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

[nsper7]

I think this discussion needs to be moved.

To put Christians under a banner of “other religions” or “other faiths” just because they don’t toe the Roman line is arrogant, offensive and insulting.

Calling Catholics “Romans” is itself rather offensive and insulting.

If you want to take issue with the placement of Anglican discussions in the “non-Catholic Religions” forum, that sounds like something that should be discussed with the folks running the forums, not us lowly peasants

It all depends on how you define ‘catholic’. If by catholic, one means the Roman Catholic Church, then Anglicans are Non-Catholic. If by ‘catholic’, you mean the Universal Church (the literal definition of catholic from the Greek) , then Anglicans are definitely ‘catholic’ (as in, we are a part of that One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church mentioned in the Nicene Creed).

 

[comfort1st]

Calling Catholics “Romans” is itself rather offensive and insulting.

Did someone call Roman Catholics “Romans?”

I did mention toeing the Roman line, but since the decisions are promulgated from Rome there’s nothing more than a bit of geography in that.

God bless all Christians.
Steven.

 

[chris_molter]

It all depends on how you define ‘catholic’. If by catholic, one means the Roman Catholic Church, then Anglicans are Non-Catholic. If by ‘catholic’, you mean the Universal Church (the literal definition of catholic from the Greek) , then Anglicans are definitely ‘catholic’ (as in, we are a part of that One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church mentioned in the Nicene Creed).

Since this is a “Roman” Catholic forum, we’re somewhat obliged to use their definition and place discussions about Anglicanism in the “non-Catholic religions” forum.

I suppose you can try to convince them that Anglicanism IS Catholic in the same sense that “Roman” Catholicism is, but I don’t think you’ll have much luck.

 

[chris_molter]

Did someone call Roman Catholics “Romans?”

I did mention toeing the Roman line, but since the decisions are promulgated from Rome there’s nothing more than a bit of geography in that.

God bless all Christians.
Steven.

Well, the forum is named “Non-Catholic Religions”, not “Non-Christian Religions”. I’m not sure why that’s so offensive.

I apologize for pouncing about the “Roman” bit.

 

[comfort1st]

Well, the forum is named “Non-Catholic Religions”, not “Non-Christian Religions”. I’m not sure why that’s so offensive?

The problem is that the religion is Christianity, not Catholicism. Within the Christian faith (ie within the Christian religion) there are numerous denominations, of which Roman Catholics form but one. “In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek …” Just as the Jews and Greeks still existed in the real world of Paul, but were united in Christ, so too, in our world, the Roman Catholics, the Anglicans (wherever they are on the spectrum) and all the other denominations still exist but are united in Christ, and therefore have equal rights to claim to be Christians.

I apologize for pouncing about the “Roman” bit.

Thankyou. Apology accepted. You weren’t loved any less for making the mistake.

Steven

 

[mercygate]

The problem is that the religion is Christianity, not Catholicism. Within the Christian faith (ie within the Christian religion) there are numerous denominations, of which Roman Catholics form but one. “In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek …” Just as the Jews and Greeks still existed in the real world of Paul, but were united in Christ, so too, in our world, the Roman Catholics, the Anglicans (wherever they are on the spectrum) and all the other denominations still exist but are united in Christ, and therefore have equal rights to claim to be Christians.

Thankyou. Apology accepted. You weren’t loved any less for making the mistake.

Steven

As a former Episcopalian, I used to bristle about being called a “Convert” – as if I had not already been a Christian. However, not on my worst day did I stoop to calling the Catholic Church a “denomination” much less “one of many”. That is a serious misconstruction of the case.

 

[chris_molter]

The problem is that the religion is Christianity, not Catholicism. Within the Christian faith (ie within the Christian religion) there are numerous denominations, of which Roman Catholics form but one. “In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek …” Just as the Jews and Greeks still existed in the real world of Paul, but were united in Christ, so too, in our world, the Roman Catholics, the Anglicans (wherever they are on the spectrum) and all the other denominations still exist but are united in Christ, and therefore have equal rights to claim to be Christians.
Steven

I do see where you’re coming from, and I agree that a separate “Non-Catholic Christian” forum would be preferable to lumping all non-Catholics in with non-Christians (The Catholic Church DOES accept all validly baptised persons as Christians).

I guess the contentious term in the forum title is “religions”. Perhaps if they titled it “Non-Catholic Religions/Denominations” it would be a bit more accurate and less offensive? Either that or have that separate forum for non-Catholic Christians.

Thank you for accepting my apology.

 

[Contarini]

I do see where you’re coming from, and I agree that a separate “Non-Catholic Christian” forum would be preferable to lumping all non-Catholics in with non-Christians (The Catholic Church DOES accept all validly baptised persons as Christians).

I guess the contentious term in the forum title is “religions”. Perhaps if they titled it “Non-Catholic Religions/Denominations” it would be a bit more accurate and less offensive? Either that or have that separate forum for non-Catholic Christians.

I would prefer either of these too, but I don’t lose sleep over it!

I am upset about the abolition of the Eastern Orthodoxy forum, though.

Edwin

 

[chris_molter]

I would prefer either of these too, but I don’t lose sleep over it!

I am upset about the abolition of the Eastern Orthodoxy forum, though.

Edwin

I’m sure the forum admins have a reason for doing it this way. I’m just grateful we have a place to have these little discussions

 

[thirdn6]

Lambeth starts next week. I guess bishops(?) are already in London. Has anybody decided yet?:coffeeread:

 

[comfort1st]

As a former Episcopalian, I used to bristle about being called a “Convert” – as if I had not already been a Christian. However, not on my worst day did I stoop to calling the Catholic Church a “denomination” much less “one of many”. That is a serious misconstruction of the case.

I don’t see where the ‘serious misconstruction’ is. In the Christian church the word denomination is used to indicate a group of Christians who worship in a way which is different from the way some other Christians worship. Since Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Pentecostalists (and those of other denominations) are all Christians the Roman Catholic Church is, by definition, but one denomination in many. It may be the largest, but that doesn’t contradict that the fact that it is one of many.

Steven

 

[robert_small]

**

The Lord came to gather the lost sheep of Israel back into the fold
This is one aspect that Christains have forgotten the Angilcans do
class them-selves as having the Catholic Faith even the Angilcans have forgotten this.As the Archbishop of Canturbury
has shown that Anglicans do hold the Catholic faith to be true.
So I agree that there now should be a deciding fact what Angilcans beleive in.
One can no longer sit on the fence as The Lord Himself is the good Sheppard and his church can no longer be divided.
All I have to say to those who proclaim themselves to be protestants
join another church .
They are the ones who are stopping union from taking place The
TRINITY can no longer be fractured by those who have sworn loyality to the Various bishops and then accepting the Bishop of Canturbury reslove to unite the churchs .

Robert Small

 

[mercygate]

I don’t see where the ‘serious misconstruction’ is. In the Christian church the word denomination is used to indicate a group of Christians who worship in a way which is different from the way some other Christians worship. Since Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Pentecostalists (and those of other denominations) are all Christians the Roman Catholic Church is, by definition, but one denomination in many. It may be the largest, but that doesn’t contradict that the fact that it is one of many.

Steven

For Catholics a “true particular church” must be in the Apostolic faith. It has nothing to do with “worshiping in a different way.” In fact, what non-Catholics call “worship” would be categorized as “praise” but not fully as worship by Catholics & Orthodox because it lacks the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

The Ruthenian Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and the Russian Orthodox Church not in Communion with Rome, are nevertheless “Churches” in that they hold the orthodox faith and have valid sacraments.

“Denominations” are “de-nominated” off of the original tree and lack at least three marks of the Church: unity, catholicity, and apostolicity. It is only by redesigning the term “church” that you can come up with the idea of “the Lutheran Church” or “the Presbyterian Church.”

 

[chris_molter]

I don’t see where the ‘serious misconstruction’ is. In the Christian church the word denomination is used to indicate a group of Christians who worship in a way which is different from the way some other Christians worship. Since Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Pentecostalists (and those of other denominations) are all Christians the Roman Catholic Church is, by definition, but one denomination in many. It may be the largest, but that doesn’t contradict that the fact that it is one of many.

Steven

The problem is that no denomination considers itself to be “The Church”. The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic communions both claim to be such. A denomination claims to be part of “The Church”, but also accepts other denominations as part of “The Church” as well. To call either the EO or RC a denomination is to misrepresent what each of those communions claims for itself.

 

[Lepanto]

The problem is that no denomination considers itself to be “The Church”. The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic communions both claim to be such. A denomination claims to be part of “The Church”, but also accepts other denominations as part of “The Church” as well. To call either the EO or RC a denomination is to misrepresent what each of those communions claims for itself.

Excellent post! However, I’d refrain from calling the Catholic Church the “Roman Catholic Church,” because by doing so you are contradicting the thesis of your own excellent post. Please see here:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/HOWNAME.HTM

 

[comfort1st]

The problem is that no denomination considers itself to be “The Church”. The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic communions both claim to be such. A denomination claims to be part of “The Church”, but also accepts other denominations as part of “The Church” as well. To call either the EO or RC a denomination is to misrepresent what each of those communions claims for itself.

Since we are talking about “The Church of GOD” not “The Church of Rome” or “The Church of Constantinople” the very claim that the either of the EO and RC churches is “The Church” is arrogant. According to one reliable source the leader of the RC church is called “His Holiness” and the leader of the EO church is “His ALL Holiness.” Where is God in such titles?

If we are theocentric then there’s no problem with the different paths to God being called denominations. Only where one claims to have all the truth (which, as humans we will never have) does a problem arise.

Steven

 

[jay29]

If we are theocentric then there’s no problem with the different paths to God being called denominations. Only where one claims to have all the truth (which, as humans we will never have) does a problem arise.

Steven

BALONEY!!!

Relativism is for the BIRDS!!!



Check out some of those AWFUL doctrines of the Episcopal Church and get back to me.

 

[chris_molter]

Excellent post! However, I’d refrain from calling the Catholic Church the “Roman Catholic Church,” because by doing so you are contradicting the thesis of your own excellent post. Please see here:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/HOWNAME.HTM

I’m aware, but was using the term to be more clear to our non Catholic friends

 

[chris_molter]

Since we are talking about “The Church of GOD” not “The Church of Rome” or “The Church of Constantinople” the very claim that the either of the EO and RC churches is “The Church” is arrogant.

Ahh, but we aren’t just “the Church of Rome”, we are the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”, which includes 27 (IIRC) separate “Churches” who have continued the faith and witness of the Apostles through 2000 years.

Yes, it IS arrogant. It’s scandalous, in fact!

According to one reliable source the leader of the RC church is called “His Holiness” and the leader of the EO church is “His ALL Holiness.” Where is God in such titles?

Are you seriously arguing that because the affective titles for the Pope or Patriarch are “Holiness”, that somehow can TAKE AWAY from the glory we give God Almighty, when it is God who provides the charisms necessary for these men to do their work? What do you think happens at Ordination?

If we are theocentric then there’s no problem with the different paths to God being called denominations. Only where one claims to have all the truth (which, as humans we will never have) does a problem arise.

Steven

The Church doesn’t teach that a non-Catholic cannot reach heaven, however, using the term ‘denomination’ to refer to the Apostolic Churches is a historical fallacy since they existed prior to the advent of denominationalism.

Also, I think you’re claiming more about the Church than the Church teaches. Nowhere does it say that the Church has “all the truth”. It DOES say that it cannot err in teaching the Faith. But who would want to hold fast to a Church that claims it CAN teach error?

 

[PaulDupre]

It’s good that we can function as a “bridge” church…

Edwin

Many converts from Protestant sects to Catholicism report joining an Anglican/Episcopal church (seeking a more liturgical form of worship) and then later joining the Catholic Church. In this way, the Anglican Communion serves a valuable “bridge” function. I would not want to see this resource disappear just yet.

I don’t think that’s what you meant, but you reminded me of it.

God bless you,
Paul