may2008/anglicanshesitateonpathtorome.htm

The bishops he speaks of, BTW, are Catholic bishops, not Anglicans.

 

[thirdn6]

Something of a follow-up:

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/may2008/anglicanshesitateonpathtorome.htm

The bishops he speaks of, BTW, are Catholic bishops, not Anglicans.

There you go again! …“Catholic bishops, not Anglicans”. Can’t we just say Catholic bishops if Anglicans are Catholics???

I agree that we Christians have one baptism. But after that, some put on pure white garments, some put on “polka-dotted” garments, some put on “mascaras” on their faces, some put on spaceship suites, some clowns… we are all invited to that holy banquet. But whose going to sit on the table of the Lord??? Everybody??? NO! Only those who obey the Master and those who obey His true teachers.

I am in no way against the Anglican laity. I am not against those who are being misled. I am against those who mislead! False teachers. Who keep preying innocent souls.

Now, these bishops who convert and other more bishops who are contemplating to convert- praise God! But what will happen to those people they taught? Some who are already dead, some who became another false teacher, some who are left in the rut not knowing how to get out. It is not easy to decide when the mind is so confused. Who is going to sort it out for them?

Re C O’Murphy, IMO it’s like giving those guys two pennies in a closed palm

To G of G. So you are an RC.

 

[stpetric]

I’ve never once met an Anglican who claimed to be anything other than a Protestant.

Then it doesn’t sound like you met many active Anglicans! I’m Roman Catholic now, but I went to seminary and served 13 years in the priesthood of the Anglican Church. “Protestant” is a word I would *never *have used to describe myself – except in the sense of not being RC.

Furthermore, I belonged to an international order of Anglican clergy called the Society of the Holy Cross, whose members to a man would all describe themselves as catholic.

I think Cardinal Kasper was right on the money about the fundamental choice before the Anglican Communion.

 

[Lepanto]

There you go again! …“Catholic bishops, not Anglicans”. Can’t we just say Catholic bishops if Anglicans are Catholics???

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your point.

All I meant was that the article’s author was referring to Catholic bishops, not to Anglican bishops. (Which, of course, is the irony behind the author’s thesis.)

 

[LDNCatholic]

Then it doesn’t sound like you met many active Anglicans! I’m Roman Catholic now, but I went to seminary and served 13 years in the priesthood of the Anglican Church. “Protestant” is a word I would *never *have used to describe myself – except in the sense of not being RC.

Furthermore, I belonged to an international order of Anglican clergy called the Society of the Holy Cross, whose members to a man would all describe themselves as catholic.

I think Cardinal Kasper was right on the money about the fundamental choice before the Anglican Communion.

As was pointed out before, due to the sectarian lines drawn in the British isles, Anglicans are Protestants, Catholics are Catholic. If you are not Catholic or Orthodox you are Protestant.

I mean no offence but England is very different to America.

 

[stpetric]

As was pointed out before, due to the sectarian lines drawn in the British isles, Anglicans are Protestants, Catholics are Catholic. If you are not Catholic or Orthodox you are Protestant.

I mean no offence but England is very different to America.

No offense taken. And I understand that, particularly in popular use, Anglicans are understood to be protestants.

But your original assertion was, “I’ve never once met an Anglican who claimed to be anything other than a Protestant.” I can give you the names of hundreds of Church of England priests (and bishops, too), who along with many of the people they serve, will readily identify themselves as catholic if asked. Or don’t wait for my list – next time you see the initials “S.S.C.” after the name of the parish priest on a C of E signboard, go in and ask if they call themselves “catholics”!

 

[Lepanto]

No offense taken. And I understand that, particularly in popular use, Anglicans are understood to be protestants.

But your original assertion was, “I’ve never once met an Anglican who claimed to be anything other than a Protestant.” I can give you the names of hundreds of Church of England priests (and bishops, too), who along with many of the people they serve, will readily identify themselves as catholic if asked. Or don’t wait for my list – next time you see the initials “S.S.C.” after the name of the parish priest on a C of E signboard, go in and ask if they call themselves “catholics”!

What I don’t understand is why they don’t make the leap, as you did, to uppercase “C” Catholic.

I applaud you, stpetric.

 

[GKC]

No offense taken. And I understand that, particularly in popular use, Anglicans are understood to be protestants.

But your original assertion was, “I’ve never once met an Anglican who claimed to be anything other than a Protestant.” I can give you the names of hundreds of Church of England priests (and bishops, too), who along with many of the people they serve, will readily identify themselves as catholic if asked. Or don’t wait for my list – next time you see the initials “S.S.C.” after the name of the parish priest on a C of E signboard, go in and ask if they call themselves “catholics”!

As in America, too. My rector, and the assistant priest, for example; members of SSC.

GKC

 

[stpetric]

What I don’t understand is why they don’t make the leap, as you did, to uppercase “C” Catholic.

I applaud you, stpetric.

Thanks for the applause, but all I did was succumb to the inevitable!

As for why other Anglo-Catholics don’t make the leap:

• Some are happy with the way things are in Anglicanism; they just like vestments and elaborate worship (which they tend to do *very *well!)
• Some still believe they will eventually succeed at calling Anglicanism back to its catholic heritage
• Some are comfortably ensconced in a “safe” parish and are willing to avert their gaze from what’s going on in the rest of the Anglican world
• And some would come over today with a bit of encouragement from Catholic church authorities.

All too often, that encouragement is not forthcoming. I personally have gotten it from a number of clergy and religious, but no diocesan authorities to date. I can manage because I have no family, and I have a secular profession from which to make a living – but others would be giving up parish positions with stipends and pensions, and they need to have some confidence that there’s somebody receptive ready to talk with them. I have in mind two Anglican priests in particular whom I’d ask you to pray for.

 

[mercygate]

Did anybody catch Fr. Peter Geldard on the Journey Home last night?

He does an outstanding job delineating the history of the recent meltdown in the Anglican Communion and explaining the Protestant/Catholic identity of Anglicanism.

He makes the excellent point that the Anglican Communion can be viewed either as a catholic church that had acquired Protestant characteristics OR as a Protestant Church that had affected Catholic characteristics.

 

[Contarini]

Did anybody catch Fr. Peter Geldard on the Journey Home last night?

He does an outstanding job delineating the history of the recent meltdown in the Anglican Communion and explaining the Protestant/Catholic identity of Anglicanism.

He makes the excellent point that the Anglican Communion can be viewed either as a catholic church that had acquired Protestant characteristics OR as a Protestant Church that had affected Catholic characteristics.

I don’t see how this dichotomy is valid. “A Catholic church that acquired Protestant characteristics” is another way of saying “a Protestant church.” That’s what happened at the Reformation. Parts of the Catholic Church broke away from Rome and adopted various beliefs and practices which, taken as a whole, we call Protestant. The Anglicans kept many Catholic elements that other Protestants abandoned (and abandoned or at least further watered down some that the Lutherans kept), and at least some Anglicans later returned to many others. But the main problem with Anglo-Catholicism is that they start off with this picture of the absolute dichotomy between Catholicism and Protestantism, and then argue rightly that Anglicanism has many Catholic elements. Of course we do. All Protestants do. Otherwise we would be Gnostics or something.

Edwin

 

[mercygate]

I don’t see how this dichotomy is valid. “A Catholic church that acquired Protestant characteristics” is another way of saying “a Protestant church.” That’s what happened at the Reformation. Parts of the Catholic Church broke away from Rome and adopted various beliefs and practices which, taken as a whole, we call Protestant. The Anglicans kept many Catholic elements that other Protestants abandoned (and abandoned or at least further watered down some that the Lutherans kept), and at least some Anglicans later returned to many others. But the main problem with Anglo-Catholicism is that they start off with this picture of the absolute dichotomy between Catholicism and Protestantism, and then argue rightly that Anglicanism has many Catholic elements. Of course we do. All Protestants do. Otherwise we would be Gnostics or something.

Edwin

Geldard articulates Michael Ramsay’s “Catholic” position. Yes: you can (must?) say it is Protestant but Ramsay deeply believed in the ESSENTIAL catholicity of Anglicanism. He told an acquaintance of mine that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the entire Church.

 

[Contarini]

Geldard articulates Michael Ramsay’s “Catholic” position. Yes: you can (must?) say it is Protestant but Ramsay deeply believed in the ESSENTIAL catholicity of Anglicanism. He told an acquaintance of mine that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the entire Church.

I entirely agree with that. My problem is not with the basic ideal of Anglo-Catholics but with their claims of Anglican exceptionalism. Yes, there are ways in which Anglicans are uniquely Catholic among Protestants. But as someone who was not brought up Anglican, I care about more than just Anglicans. I want to bring all Protestants (or as many as possible) to an understanding of their Catholic roots.

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You are lumping all masonry together. Now that just is not cricket!

European masonry is futher apart from USA Canada UK and Australian masonry than Catholic is from SDA

The Church has only one objection to the latter masonry.

Sorry to de-rail the thread

Blessings and peace

**My apologies - I thought the CC objected to both **​

 

[Contarini]

**My apologies - I thought the CC objected to both **​

It does, I believe.

Edwin