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

[chris_molter]

Personally, I’d be very pleased to see the Anglican churches in communion with the Orthodox churches.

Do you really think the Orthodox would approach any sort of realignment with the Anglicans (agian… WHICH Anglicans?? ) without demanding as much if not more reform than Rome? Remember, to the Easterners, you’re not only tainted by Protestant heresy, but by Roman/Western heresy as well.

Ready to give up the filioque and admit it’s heretical?

I know to a lot of Anglicans and other Catholic minded Protestants that the Orthodox seem like a way to be connected to the Apostolic Church without having to deal with Roman particulars, but don’t forget that Anglicanism evolved out of Roman Western Christianity and that much of that is taboo in the East (even those developments prior to the English Reformation). Going Romeward? You gotta swallow Vatican I and Trent. Going East? Gotta drop a lot of your western particulars and swallow the eastern.

There’s no easy solution without altering your mindset one way or the other. The genius (and IMO the downfall) of Anglicanism was the desire to hold differing ideas in tension or to synthesize thesis and antithesis. I just don’t think that approach will wash with either Rome OR Constantinople.

 

[Lepanto]

What it sounds like he is asking for Anglican Churches to consider is throwing over their Anglican identity.

Your well-written post hangs on this idea.

However, your point is unfounded, as you can see by looking at all of the Eastern Rite churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome. They all have their own rites and are self-governing, yet are fully Catholic.

I think that a separate “identity” as that concept is used in Western minds presumes independence. Independence and a seperate indentity may be fine if you are a proud American cowboy type, but it is antithetical to Christian unity.

 

[GKC]

“Oh, and Henry was given the title “Defender of the Faith” by the Pope for his defense of the Catholic Faith against the continental reformers (prior to his break with Rome, of course). So at one time he was a good Catholic. Better than you or I, probably.”

The story of *Defensor Fidei *is a little more complicated. If desired, I can relate it.

GKC

 

[chris_molter]

“Oh, and Henry was given the title “Defender of the Faith” by the Pope for his defense of the Catholic Faith against the continental reformers (prior to his break with Rome, of course). So at one time he was a good Catholic. Better than you or I, probably.”

The story of *Defensor Fidei *is a little more complicated. If desired, I can relate it.

GKC

I know I was taking a little license with it I’ve read some good summations of the whole episode, but I think it couldn’t hurt to post that here! I’d certainly be interested in rehashing it.

 

[GKC]

I know I was taking a little license with it I’ve read some good summations of the whole episode, but I think it couldn’t hurt to post that here! I’d certainly be interested in rehashing it.

It’s a fun subject.

Henry liked sparklies. Was always on the look-out for a new and nifty title, or gee-gaw to add to his collection. In 1512, he petitioned Julius II to award him the title possessed by Louis XII, “Most Christian King” (you didn’t just call yourself something like that; it was awarded). Not sure if “Most Christian” was a zero sum title, but Julius did award it to Henry, and, for good measure, secretly gave him the French throne. All he had to do to claim it was to defeat Louis in the then on-going unpleasantness between the Holy League and France. That part never happened, though Henry tried, after Ferdinand of Spain finked out on him. But Henry got his “Christianissimus”.

In 1515, Henry wanted something else to pad his resume. Various ideas were passed around: “Protector of the Holy See”, maybe “Defender”, were suggested from the English side. The first was turned down because it already belonged to the Holy Roman Emperor, the second was the property of the Swiss. Some in Rome countered with “King Apostolic” (interesting combination) or “Orthodox”. The Pope vetoed both. In 1516, the title of “Defender of the Faith” was proposed from England. Leo ignored it, and Henry sulked.

Henry gave up until May, 1521, when Wolsey wrote once again to Rome, asking for a pretty for Henry. Leo passed it to a committee of Cardinals. Forthcoming were suggestions for titles:

“Rex Fidelis”, "“Orthodoxus”, “Ecclesiaticus” ,
“Protector”, “Anglicus” (that last was a little weak).

When the Cardinals inquired just why Henry warranted another honor, the part he had played fighting for the Holy See against Louis, 9 years before, was mentioned. And there was the Assertio (that is, the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum), sort of written by Henry, against Luther’s De Captivitate Babylonica). Rome had heard of this work of Hank’s (it was in draft in May 1521, printed in July, sent to Rome in September, after the Cardinals had been considering the matter of a title for a few months). So, even before the *Assertio *was received and presented to Leo, a list of titles for Henry to choose from was shipped over to England.

The Assertio probably tipped the scales for approval. About the time it was presented to Leo, Henry chose the same title that had been suggested by England 6 years before: *Defensor Fidei *. Leo granted it six weeks after he received the book. Doubtless directly inspired by the Assertio, some cardinals then wanted to add a flourish to the title, such as *Gloriosus *or Fidelissimus, but Leo vetoed it. Moderation in all things.

So Henry got his sparklie, partially because of the Assertio, partially because of the Holy League, partially because he was a pain in the neck. It was intended as a title for him personally, though he thought it was hereditary. Parliament thought it looked nice, and attached it to the Throne, in 1543. Mary took it off, Elizabeth put it back, and it’s there now by legislative fiat.

Fun.

GKC

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

However, your point is unfounded, as you can see by looking at all of the Eastern Rite churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome. They all have their own rites and are self-governing, yet are fully Catholic.

I mentioned the provisional Anglican Use in the post, but I just don’t see Rome embracing it in the way it has embraced the Eastern Rite (and even there, many Orthodox will have difficulty with the word “embraced” and may wish to substitute the word “vitiated”).

I think that a separate “identity” as that concept is used in Western minds presumes independence. Independence and a seperate indentity may be fine if you are a proud American cowboy type, but it is antithetical to Christian unity.

Identity is a very fluid thing, granted. I’m not so much talking of the Western concept–to me, the prayerbook is the touchstone of Anglican identity. Everything in addition to the prayer book which informs who I am as an Anglican is secondary to the prayer book. I very much believe in the old formula “Lex orandi, lex credendi.” But it seems that Rome’s take on that formula is: “Lex Romae, lex orandi et lex credendi est.” To me, throwing over the prayer book would be like a Roman throwing over the catechism. In terms of belief, I don’t know where either action would leave either of us.

I’m glad, though, that you brought up Christian Unity. But I’m not sure we think of it the same way. My fear is that for a Roman, Christian Unity means being Roman. For many others, myself included, Christian Unity means a fundamental acknowledgment of a union with all who confess Christ Jesus, Son of the Father, true God and true Man, who was born, taught, healed, was crucified, resurrected, and ascended, and who sends to us the Spirit. But I don’t think this idea of Christian identity is one which Rome has in mind. It seems like to Rome, Roman identity is the basis of Christian identity, not the other way around.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Lepanto]

Identity is a very fluid thing, granted. I’m not so much talking of the Western concept–to me, the prayerbook is the touchstone of Anglican identity. Everything in addition to the prayer book which informs who I am as an Anglican is secondary to the prayer book.

And yet, before Henry’s break (Elizabeth’s, really), there was no such thing as an “Anglican identity.”

From the time of the Christianizing of Britain, begun by St. Augustine of Canterbury in A.D. 597 till Henry fabricated his own church some 1000 years later, British Christians had a Catholic identity. How is it possible that this history can be so cavalierly disregarded?

If you go back just a little further in history–just before Henry and the Book of Common prayer–Anglicanism vanishes and you have Catholicism. This means that the authentic Christianity of the British people is not Anglicanism, but Catholicism.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

To G of G,

Before it was a Church IN England- purely Catholic… CAN be purged…bride of Christ…spotless

Now it is the Church OF England- separated and diluted with Protestantism… unpure, like a “dalmatian” (maybe you have a better word for it) …plenty of black spots… CAN NOT be washed.

Clear enough I hope…

Why can’t it be washed ?​

And maybe some Protestantism is what the CC needs in order to be fully Christian.

As for the CC being pure, I don’t believe this at all: in this world, a Church is never beyond need of reform & further, deeper, fuller, more thorough sanctification. AFAICS the idea - widespread, admittedly - that the CC is sinless does not do justice to all the Biblical evidence but takes account of some only; it oversimplifies. The CC does not need to be beyond criticism, or sinless,or to have “the fullness of” X or Y or Z" to be the CC. It can be sinful, & admitting its sinfulness & poverty & wretchedness & deformity & lack of faithfulness, without ceasing to be the Church. It needs to - otherwise it cannot be set free from the prison of its own self-righteousness; it cannot be healed, because it does not perceive that it needs healing.

If it admits its defectiveness, that could set it free to be the Church more fully than its present self-understanding allows - it would no longer to be able to glorify itself & put down others, but that is no loss.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

And yet, before Henry’s break (Elizabeth’s, really), there was no such thing as an “Anglican identity.”

From the time of the Christianizing of Britain, begun by St. Augustine of Canterbury in A.D. 597 till Henry fabricated his own church some 1000 years later, British Christians had a Catholic identity. How is it possible that this history can be so cavalierly disregarded?

If you go back just a little further in history–just before Henry and the Book of Common prayer–Anglicanism vanishes and you have Catholicism. This means that the authentic Christianity of the British people is not Anglicanism, but Catholicism.

**It was - but later, was not. Just as as Ethelbert of Kent was some kind of pre-Christian as of 596 & before, but after 597, was not. There is no “Divine Right” for any one form of religion to be the authentic Christianity of England (which what in fact seems to be discussed). **​

**Christianity was not unknown in Britain or even in England before 597 - to date it from then is like saying that America was discovered in 1492: they are both “what every fule no”, & they are both of questionable accuracy. I think the oldest evidence of Christianity goes back to the second century - & it has nothing to do with St. Lucius King of Britain. **

Nota Bene: please do not confuse Britain with England - it confuses the history of the Reformation (for instance) horribly. Thank you for your co-operation.

 

[GKC]

**It was - but later, was not. Just as as Ethelbert of Kent was some kind of pre-Christian as of 596 & before, but after 597, was not. There is no “Divine Right” for any one form of religion to be the authentic Christianity of England (which what in fact seems to be discussed). **​

**Christianity was not unknown in Britain or even in England before 597 - to date it from then is like saying that America was discovered in 1492: they are both “what every fule no”, & they are both of questionable accuracy. I think the oldest evidence of Christianity goes back to the second century - & it has nothing to do with St. Lucius King of Britain. **

Nota Bene: please do not confuse Britain with England - it confuses the history of the Reformation (for instance) horribly. Thank you for your co-operation.

And even more so …

Three bishops from Britain, from named sees, attended the Council of Arles, in 314, British bishops were also present at the Council of Rimini, in 359.

Didn’t start with Augustine.

GKC

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

And yet, before Henry’s break (Elizabeth’s, really), there was no such thing as an “Anglican identity.”

…

If you go back just a little further in history–just before Henry and the Book of Common prayer–Anglicanism vanishes and you have Catholicism.

I think this is not quite accurate, and not just for those reasons that folks like Gottle and GKC (who are far more learned that I) have mentioned above. Consider, for instance, the uniqueness of the Sarum Rite which looks to have been peculiar to the British church and represents a particular expression of its heritage and identity. It is from the Sarum Rite that the BCP was originally crafted, just as the Novus Ordo was drawn from the TLM. (Rome can keep the NO. I’ll take the BCP.)

Granted, religious expression in Britain was not the same before Henry as after. The lovely “Stripping of the Altars” book is a paeon to the church before the English Reformation, but one of its many virtues is its acknowledgment of the uniqueness of British Christianity even before the Reformation. It is true and lamentable that it has taken a while for the Anglican Churches to rediscover some of the beauties of its pre-Reformation heritage, but let’s be clear: these beauties are not foreign to it; they are not mere baubles and tat borrowed from Rome.

Is this to say that British Christianity was better than Roman Christianity? Not at all. Just that there were differences. And there continue to be differences.

The larger point is this (and I’ll venture to make this assertion and you feel free to disagree): Catholic identity is not the property of Rome, nor does it subsist in a singular Roman expression. Moreover, Christianity is not a function of adherence to Rome’s expression of its particular Catholic identity.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[ibkc]

And even more so …

Three bishops from Britain, from named sees, attended the Council of Arles, in 314, British bishops were also present at the Council of Rimini, in 359.

Didn’t start with Augustine.

To put an even finer point on it, Augustine was sent to Christianize the pagan Germanic invaders, who were swarming over a country which had been Christian for a few hundred years.

DeoVolente:

I think this is not quite accurate, and not just for those reasons that folks like Gottle and GKC (who are far more learned that I) have mentioned above. Consider, for instance, the uniqueness of the Sarum Rite which looks to have been peculiar to the British church and represents a particular expression of its heritage and identity.

The Sarum rite was just one of several that existed in the British Isles over the years. They were all still part of the Catholic Church.

 

[Eden]

You have no basis for this claim. There’s abundant evidence that other institutions that involve the care of children have significant instances of abuse and tend to deal with them much as the RC hierarchy has done. Public schools are one excellent example. Why don’t people use the same rhetoric about them that they do about Catholicism? (Hint: because in our society public schools are, bizarrely, considered necessary and obvious while churches are considered voluntary organizations of like-minded people.) In many non-Christian cultures pederasty (which is what most of the cases of “child abuse” in fact were) has been extremely common (think ancient Greece) and hasn’t even had a stigma attached to it (or has been culturally accepted even though the religious authorities condemned it, as in the Islamic world). In other words, our society rightly calls this sort of behavior abusive. Not all cultures do or have. (I do think that modern society has particular problems with regard to pedophilia, and I have some theories as to why.)

There are reasons specific to the Catholic Church that explain why the problem was so bad. The Catholic Church has a lot to be ashamed of. But the idea that Catholicism is unique in having this problem is simply absurd. The wide acceptance of this idea is a sign of the basic resentment felt toward the Catholic Church in our society on other grounds–e.g., the Catholic Church’s claims of authority, which offend contemporary American sensibilities. That’s not to say that the bishops didn’t bring this on themselves. They did, and may God forgive them. But let’s not pretend that there isn’t a reason why people particularly want to pick on the Catholic Church, rather than the many other institutions (religious and secular) whose officials have abused children and which have covered up the fact.

I think the best answer to this is: hilarious.

Edwin

Well said! :tiphat::clapping:

 

[Eden]

First of all, I made you eat crow earlier in this thread. Now, I am going to make you eat it AGAIN:

I challenge you to find molestations teachings in the Catechism. Do it.

I can certainly find awful homosexual practices being TAUGHT and APPROVED OF in the Episcopal Church. Are they pro-choice too??? Both products of evil.

It’s one thing for sinners to sin. It’s quit another to teach people to sin.

**If the Catholic Church ceases to exist CHRISTIANITY is OVER WITH! **

Exactly! LaMar, where in the Catechism does it say the sexual abuse of minors is not immoral and sinful?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Excuse me, but I am having trouble finding posts, at least recent ones, that reflect the subject ~ “Rome tells Anglicans: it’s time to decide if you are Protestants or Catholics”

 

[nsper7]

As a soon-to-be-Confirmed Episcopalian, I am deeply saddened what is going on in the Church. One problem I see in TEC is that we are a tad too democratic for our own good. Although it may sound nice to have the House of Deputies (which is made up of a lot of laity) and having a lot of Committees with a lot of power and, again, made up of laity, the problem is that a lot of the people on these committees may not be Scripturally knowledgable and, because they are not under Holy Orders, these laity are not necessarily answerable to a bishop or something (obviously, there are plenty of laypeople who maybe very knowledgable in Scripture, Church history, etc., but they are, alas, usually not on these committees…they are more political than anything else it sometimes seems).

In a way, it makes sense: if you have people wielding Church authority who unlearned in Scripture and the like and are not accountable to really anyone, how can you expect them to make good decisions?

 

[MelanieAnne]

As a soon-to-be-Confirmed Episcopalian, I am deeply saddened what is going on in the Church. One problem I see in TEC is that we are a tad too democratic for our own good. Although it may sound nice to have the House of Deputies (which is made up of a lot of laity) and having a lot of Committees with a lot of power and, again, made up of laity, the problem is that a lot of the people on these committees may not be Scripturally knowledgable and, because they are not under Holy Orders, these laity are not necessarily answerable to a bishop or something (obviously, there are plenty of laypeople who maybe very knowledgable in Scripture, Church history, etc., but they are, alas, usually not on these committees…they are more political than anything else it sometimes seems).

In a way, it makes sense: if you have people wielding Church authority who unlearned in Scripture and the like and are not accountable to really anyone, how can you expect them to make good decisions?

As a former Episcopalian, now Catholic, all I can ask you is WHY? Why stay this way?

From your own description it would appear that TEC is making things up to suit people. That’s not how God works.

We’re a democracy here in the US. But that’s not how God works. God has at least some things that are NOT NEGOTIATBLE.

You need to distinguish. God is not running a democracy.

 

[thirdn6]

Why can’t it be washed ?​

And maybe some Protestantism is what the CC needs in order to be fully Christian.

As for the CC being pure, I don’t believe this at all: in this world, a Church is never beyond need of reform & further, deeper, fuller, more thorough sanctification. AFAICS the idea - widespread, admittedly - that the CC is sinless does not do justice to all the Biblical evidence but takes account of some only; it oversimplifies. The CC does not need to be beyond criticism, or sinless,or to have “the fullness of” X or Y or Z" to be the CC. It can be sinful, & admitting its sinfulness & poverty & wretchedness & deformity & lack of faithfulness, without ceasing to be the Church. It needs to - otherwise it cannot be set free from the prison of its own self-righteousness; it cannot be healed, because it does not perceive that it needs healing.

If it admits its defectiveness, that could set it free to be the Church more fully than its present self-understanding allows - it would no longer to be able to glorify itself & put down others, but that is no loss.

Hmm, I hope you’re not saying that those Catholics before Luther came into the scene were not fully Christians.

The Catholic Church is teaching the fulness of truth through the guidance of the Holy Spirit (biblical) and so I can say she is pure. Like you, most of us are sinners, too. But as members of the Catholic Church we also are members of Christ’s body. We are purged, washed clean, and nourished by the holy sacraments. In the end, as a Church we become the bride of Christ- spotless! white as snow! PURE! Because the Lamb of God is pure!

Why the Anglicans can’t be washed clean? First of all, they are not genuine members of the Catholics Church- the body of Christ. Secondly, they’ve put “tattooes” (protestantism) on their beliefs and doctrines- courtesy of great false teachers and ministers who poisoned the minds of less educated and innocent souls. And so they become “clones” and “polka-dotted breeds” that even Cdl Kasper is now confused if they truly are protestants or mere catholics.

 

[nsper7]

As a former Episcopalian, now Catholic, all I can ask you is WHY? Why stay this way?

From your own description it would appear that TEC is making things up to suit people. That’s not how God works.

We’re a democracy here in the US. But that’s not how God works. God has at least some things that are NOT NEGOTIATBLE.

You need to distinguish. God is not running a democracy.

I was say it is not good that the Episcopal Church is so democratic.

 

[jay29]

The cancer of Episcopalians: the acceptance of homosexuality**

Homosexual Episcopal Bishop Will ‘Wed’ Male Partner**

By Deacon Keith Fournier
5/9/2008
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)
LOS ANGELES (Catholic Online) - In an interview with Matt Lauer of NBC, practicing Homosexual controversialist Bishop Gene Robinson announced plans to enter into a ‘Civil Union’ with his Male Paramour.

He told the interviewer it was “what God is telling me to do”

Just as the splintering Anglican Communion was preparing for its International Lambeth Conference. Just as the controversy surrounding the actions of some orthodox Anglicans planning an alternative Conference seemed to be out of the limelight. Right at this time,a controversialist Bishop named Gene Robinson once again enters the limelight to make himself the center of attention…

catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=27900