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

[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?

Them’s my sentiments.

GKC

 

[Cajetan]

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.

The Catholic Church has weathered greater storms than this, pal, numerous times.

If anything, it is Islam that is on the way out, thanks to the Jihadis in their ranks and their supporters. Word on the street is, stay away from those kill-crazed Muslims.

 

[Steadfast]

If anything, it is Islam that is on the way out, thanks to the Jihadis in their ranks and their supporters. Word on the street is, stay away from those kill-crazed Muslims.

Tell that to France where the Muslims are breeding at a rate 5 times faster than the Catholics.

 

[ralphinal]

Tell that to France where the Muslims are breeding at a rate 5 times faster than the Catholics.

Amen. There seem to be three ways to go: Talk us into converting, Fight us into converting, breed us into converting.

I love the quote by the way.

 

[jay29]

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. .

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! **

 

[Cajetan]

Tell that to France where the Muslims are breeding at a rate 5 times faster than the Catholics.

That’s what is called civilizational suicide.

 

[jay29]

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).

BALONEY. Peter was picked by Christ and was the PRINCE of the Apostles. Henry was picked by PARLIAMENT irregardless of their sins!

Don’t ever compare Henry to one of the Apostles. It’s not even reasonable.

There is no legitimacy at all in the foundation of the C of E. Outward appearances look Catholic, the doctrines are dangerous.

 

[GKC]

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! **

Not arguing against your basic point; there are a lot of things that go on in the Episcopal Church that shouldn’t. But the parallel is not balanced. There is nothing in the Episcopal Church that is the equivalent of the Catechism.

GKC

 

[jay29]

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.

Henry/Parliament had no BIBLICAL authority to start their own church…

What is it with people? You don’t get it?

 

[jay29]

Not arguing against your basic point; there are a lot of things that go on in the Episcopal Church that shouldn’t. But the parallel is not balanced. There is nothing in the Episcopal Church that is the equivalent of the Catechism.

GKC

It’s the sins of the people, not the Church. The Church does not teach molestations. The Episcopal Church TEACHES sin. That’s a HUGE difference.

 

[GKC]

It’s the sins of the people, not the Church. The Church does not teach molestations. The Episcopal TEACHES sin. That’s a HUGE difference.

Again, there is nothing that definitively states what the Episcopal Church teaches. Some may teach an acceptance of homsexuality, others, otherwise. There is no Anglican Catechism, for reference.

GKC

 

[jay29]

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).

Don’t forget, St. Paul was a MURDERER.

 

[jay29]

Again, there is nothing that definitively states what the Episcopal Church teaches. Some may teach an acceptance of homsexuality, others, otherwise. There is no Anglican Catechism, for reference.

GKC

In other words, DOCTRINAL CHAOS. This reflects the majority of protestantism. This is why I could never be a protestant.

 

[reteeks21]

The Vatican said last night that the time has come for the Anglican Church to choose between Protestantism and the ancient sacramental Churches of Rome and Orthodoxy.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, told the Catholic Herald that the Anglican Communion must “clarify its identity” and stop hovering between the Catholic and Protestant traditions.

He said: “Ultimately, it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong? Does it belong more to the Churches of the first millennium – Catholic and Orthodox – or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century?

Full articles:

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

catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000273.shtml

What gives Rome the right to tell them what to do? I thought they decided a while back not to answer to Rome?

 

[jay29]

What gives Rome the right to tell them what to do? I thought they decided a while back not to answer to Rome?

That was their fist mistake in the 1500s.

The Vatican wants the C of E to CLARIFY what it truly is for the sake of all…It’s not a demand. Just a CLARIFICATION.

 

[GKC]

In other words, DOCTRINAL CHAOS. This reflects the majority of protestantism. This is why I could never be a protestant.

No doubt. But it vitiates your analogy.

GKC

 

[chris_molter]

BALONEY. Peter was picked by Christ and was the PRINCE of the Apostles. Henry was picked by PARLIAMENT irregardless of their sins!

Don’t ever compare Henry to one of the Apostles. It’s not even reasonable.

There is no legitimacy at all in the foundation of the C of E. Outward appearances look Catholic, the doctrines are dangerous.

I wasn’t comparing their legitimacy, only that each was the first “leader” of their respective churches and that each had serious personal flaws and failings.

Also, Henry wasn’t picked by parliament, he was picked by Henry.

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.

Henry/Parliament had no BIBLICAL authority to start their own church…

What is it with people? You don’t get it?

I don’t? I’m a Latin Rite Catholic, dude. Trust me. I GET IT

Technically, no one had BIBLICAL authority to start any Church. The Church was there before the Bible. The Bible came to be out of the authority of the Apostolic Church. The Apostles had authority straight from Jesus himself.

Other than that little quibble, yes, I agree, Henry had no right to try to usurp control of the Church in England.

 

[chris_molter]

Don’t forget, St. Paul was a MURDERER.

exactly! and Henry was “Defender of the Faith” before he decided to usurp control of the Church, sack the monasteries, etc.

I guess the lesson is that abject sinners can become saints and saints can fall into abject sin.

 

[Lepanto]

Practising Muslims ‘will outnumber Christians by 2035’

So much for the saying “There will always be an England!”, which sounds pretty hollow now.

---

Practising Muslims will outnumber worshipping Christians in Britain within 30 years, according to research published today.
By 2035, there will be about 1.96 million active Muslims in Britain, compared with 1.63 million church-going Christians, according to calculations by Christian Research, a think- tank.

The figures are published in the latest in a series of reports entitled Religious Trends.

The think-tank has warned that 4,000 churches could close by 2020 if congregations continue to shrink at current rates.

Article continues

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1936418/Practising-Muslims-‘will-outnumber-Christians-by-2035’.html

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

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

The difficulty, as GKC points out on the catechism issue, is that for these questions of union/reunion/communion, it’s difficult to speak of the Anglican Church as a singular body and more truthful to speak of Anglican Churches. So to which Anglican Church is Kasper referring? Or is he referring to something more abstract in which the Anglican Churches participate–Anglican heritage, tradition, identity, etc.?

Jay29 writes that Kasper wants the CofE to do something. So what if the CofE does something? What of the Church of Scotland, or of Ireland, or of Wales? What of the Episcopal Church in the US? What of the Continuing Anglicans? What of the African Churches? What of the Church of Australia or New Zealand? The CofE submitting itself to Rome has nothing to do with the Anglican Church (to which the CofE belongs but which is not defined soley by the CofE) submitting itself to Rome.

For my money, Kasper is asking a very leading question which makes many assumptions, amongst which are:
1–That a reformed catholic identity is impossible.
2–That sacramental theology can only exist in Rome or in the Orthodox East.
3–That the Protestant and reformed churches do not participate in the Church Catholic.

What it sounds like he is asking for Anglican Churches to consider is throwing over their Anglican identity. I think this has less to do with unity or reunion (which would hopefully involve an understanding of unity in diversity rather than being subsumed by the Roman monolith) and more to do with a confusion between something like the bonds of marriage, for instance (which is union in diversity), and conversion which, in typical Roman arrogant fashion, is really what Rome would require of the Anglican Churches. What Kasper is asking is: “If you really want union with us, stop being what you are.”

I don’t think, therefore, that Kasper is at all appealing to the Anglican ecumenical imperative, however it has been manifested through the ages. Rome is not asking for brothers in Christ, she is asking for slaves of the see. I cannot believe otherwise until Rome is actually willing to enter in all humility into an honest discussion (which leads to action on Rome’s part) of what in it is currently an obstacle to union. The Anglican Churches would be bound to enter (also in all humility) into this discussion and take stock of what in it opposes unity as well. I do not see this discussion happening anytime soon, however. So to those that think Kasper is asking an honest question, I envy your optimism.

Frankly, I think Anglican ecclesiology is more akin to Orthodox ecclesiology than the Roman imperial monolith model (re: the lack of an official catechism, I think Anglican Churches and Orthodox Churches are more alike here as well). And at least the Orthodox Churches recognize a Western Rite modeled after the BCP, as opposed to Rome which deigned to produce the merely provisional Anglican Use.

My two.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!