The poor Church of England is falling apart

[BritishCatholic]

Becoming more Proestatnt - move towards the C of E. That’s absolutely preposterous. Why would 1.131 billion catholics need to change their faith, doctrines and dogmas, to entice a union with a VERY sick not even practicing 26 million Anglicans in England.

Compromise, compromise, compromise is exactly what is wrong with the Anglican Communion. And praise be to God, they are compromising their church into non-existence.

I couldn’t agree more.

Another reason why I believe the Anglican Communion is in shambles, is simply because of the motive for its founding. I mean, it’s quite a known fact that if Henry VIII kept his you-know-what in his pants the Church of England would not exist to this day. Pardon me for being so blunt, but every Briton and every Anglican intrinsically knows it’s true.

 

[GKC]

I couldn’t agree more.

Another reason why I believe the Anglican Communion is in shambles, is simply because of the motive for its founding. I mean, it’s quite a known fact that if Henry VIII kept his you-know-what in his pants the Church of England would not exist to this day. Pardon me for being so blunt, but every Briton and every Anglican intrinsically knows it’s true.

Horny Hank hormones certainly played a part. As did his dynastic problems, which predated his infatuation with la Boleyn, Charles VII role in what was normally a commonplace search for a decree of nullity (happened all the time, at the time), and Clement’s vacillating personality and some other historical bits and pieces. J. J. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII bio is recommended, as usual.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I have to concur with BHTech. I have researched the Reformations(Protestant, English, and Catholic) for years. Henry VIII was a man deeply in love with the Roman Catholic faith; hence why the pope bestowed upon him the title Defensor Fidei. But being the greedy, ambitious man he was, he let the seductrous Anne Boleyn torture him until he couldn’t take it anymore. Thus why he split from Rome, indeed only because the pope would not grant him an annullment. While no official document states that Henry VIII regretted his decision, the majority of historians believe that Henry did indeed dread his decision. It is also a well believed fact Henry VIII still loved the Catholic faith unto his death.

The subject is one of my hobbies, too. The award of the
*Defensor Fidei * title is an interesting story, little known, in full (the *Assertio Septem Scaramentorum * being only a part of the whole).

Generally, I agree with your last sentence, though Henry was capable of some cynical manipulation, even at the end.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Friend I have been an Anglican all my life save the last two and I grew up under the British system of education. I am well acquainted with its history. I ask you again, what Doctrinal reasons did King Henry VIII give for breaking up with Rome and please provide me with a text book that spells out those Doctrinal reasons?

In case you missed the meaning of the word Doctrine and from the Oxford dictionary: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church.

Blessings

BHTech

Henrry had no particular doctrinal reasons for the break. He had political ones. And the Church had equally political ones for refusing the decree of nullity. The management of the sacrament of matrimony at the time was a mixture of the theological and the political, as the system was structured to accomodate the making a breaking of marriages for dynastic reasons, within the structure of annulments/impediments/dispensations. It was how the world worked. Henry, whose case for a decree of nullity was as good as the sytem normally required (see the details of his sister’s first decree, for how easy these things could be) ran smack into the political side of it. He responded politically.

As usual, I recommend Scarisbrick’s bio, or Kelly’s MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Friend because I speak the truth you believe that I am being condescending? Think what you may but I am not, but rather, I wish to point out something to you. Anglicans for as much as I love them to death often fool themselves including you. I count myself as once belonging to that group and I take no pride in it as I look back. In short it is intellectual dishonesty on the part of many Anglicans to not admit the obvious.

The reality is King Henry VIII had NO Doctrinal reasons for leaving or parting ways with Rome. He did it for purely selfish reasons despite the reformers knocking on his door step all the way. You will note as well from your history that the reformers did not have their way with him. Henry VIII did not say “I disagree with the Pope and by extension Roman doctrines because”;

a) Purgatory was doctrinally wrong,
b) The Trinity was doctrinally wrong,
c) Mary’s virginity and Mother of God title was doctrinally wrong,
d) Indulgences are theologically wrong
e) Real Presence was doctrinally wrong,** etc, etc, etc**.

I note you finally mention the long awaited words " denied annulment". Now you are getting to the meat of the matter after several posts. Henry broke with Rome because he wanted a boy child and sought to obtain it through a divorce of his then wife on selfish grounds. When denied by Pope Gregory he simply took matters into his own hands and that is history for you. Did Fisher and Moore agree with Henry actions?

This brings me back to IrishRover point which is perfectly valid. You can twist it left, right and center, believe it or not, or accept it or not, it does not change the fact that he broke away from Rome for selfish reasons aided by the reformers or not.

When faced with the judgment of God one never hopes that Henry VIII said, "The reformers made me do it, because of X, Y, and Z when they are pure lies.

Intellectually honest behooves us all.

Blessings

BHTech

It was Clement who refused to grant Henry’s petition. Though he did some fancy foot work in doing so.

GKC

 

[jay29]

Do you not know what the Reformation in England was?

It was a huge land, power, and money grab of King Henry VIII who didn’t get his way. It was nothing short of a huge robbery and destruction of the Catholic Church in England. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

 

[IrishRover]

spirited debate since my last post. let me say that there is no doubt that there were valid reasons for DISAGREEMENT among members of the RCC at the time of the reformation as there have been throughout the history of the Church. However, if it is about the Church, why leave? if anyone has loved the Church and accepted the primary doctrinal teachings on the Trinity, Transsubstantiation etc., why not use the Scripture, Tradition and other positive means to argue against what may be wrong? If it is not about the Church, that is an easy means to the end of leaving the Church for ones OWN reasons.

Has not the Church, under Benedict XVI, changed the teaching on purgatory?

myself, as someone of Irish ancestry, has no fondness for Pope Adrian IV, who invested Henry II with the “right” to rule Ireland(Oxford History of Ireland, edited by RF Foster, pp47-49). Yet, it i have not left our Holy Mother Church! for additional reference re Adrian IV, please also see “The Course of Irish History”, 4th edition by TW Moody and FX Martin.

SIA; there is no condescension or arrogance in my thoughts or heart to the Anglican Church. there are many, many good people who are struggling with the turmoil that has gripped the AC. that is why i asked to keep ALL in our prayers. all includes EVERYONE!

 

[Peter_J]

LOL

LOL to you too, friend.

Benedictine, Cistercian, Carthusian - hrm, aren’t rites, they’re Holy Orders

The Benedictine Order is an Order. The Benedictine Rite is a Rite.

 

[Peter_J]

Has not the Church, under Benedict XVI, changed the teaching on purgatory?

Not that I know of.

 

[jesuitinnam]

LOL to you too, friend.

The Benedictine Order is an Order. The Benedictine Rite is a Rite.

You’re absolutely rite. Sorry

But there are 22 eastern rites - well, that’s according to wikipedia

The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church,[1][2][3] is the world’s largest Christian church and represents over half of all Christians and one-sixth of the world’s population.[4][5] It is made up of one Western church (the Latin Rite) and 22 Eastern Catholic churches, divided into 2,782 jurisdictional areas around the world.[6] The Church looks to the Pope, currently Benedict XVI, as its highest human authority in matters of faith, morality and Church governance.

 

[Peter_J]

But there are 22 eastern rites - well, that’s according to wikipedia

The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church,[1][2][3] is the world’s largest Christian church and represents over half of all Christians and one-sixth of the world’s population.[4][5] It is made up of one Western church (the Latin Rite) and 22 Eastern Catholic churches, divided into 2,782 jurisdictional areas around the world.[6] The Church looks to the Pope, currently Benedict XVI, as its highest human authority in matters of faith, morality and Church governance.

I don’t take issue with what you quoted from wikipedia. However, there isn’t a one-to-one correspondence between Rites and sui iuris Churches. (Whereas in the West there are more Rites than sui iuris Churches, in the East there are fewer.)

You’re absolutely rite. Sorry

I don’t believe there’s such a thing as “absolutely rite”.

(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

 

[IrishRover]

THANK YOU PeterJ; I am incorrect. Pope Benedict has changed the teaching on Limbo, not purgatory. my mistake.

 

[emeraldcoast]

THANK YOU PeterJ; I am incorrect. Pope Benedict has changed the teaching on Limbo, not purgatory. my mistake.

Can someone please explain Limbo and Purgatory? Thanks!

God Bless!

 

[BHTech]

It was Clement who refused to grant Henry’s petition. Though he did some fancy foot work in doing so.

GKC

Correct. Clement VII to be precise. Got my Popes mixed up

Blessings

BHTech

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Can someone please explain Limbo and Purgatory? Thanks!

God Bless!

Heaven is the state of complete unity with Christ. When many Christians die, they still have sins in them that prevent them being fully united with Christ instantly. They can experience God much more fully than they could on Earth, but they feel remorse and internal pain because their sin still separates them partially from God. It is very painful to be so close to God and yet not quite completely where you want to be, in Heaven. It is also extremely ecstatic, because you’re so much closer to God than you were on Earth.

The separation that remains is slowly removed from each person as he or she changes completely, becoming purged of the last of his or her sins that separate him or her from Christ. Sin is disunity from God. Therefore, when the last sin is removed, the person is no longer in Purgatory. He or she is fully united with God and is therefore in Heaven.

Limbo is an old Christian belief that some people who die without baptism, yet without having been terrible sinners, they go to an eternal resting place between Heaven and Earth. They aren’t fully united with God, and there may be sadness because of this, but neither are they in Hell. There is supposed to be peace- it is not a place fully separate from God’s grace, as I understand it.

Limbo was not believed in by the Early Church Fathers. Medieval Catholics came up with it, and it was held to for a while, off and on, never fully spelled out and doctrinized. It is not a part of official Church teaching- it was one attempt to explain where the unbaptized dead go. More recent generations of Catholics have rejected it. The Catholic Encyclopedia says that the status of Limbo is in limbo .

Purgatory, on the other hand, was embraced fully in the Early Church, by pre-Christian Jews, by Jesus and the apostles, and by the Catholic Church throughout time. It is found in the teachings of the Scripture, Magesterium and Tradition, and the Church has never questioned its reality. The Protestant Reformers broke from the teachings of Scripture, Tradition and the Magesterium when they rejected Purgatory.

 

[Hesychios]

This is off topic for this thread, but I need to make a comment here.

…Purgatory, on the other hand, was embraced fully in the Early Church, by pre-Christian Jews, by Jesus and the apostles, and by the Catholic Church throughout time. It is found in the teachings of the Scripture, Magesterium and Tradition, and the Church has never questioned its reality. The Protestant Reformers broke from the teachings of Scripture, Tradition and the Magesterium when they rejected Purgatory.

Eastern Christianity does not teach the concept of purgatory. Neither does it agree with your idea that purgatory was taught and believed in the early church.

When Orthodox bishops learned of this theory in the 13th century they were shocked, so unfamiliar the teaching was to them. It seems rooted in Anselm’s eleventh century* Satisfaction* theory and the punishment or purging is applicable to sins already forgiven in the confessional.

Western Christianity has apparently discarded the teaching of Theosis (or Divinization), or more likely simply replaced it with a raft of new thinking like purgation. These are not the same, or even similar concepts. The process of Divinization is unending striving, for there is an unbridgeable chasm between the Divine and we human creatures. The object is to grow in the likeness of God. Some people attempt to confuse the theory of purgatory with the theology of Theosis in order to give legs to the purgatory concept but they are too different and the newer one is not even a development on the older one.

It is hard to see how you can claim that it was taught from the beginning. It is still not formal teaching of the Byzantine Catholic church. Of course they are forbidden to deny any Latin Catholic theology since they have been under the Pope, even though they may not understand it and are not taught it themselves. One of those funny catch-22’s.

This is a deep subject and not to be addressed in a simple one or two exchanges. My only point here is to register my disagreement with your assertion that this is an Apostolic teaching.

Michael

 

[emeraldcoast]

Thank you Lief and Michael for your replies. Very interesting and something that I would like to explore more.

God Bless!

 

[Lief_Erikson]

This is off topic for this thread, but I need to make a comment here. Eastern Christianity does not teach the concept of purgatory. Neither does it agree with your idea that purgatory was taught and believed in the early church.

Well, there’s a lot of evidence against their position. Early Church Fathers:
catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp
Scripture:
1 Peter 3:18-20, 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, 2 Maccabbees 7:42, 46, Matthew 7:32.

On the other hand, maybe all that doesn’t contradict Orthodoxy . . . as I research the Orthodox position more, here’s what I’ve found about their view of the reconciliation of sinners after death:
"orthodoxinfo.com:

In the Orthodox doctrine, on the other hand, which St. Mark teaches, the faithful who have died with small sins unconfessed, or who have not brought forth fruits of repentance for sins they have confessed, are cleansed of these sins either in the trial of death itself with its fear, or after death, when they are confined (but not permanently) in hell, by the prayers and Liturgies of the Church and good deeds performed for them by the faithful.

By the Orthodox teaching that some people are cleansed of their sins during a temporary sojourn in Hell, they are making a very similar claim to the Latin, that there can be suffering for purification after death. The positions aren’t that far off after all. I don’t think you and I have such different beliefs as you might think.
orthodoxinfo.com/death/stmark_purg.aspx

I do think the Orthodox misunderstand the nature of Hell, when they suggest that some people can temporarily reside in there. For Hell is an internal state of being, just as Heaven is. Jesus said, “the kingdom of heaven is in the heart of man,” and in the same way, so is Hell. Each are states of being which result in either blessed or cursed lives and lifestyles. Heaven is complete unity with Christ and Hell is complete separation from Him. So no one can temporarily enter “complete separation” from Christ.

I think the Orthodox accept that as well that no one can temporarily enter complete separation from Christ- they probably just define Hell somewhat differently than we do. Is that correct? How do the Orthodox define Hell?

I’m actually feeling very pleased that, in my research, I found that the Orthodox and Catholic positions on souls after death are so similar. You and I don’t have so much difference as might be thought on first glance. If the Orthodox really do believe people can be purified after death through suffering in Hell, their beliefs probably won’t contradict the references I gave above.

I have one other question. The Orthodox statement above that some of the dead temporarily go to Hell, as that actually capital H Hell, Gehenna, or is it Sheol, “the abode of the dead”?

This is a deep subject and not to be addressed in a simple one or two exchanges. My only point here is to register my disagreement with your assertion that this is an Apostolic teaching.

Michael

Acknowledged. I think the opposite, but it seems that the Orthodox and Catholic positions are so similar that the Early Church and Scripture references to the painful purging and forgiveness of people after death might be inconclusive in selecting between them. It seems it may actually come down to definitions of terms, what we consider Hell to be.

I don’t think you define it the same way we do, so in view of that, part of your “hell” might be our “Purgatory.” Interesting to ponder!

 

[jesuitinnam]

I don’t take issue with what you quoted from wikipedia. However, there isn’t a one-to-one correspondence between Rites and sui iuris Churches. (Whereas in the West there are more Rites than sui iuris Churches, in the East there are fewer.)

I don’t believe there’s such a thing as “absolutely rite”.

(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

Well, at least you have a sense of humour

 

[zerinus]

Whilst I am a die-hard and devout Roman Catholic, I am also a Briton and proud of it. And ever since childhood, for some reason, I have greatly fancied the Church of England. I still to this day attend Evensong whenever I can at Anglican/Episcopal Churches because I think they are absolutely beautiful.

As I’m sure many of you have heard, a couple of days ago the Church of England has decided to ordain women as bishops. As you know, in the mid 90’s they decided to ordain women to the priesthood and that scarred the Church of England immensely(in fact, it’s still scarring them to this day). At a time when the Anglican Communion is falling apart, now the Church has to go on and ordain women as bishops? Quare?

Anyway, my main concern as a British Roman Catholic, and as someone who is keen on the Church of England, is hopes of reuniting our two Churches. It has for some time now been in the interests of Rome to become into full communion with Canterbury as it once was before the English Reformation. But the step the Church of England has decided to take is one step farther away for ecumenism. Pope Benedict XVI even expressed his sadness on the Church of England’s decision.

Your thoughts?

The “poor Church of England” has been “falling apart” for a long time; but being British, its death will be a slow one. The Church of England for many years has been a church in which you could believe anything you liked, provided you didn’t make too much noise about it. That is a recipe for long-term disaster; and now the “Anglican chickens” have finally come home to roost. But I do feel sorry for the traditionalists though, who are caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, they find the liberal agenda of the liberal wing (who is calling most of the shots) to be abhorrent; while on the other hand, they have nowhere else to turn to. Returning to Rome is not exactly an option for them; because they (quite rightly) find the Catholic dogmas of Mary worship, Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, Transubstantiation, the Mass as sacrifice, mandatory celibacy for priests, and a dozen other unscriptural and false teachings and practices of the Catholic Church to be equally unacceptable. So basically they have nowhere else to turn to—unless they formed their own breakaway group, which would be equally unsustainable in the light of thousands of breakaway Protestant groups that already exist in the world.

Of course, if their eyes were opened, they would see a third and only viable option that does exist—the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—the Restored gospel! Yes, Mormonism! But of course, having your eyes opened to see the truth of that is not an easy task for everyone.

zerinus