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

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Nothing personal?! You just trashed us and our religion.

**He did, a bit - but were we trashed any more than Anglicans are trashed (see this thread) ? **​

---

**If we stop trashing others, maybe we will find ways of being faithful to our convictions without trashing others. To trash others is a betrayal of what we claim to stand for, no ? **

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Because we are called to be one Body, not just one “spirit.” Evangelicals like to talk about being really united, but a lot of it just comes from presuming that all “real Christians” think the same way you do. Or from making unexamined assumptions about what doctrines “matter” and which ones don’t. It isn’t a “unity” that allows for much mutual accountability, and theological development within evangelicalism consists of different groups charging off in different directions and other groups yelling at them for being “not really evangelical” with no acknowledged authority to settle the matter.

I appreciate your irenic spirit. But I can see what Catholic unity is like, and fractious and confusing as it is it’s something I deeply long for and know that Protestants do not have.

Edwin

**Can I PM you about this **?​

 

[GKC]

This is exactly why I have “some” respect for Luther and Lutheranism yet none for Henry VIII and Anglicanism.

Luther was certainly in grievious error, but at least he was initally driven by theological principles, as opposed to the caesaropapist Henry VIII.

Henry tried to play the game by the rules. And his case was quite as strong as the usual causa, for which decrees of nullity wew routinely granted, at the time. And he had an even stronger case, which he didn’t address, as Wolsey saw. But an Emperor trumps a King, esp. an Emperor with a Pope in hand. He lost to superior political force. Unfortunately, as a king, he had a certain amount of political force available to him, too, and he used it.

I don’t greatly respect Hank, either. But then I respect very few historical figures of the period.

GKC

 

[ralphinal]

Henry tried to play the game by the rules. And his case was quite as strong as the usual causa, for which decrees of nullity wew routinely granted, at the time. And he had an even stronger case, which he didn’t address, as Wolsey saw. But an Emperor trumps a King, esp. an Emperor with a Pope in hand. He lost to superior political force. Unfortunately, as a king, he had a certain amount of political force available to him, too, and he used it.

I don’t greatly respect Hank, either. But then I respect very few historical figures of the period.

GKC

Would you mind PMing me the info about his case? Everything that I have read made it seem week

 

[GKC]

“Do people read Macaulay nowadays ?”

And can may a man die better

Than facing fearful odds,

For the ashes of his fathers,

And the temples of his gods…

I do.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Would you mind PMing me the info about his case? Everything that I have read made it seem week

OK. I think I can C&P something.

GKC

 

[Lepanto]

Henry tried to play the game by the rules. And his case was quite as strong as the usual causa, for which decrees of nullity wew routinely granted, at the time. And he had an even stronger case, which he didn’t address, as Wolsey saw. But an Emperor trumps a King, esp. an Emperor with a Pope in hand. He lost to superior political force. Unfortunately, as a king, he had a certain amount of political force available to him, too, and he used it.

I don’t greatly respect Hank, either. But then I respect very few historical figures of the period.

GKC

And let’s not forget Anne Boleyn’s role. She was feeding Henry the “Constitutions” by John Calvin in an attempt to incite his caesaropapsist propensities.

 

[GKC]

And let’s not forget Anne Boleyn’s role. She was feeding Henry the “Constitutions” by John Calvin in an attempt to incite his caesaropapsist propensities.

I suspect you are thinking of Tyndales’ OBEDIENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN MAN, which was a through-going apologia for caesaropapism, and handed to him by la Boleyn.“This is a book for me and for all kings to read” quoth Hank, upon turning the last page.

But Anne did indeed have a role. She turned him from his previous tentative plans to establish his dynasty, mostly likely on the back of Henry Fitzroy. Why bother, when a decree of nullity was so easily obtained in those days.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

This conversation is getting ridiculous. Its is an obvious fact of history that the Catholic Church goes back to Christ and his Apostles and another obvious fact of history that Anglicanism was founded by a CRAZY and lecherous king. Seriously people!!!

Neither of these are obvious facts. Dominus Iesus puts your first statement much better:

The Catholic faithful are required to profess

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This conversation is getting ridiculous. Its is an obvious fact of history that the Catholic Church goes back to Christ and his Apostles

**It is not obvious. If it were, there would be no need of faith; only of research. If we don’t need faith to become Catholic - that means the CC is not a Christian Church at all. Do you *really *want to mean that ? **​

and another obvious fact of history that Anglicanism was founded by a CRAZY and lecherous king. Seriously people!!!

That is a falsehood, with enough truth in it to make it plausible. The qualities of the human agents are not of final importance - if something is “of God”, then nothing can alter that.​

What makes Anglicanism so difficult to defend is that by doing so, one would be boasting of the graces bestowed upon it - which is an implicit denial that God alone gives grace to His servants, not as we will, but as He Wills. It is not worth while to defend the C of E on such a basis.

---

**Defending a Church with “carnal” reasons is a very bad defence. **

 

[jay29]

Henry tried to play the game by the rules. And his case was quite as strong as the usual causa, for which decrees of nullity wew routinely granted, at the time. And he had an even stronger case, which he didn’t address, as Wolsey saw. But an Emperor trumps a King, esp. an Emperor with a Pope in hand. He lost to superior political force. Unfortunately, as a king, he had a certain amount of political force available to him, too, and he used it.

I don’t greatly respect Hank, either. But then I respect very few historical figures of the period.

GKC

Henry shouldn’t have married in secret before the outcome of his annulment.

 

[Steadfast]

Although there is nothing wrong with triumphalism per se, what we’re talking about is the Catholic Church’s clear self-identity. Why would that sadden you?

Because we all know you think you’re IT, and we all know WHY you think you’re IT, and we all know that you believe the word Catholic to apply ONLY to your church and that the word Apostolic can ONLY be applied properly to your church and that your idea of Apostolic Succession is the ONLY one that is REAL and TRUE and GENUINE.

We know all this.

Everyone knows all this.

It is unnecessary to remind us constantly of it and your persistence in doing so (so often without the softening balm of winsome, evengelical apologetic) can only be attributed to a rather puerile penchant for self-aggrandizement, a la, neener neener boo boo.

It certainly does nothing to further dialog or to delve deeper into the historical and dogmatic why’s and wherefore’s pertaining.

 

[LaMar]

And yet your “church” does not produce Mother Theresa’s or Padre Pio’s. Rather, its become a den of homosexuality.

First of all, it isn’t my church. Even more importantly, if I were a Roman Catholic I would be careful about raising the issue of sexual misbehavior. Your church’s filthy and loathsome collective behavior far exceeds anything that any other organization has ever done, probably in the history of the world, to spread misery at the expense of children.

Bill Maher had it right. You’re the FLDS writ large, and your church is on its way out now because of it. In 200 years there will be no Catholic Church. It’ll be a matter for the history books. Islam and Atheism will replace it, and society will be a thousand times better off for it. Good riddance.

 

[nsper7]

First of all, it isn’t my church. Even more importantly, if I were a Roman Catholic I would be careful about raising the issue of sexual misbehavior. Your church’s filthy and loathsome collective behavior far exceeds anything that any other organization has ever done, probably in the history of the world, to spread misery at the expense of children.

Bill Maher had it right. You’re the FLDS writ large, and your church is on its way out now because of it. In 200 years there will be no Catholic Church. It’ll be a matter for the history books. Islam and Atheism will replace it, and society will be a thousand times better off for it. Good riddance.

No need to get so hostile LaMar. Also, if the Catholic Church were to collapse and Islam and Atheism replaced it, that would be a TERRIBLE thing. Militant Islamists and militant Atheists (usually, the more militant/radical ones end up in power), if they did not nuke each other or something, would cause major problems. And Bill Maher is not exactly a credible source to quote either…

By the way, and I disagree with the appointment of Gene Robinson as a Bishop (his sin, as I see it, is homosexual activity and adultery/wrongful divorce), but I would add that there is a history of gay bishops, even in Roman Catholicism. In the 11th century, Archbishop Ralph of Tours installed his lover as Bishop of Orleans and neither Pope Urban II or Paschal II took action to remove said men.

By the way, I get Confirmed into the Episcopal Church on June 1st!

 

[LaMar]

By the way, I get Confirmed into the Episcopal Church on June 1st!

Not hostile, just returning banter in the spirit it was thrown out.

Congratulations on your confirmation, by the way.

 

[Eden]

First of all, it isn’t my church. Even more importantly, if I were a Roman Catholic I would be careful about raising the issue of sexual misbehavior. Your church’s filthy and loathsome collective behavior far exceeds anything that any other organization has ever done, probably in the history of the world, to spread misery at the expense of children.

Bill Maher had it right. You’re the FLDS writ large, and your church is on its way out now because of it. In 200 years there will be no Catholic Church. It’ll be a matter for the history books. Islam and Atheism will replace it, and society will be a thousand times better off for it. Good riddance.

LaMar, your error is in equating the American Catholic Church with the entire Catholic Church. The sexual abuse scandal is almost entirely an American problem. You may not realize this, but the American Catholic Church makes up only 6% of the Catholic population worldwide. An estimated 0.2% of Roman Catholic priests have been proven to be abusers. (According to the research of the non-Catholic professor, Philip Jenkins). So, you and Bill Maher have both widely overstated the breadth and depth of the problem in the worldwide Church. Pedophilia occurs at a higher rate amongst men in the general population. The Catholic Church has over 1 billion members today and the number of vocations is rising among many orders. To turn a quote from Mark Twain a little, I can say that “The reports of the death of the Catholic Church are greatly exaggerated.**” **People have predicted its demise for over 2,000 years.

 

[thirdn6]

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…

 

[Contarini]

First of all, it isn’t my church. Even more importantly, if I were a Roman Catholic I would be careful about raising the issue of sexual misbehavior. Your church’s filthy and loathsome collective behavior far exceeds anything that any other organization has ever done, probably in the history of the world, to spread misery at the expense of children.

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.

Bill Maher had it right. You’re the FLDS writ large, and your church is on its way out now because of it. In 200 years there will be no Catholic Church. It’ll be a matter for the history books. Islam and Atheism will replace it, and society will be a thousand times better off for it. Good riddance.

I think the best answer to this is: hilarious.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Henry shouldn’t have married in secret before the outcome of his annulment.

Henry did a number of things he shouldn’t. So did folks like Clement.

GKC

 

[chris_molter]

Henry did a number of things he shouldn’t. So did folks like Clement.

GKC

I never really thought the “Henry was a jerk” argument was really convincing. I mean… he WAS (as were most leaders at the time, not that it excuses sinful behavior), but we’ve had a lot of Popes and Bishops who’ve behaved horribly as well.

Catholic arguments against the Catholic validity of the Church of England (and thereby any descendants thereof) shouldn’t hinge on the impeccability of its founder (anymore than claiming St Peter denied Christ invalidates his primacy amongst the Apostles).

For the sake of constructive argument, let’s stipulate that yes, Henry was a real sleazebag, and yes, the Catholics have had a lot of sleazy Popes, Cardinals, and Bishops; but that none of that constitutes an argument against the validity of either Anglicanism or Catholicism.

Can we do that?