What is it with Anglicans/Episcopals?

[Mickey]

Look at their ROTTEN teachings. Condoning gays and abortions. Sickening. They teach people to sin.

The beam is getting larger.

 

[East_Anglican]

We all do, but condoning gays and abortions is teaching people to sin.

Condoning homosexual practice and aboortion is teaching people to sin.

You’re nearly right but not quite it’s not that gay’s are gay that’s sin it’s the practice of homosexuality that is sin.

Abortion is sin.

 

[East_Anglican]

i looked into this and you’re right. according to this (centreforcitizenship.org/church1.html) it is the head of state in great britain who must be a member of the church of england and not marry a catholic (although i don’t know where this rule is written down since they have no constitution). i guess i confused head of state and head of government. it was an honest mistake, for which i humby beg pardon.

The Monarch can not be RC as The Monarch is head of the CofE. The monarch is The head of state.

 

[chris_molter]

i looked into this and you’re right. according to this (centreforcitizenship.org/church1.html) it is the head of state in great britain who must be a member of the church of england and not marry a catholic (although i don’t know where this rule is written down since they have no constitution). i guess i confused head of state and head of government. it was an honest mistake, for which i humby beg pardon.

Quite alright. There was an interesting story recently about a young lady who renounced her Catholicism and came into the CoE so she could marry one of the royals (I forget how far down the line of succession he was, but apparently close enough that they felt she ought to swim the Thames).

 

[tomarin]

Quite alright. There was an interesting story recently about a young lady who renounced her Catholicism and came into the CoE so she could marry one of the royals (I forget how far down the line of succession he was, but apparently close enough that they felt she ought to swim the Thames).

it’s “Paris is worth a mass” – in reverse.

 

[GKC]

Not true at all.

With what army? You completely misunderstand sixteenth-century politics. Invading England was never an easy task. And the Pope had very limited military forces under his own command–these were barely (not always) enough to defend his territories in central Italy. No Catholic rulers simply jumped to do the Pope’s bidding. That’s not how it worked.

Edwin

History is not everyone’s strong point, as I have often observed. It’s complex, and requires reading.

GKC

 

[GKC]

actually it was i who asked what rulers of the era were not tyrants. i was accusing you of treating gkc unfairly when you said he twisted facts. i’m pretty sure he has a very solid command of the facts regarding this period in history. the difference is that sometimes facts are not as important as how you analyze them and what preconceptions you bring to that analysis. that is, the facts alone don’t by themselves add up to a theory about how to interpret them.

the bottom line is that anglicans do not believe that henry viii established their church; and bashing them over the head with attacks on henry viii’s character is not likely to persuade them otherwise.

I don’t reallly think that c659smith was literally accusing me of twisting facts. Rather, it’s a use of the word “twist” that I have more often found among fundamentalists, when confronted with Catholic points of view. It means “I can’t refute you, but I don’t like what you said”.

And thanks for the kind words. Henry is one of the hobby areas in my reading that make my library bulk out to around 15,000 volumes. I agree with your post, here, though I might differ on a few points of application. I think everyone has some sort of preconceptions in areas like this. I also think that mixing as many historical facts into the preconceptions is a good thing. Gives one something concrete to analyze.

Pax, frater.

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus *

 

[tomarin]

And thanks for the kind words. Henry is one of the hobby areas in my reading that make my library bulk out to around 15,000 volumes.

now that’s interesting. i would like to know more about how you got into collecting books (i assume it’s mostly books?) and how you go about it. but that probably belongs on another thread.

I agree with your post, here, though I might differ on a few points of application. I think everyone has some sort of preconceptions in areas like this. I also think that mixing as many historical facts into the preconceptions is a good thing. Gives one something concrete to analyze.

absolutely. what i meant was that one can have all of one’s facts straight and still reach a completely different conclusion about a subject if one’s analysis starts from a radically different premise.

let me illustrate what i mean by a story. i read a history of the reconstruction era in the american south once (not that i’m comparing the author’s views with yours, exactly) by a pro-confederate historian who also happened to be the chair of the history department of the university of georgia in the pre-civil rights era. he knew many more facts than i did about the subject, but since he was a partisan southerner and a white supremacist essentially, he saw the era radically differently from how i was accustomed to seeing it portrayed. he had an impeccable command of the facts and yet they were being used to argue for what i thought was morally indefensible. clearly it was on a much deeper level than that of simple “facts” that his account needed to be challenged.

Pax, frater.

et cum spiritu tuo.

 

[GKC]

now that’s interesting. i would like to know more about how you got into collecting books (i assume it’s mostly books?) and how you go about it. but that probably belongs on another thread.

absolutely. what i meant was that one can have all of one’s facts straight and still reach a completely different conclusion about a subject if one’s analysis starts from a radically different premise.

let me illustrate what i mean by a story. i read a history of the reconstruction era in the american south once (not that i’m comparing the author’s views with yours, exactly) by a pro-confederate historian who also happened to be the chair of the history department of the university of georgia in the pre-civil rights era. he knew many more facts than i did about the subject, but since he was a partisan southerner and a white supremacist essentially, he saw the era radically differently from how i was accustomed to seeing it portrayed. he had an impeccable command of the facts and yet they were being used to argue for what i thought was morally indefensible. clearly it was on a much deeper level than that of simple “facts” that his account needed to be challenged.

et cum spiritu tuo.

I think that’s a fair analysis, if the morality is rendered neutral. I can see the ssme thing working in both directions.

I’ll PM you re: books. 15,000 is only an estimate; I’ve disposed of maybe 2-3 thousand over the past year.

GKC

 

[tomarin]

I think that’s a fair analysis, if the morality is rendered neutral. I can see the ssme thing working in both directions.

certainly – that’s what i intended.

 

[c659smith]

Not true at all.

With what army? You completely misunderstand sixteenth-century politics. Invading England was never an easy task. And the Pope had very limited military forces under his own command–these were barely (not always) enough to defend his territories in central Italy. No Catholic rulers simply jumped to do the Pope’s bidding. That’s not how it worked.

Edwin

Well tell me then the crusades had nothing to do with the Catholic Church and 50 years prior to King Henry the 8th the Catholic Church had nothing to do with the Spanish Inquisition?

There was very little seperation of Church and State until the Reformation or do you have other info.

This surely would be a revelation then.

How was Luther with his army expelled out of Germany 7 years after his reformation.

I am also sure that Spain, France, and Portugal were in love with England at the time?

That is why the reformation was delayed until Pope Paul II was in the Papacy. They knew he would not gather other European Countries aganist England but was for peace and diplomacy. Wanting also to get out of the political arena for the Chujrch. As a matter of fact probably saved England’s butt from war .

By the way Anglicans do not believe King Henry the 8th was not the head and founder of the Anglican Church of England

Well why don’t you tell me who was?

 

[Contarini]

Well tell me then the crusades had nothing to do with the Catholic Church and 50 years prior to King Henry the 8th the Catholic Church had nothing to do with the Spanish Inquisition?

The Crusades had a great deal to do with the Catholic Church, although the Crusaders sometimes did things of which the Pope disapproved (such as the sack of Constantinople). They were not completely under his control. The Spanish Inquisition also had a great deal to do with the Catholic Church, but in fact it was established as the initiative of the monarchy and with the reluctant approval of the Papacy. It was primarily under the control of the monarchy, although the Papacy occasionally stepped in to tell the Spaniards that they were behaving too harshly. I am surprised that I need to tell you these things. Usually these are things that Catholics are pointing out in defense of their Church.

There was very little seperation of Church and State until the Reformation or do you have other info.

“Separation of Church and State” is an anachronistic concept. There were religious authorities and civil authorities. The religious authorities had one kind of “sword”–the power to excommunicate, etc.–and the civil authorities had another–the power to wage war, administer capital punishment, etc. It was often claimed by advocates of papal power that the civil authorities were only acting as delegates of the Pope when they wielded the “temporal sword,” but not everyone agreed on this. There were a lot of different theories about how these two different authorities related to each other. In practice no one had absolute power, and the various authority structures were often in competition with each other (there were often several different civil authorities and several different religious authorities with jurisdiction over a given area). The idea that the Reformation directly and intentionally led to separation of church and state is an old Protestant myth. Protestants did separate in the sense that they denied the Church the kind of coercive authority it had possessed. But in most Protestant countries (Germany, England, Scandinavia) this led to the complete authority of the civil rulers over the Church, which is hardly what we normally mean by separation of Church and state.

How was Luther with his army expelled out of Germany 7 years after his reformation.

Luther didn’t have an army, and Luther was never expelled from Germany. I think you are thinking of the Schmalkaldic War, which was a war between the Holy Roman Emperor and (some of) the German Protestant princes. It temporarily led to the imposition of a religious compromise, which was overturned a few years later when the Protestant Maurice of Saxony, who had helped the emperor win, switched sides.

That is why the reformation was delayed until Pope Paul II was in the Papacy.

Don’t you mean Paul III? And you appear to be thinking only of England–obviously the Reformation as a broader movement started some time previously. You may be right that Henry held off on the Act of Supremacy until the death of Clement VII, who might have taken more decisive action.

They knew he would not gather other European Countries aganist England but was for peace and diplomacy. Wanting also to get out of the political arena for the Chujrch.

I’m not sure that Paul III “wanted to get out of the political arena,” but he does seem to have favored diplomacy.

By the way Anglicans do not believe King Henry the 8th was not the head and founder of the Anglican Church of England

Well why don’t you tell me who was?

Henry VIII was declared the “head” of the English Church during his lifetime. The error lies in Catholics assuming that later monarchs have also taken that title.

Henry VIII was not the founder of either the organizational or doctrinal aspects of the Church of England. Organizationally, the Church of England goes back to St. Augustine of Canterbury. Its most recent official doctrinal standards date from the reign of Elizabeth I, and its most recent official Prayer Book from the reign of Charles II. The only sense in which Henry “founded” the Church of England is that he broke it away from Rome (though even there the break was arguably not permanent until 1572). I can understand why a Roman Catholic would consider the Church of England’s separation from Rome its most significant feature. But surely you can understand why many other things may seem more important to Anglicans!

Edwin

 

[GKC]

“You may be right that Henry held off on the Act of Supremacy until the death of Clement VII, who might have taken more decisive action.”

Clement would have done what Clement always did: dither. If any consideration held Henry back, it was that Clement was so indecisive, he might work out some sort of compromise, eventually. Certainly, Clement tried long and hard to make the whole issue of the annulment vanish in a puff of smoke.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

“You may be right that Henry held off on the Act of Supremacy until the death of Clement VII, who might have taken more decisive action.”

Clement would have done what Clement always did: dither. If any consideration held Henry back, it was that Clement was so indecisive, he might work out some sort of compromise, eventually. Certainly, Clement tried long and hard to make the whole issue of the annulment vanish in a puff of smoke.

GKC

Thanks for setting us straight on this. You know a lot more about this subject (particularly the political aspects) than I do. So do you think that there was any significance whatever to the fact that the Act of Supremacy was passed two months after Clement’s death? Or was it just a coincidence?

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Thanks for setting us straight on this. You know a lot more about this subject (particularly the political aspects) than I do. So do you think that there was any significance whatever to the fact that the Act of Supremacy was passed two months after Clement’s death? Or was it just a coincidence?

Edwin

IMO, a coincidence, whose roots lay years back, not in Clement’s death. The reformation Parliament (so called) began inn 1529 to enact a series of 7 escalating acts designed to gradually establish the separation, if nothing intervened. By 1534, IMO, Henry was sincerely (if conveniently self-servingly) convinced from his reading of Tyndale as to the true nature and scope of the authority of a Christian monarch. I doubt that he would have held back from the Act of Supremacy under any conditions, either Clement or Paul not withstanding. Both Clement (at the end) and Paul (for several years) were optimistic that Henry could be wooed back into the fold. But even a granting of his decree of nullity would not, at that point, have caused Henry to reverse course. Thjough, to be sure, he wanted that decree, right to the end.

Thus I read it. Scarisbrick, recommended, as usual, and also Graves’ HENRY VIII.

GKC