When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[seamusmohr]

Bluego

The Roman Church didn’t usurp the power of the state.

 

[seamusmohr]

From an Orthodox perspective—I would say about 1054AD–give or take about two hundred years.

I would agree with your point! The Anglo Saxons on the whole didn’t have a close relationship with the papacy . It was probably because of this attitude that the papacy supported William the Butcher of fa`laise in his invasion of England! On winning he disposed of all the traditional bishops, abbots and senior clergy and replaced them with continentals subserviant to the pope! Thousands of Anglicans fled overseas to Constaninople and the Eastern Emperor!

 

[Contarini]

I am certainly not taking the* sola scriptura *line, and if you have read any of my recent posts you would know that. A misunderstanding has occurred, so let’s just drop it.

I’m certainly not going to drop it, but I’ll stop using the phrase “sola scriptura” which was a mistake on my part. Reductiones ad absurdum usually backfire and I should stop using them.

But am I right in thinking that you are defending the concept that apostolic teaching is perspicuous–that is to say, that any person of good will can discern what the apostolic teaching is? If so, then I continue to maintain that you’re making the same basic error that defenders of Sola Scriptura make, even though you aren’t making it on behalf of Sola Scriptura.

I repeat: Christians disagree because apostolic teaching is not perspicuous. To suppose otherwise is both uncharitable and irrational, and the great weakness of Protestantism is that Protestants can’t have any hope of unity without either making this uncharitable and irrational supposition or lapsing into doctrinal indifferentism. Therefore, once again, I ask (without using the inflammatory and inaccurate phrase “sola scriptura”): why do you maintain this position? Why not just grant what appears to be obvious, that people of varying theological positions accept apostolic teaching insofar as they can recognize and understand it, but have honest differences about what the apostolic teaching is and (far more often) how it should be applied and interpreted?

“Thou shalt not kill.” Is that scriptural enough?

Sure. But unless you are using it to back up a doctrine of complete ahimsa, which would probably have to lead to self-starvation, one has to qualify it by saying just what forms of life it applies to. After all, most Christians don’t even believe that not all human beings should be killed.

Does Paul back up gay marriage?

I laid out the argument. You don’t address it. Instead, you quote another passage, for which of course pro-gay folks have explanations (chiefly that Paul was talking about particular cultural practices of the ancient world, such as sexual exploitation of slaves and young boys, and not monogamous relationships characterized by love, fidelity, and respect).

I don’t want to be drawn into arguing a case I don’t believe in. Once again: why do you maintain this doctrine of the perspicuity of apostolic teaching? It makes no sense on any level whatsoever.

I guess you’ve missed a lot of my recent posts, which argue that the authority of the Church is prior to the authority of Scripture.

Then I don’t get your point. Why on earth are you maintaining that Christians who disagree with you are deliberately rejecting apostolic teaching?

You’re asking for misunderstanding by maintaining a position that is plainly contrary to empirical evidence and generally only maintained by conservative Protestants who have to maintain it or else their entire theological position will collapse.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

McCulloch, the Church Historian in his writings on the Reformation in Europe "**points out that there were no Roman Catholics in Europe in 1500 with the sole exception of the **Kingdom of Bohemia where there were Churches loyal to the pope operating under an establishment which traced its origin to the Hussite Movement. The Roman Church recast itself at the Council of of Trent. [Faith & Worship. No 66. PBS.]

I don’t know what this citation is–it appears to be to a TV documentary?

You (or your sources) are completely misrepresenting MacCulloch’s point, which is found on p. 37 of his The Reformation: A History. Here is the passage in question:

These lonely outposts of obedience to Rome in Bohemia are worth noting because they represented the only part of medieval western Europe to which the description “Roman Catholic” can be applied with any meaning. It may at first sight seem surprising that this familiar term makes no sense before the Reformation, but it is clearly redundant when everyone consciously or unconsciously formed part of the same Catholic church structure, tied in so many complex ways to the heart and head of the whole organization in Rome. Whatever the pope’s troubles, he could be assured of that, everywhere except Bohemia.

MacCulloch goes on to argue that even the Lollards and Waldenses were tied to some degree to the Catholic Church in communion with Rome.

In short, MacCulloch supports your argument only in the sense that he’s using the phrase “Roman Catholic” to mean “people who choose to be loyal to Rome in the face of a local establishment that has broken ties with Rome.” But it’s absurd to claim (and MacCulloch certainly does not claim) that maintaining locally the loyalty that had previously been held throughout Western Europe generally is somehow “starting a new Church.” MacCulloch says explicitly, in the passage I italicized above, that the Western Catholic Church *was *

tied to Rome, which is the point you are trying to deny to score an ideological point. It won’t work. Your position is historically bankrupt.

Certainly in the later Reformation it was understood that the Church of Rome had widened its parameters to take within a large section of the northern European Catholic Church. It was a Common argument between traditionalists and the ,‘Trentists,’ "Where was your Church before Trent

? " The argument was that the followers of the papacy had abandoned Holy Tradition in their slavish following of the papal teaching at that Council, so much that they had set up a New Church of Trent! [See Evelyn’s Diary, Jan. 1686]

Who made this argument? What does Evelyn–a late-seventeenth-century Anglican–have to do with this?

Of course Anglicans would make this argument. But Anglicans were not “traditionalists.” They broke from tradition in the sixteenth century quite decisively, and then began inching back toward it.

Theologically, I basically agree with Anglo-Catholicism. Unfortunately, it is based on historical dishonesty.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I am not saying that Protestantism was free of political involvements … but I don’t believe that it was ever close to the degree found within the RCC. Certainly, no Protestant denomination was ever a political state.

But Anglicanism and Lutheranism (and some forms of Continental Calvinism) were historically branches of the state, which is surely much worse.

Richard Hooker argued that there was no substantial difference between the Church of England and the Commonwealth of England–the two were the same body of people regarded under different aspects. You will not find so close an identification between Church and state in Catholic thought–though perhaps the Gallicans came close.

Edwin

 

[seamusmohr]

You (or your sources) are completely misrepresenting MacCulloch’s point, which is found on p. 37 of his *The Reformation: A History! *

 

[Contarini]

Contarini;6690131:

I have read the book you quote but your interpretation, while it helps and is interesting, doesn’t change anything.

Sure it does. You quoted an authority who does not in fact support the argument you were making.

“No Roman Catholics in Europe before 1500!” The source quoted is the magazine of the Prayer Book Society! The article written was by the Bishop of London!

No doubt. I’m aware that Anglicans have made this silly propagandistic claim. If it is meant that Catholics before 1500 did not acknowledge Rome’s authority in any sense in which Anglicans reject it, then it’s a plainly false claim.

Even C.B.Moss, the gentlest of apologists claimed the phrase,“Roman Catholic,” should be properly be used only of the Roman Communion after Trent!"

Actually that’s standard usage in my experience. It isn’t the legitimate basis for any kind of polemical point.

If we look at the history of continental catholicism since Trent we should realise all the opposition that accrued from Trent. For instance the Church in France, accepted as Anglicans do,] the Primacy of Rome,{Honour and Place} but objected strongly to the antics of Rome and Trent, but were coerced by Louis 14th, in to aquiescence,> Why did the pope remove the French Bishops at Napoleons request? Because they were unsteady to say the least on his doctrine of Jurisdiction! Look at the Dutch secession, Utrecht 1713! As well as the Secessions from Rome after Vatican ii! Late, but it was a sequel from the additions to the faith at Trent, especially those additions regarding the papacy!

Actually there were no additions to the faith at Trent regarding the papacy–none that I can think of. The papacy became much more powerful within the Catholic Church after Trent, but that was not because of anything explicitly taught by Trent but because of historical circumstances and the drive toward reform by centralization.

The Church in England had been antagonistic to papal claims for several hundred years

Evidence for this?

But even so Anglican as well as Continental Catholics took part in the massive opposition to papal claims supported only by forgeries and pride. The struggle took place over four or five Latin or Western Councils, it was lost at Trent! before Trent, Europe was Catholic and after Trent it wasn’t quite the same!

You’re making too much of Trent, which as I said did not in fact address papal authority (at least not in any new way).

Speaking of pride–any Anglo-Catholic who refuses to seek union with the Orthodox Church is motivated by nothing but pride, in my opinion. It may be a noble collective kind of pride in the glories of Anglican tradition, but it’s pride.

If we want to be truly Catholic, we have two choices (well, four if you consider the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East valid alternatives). It really is as simple as that.

Anglicanism is historically a conservative form of Protestantism which gave rise to a minority movement attempting to claim that it wasn’t Protestant at all. That’s not comfortable or pleasant for those of us who find Anglo-Catholicism appealing. But it’s the truth.

 

[Contarini]

I disagree with your comments and consider myself in good company with the Anglican Scholars I’ve named for believing thus!

They were making a valiant effort to do something that can’t be done–turn a Protestant church into a Catholic one. I respect them, but they were clearly wrong. Human authority must yield to truth. Besides, when you start looking at these Anglican scholars, you find that they are divided on just what true Catholicism looks like and how it relates to Protestantism. The number of Anglicans before the 19th-century who maintained anything like Anglo-Catholicism is pretty small. Anglo-Catholics not only use the seventeenth-century Anglican divines to support their revisionist views of earlier history, but employ unsound revisionism on the Anglican divines themselves.

When have I denied the claim that that," The Western Catholic Church was tied to Rome?" . It was tied to Rome for 1564 yrs, it is still tied to Rome by reason of the Decrees of the Seven Councils!

Most Anglicans don’t agree with us on this point, unfortunately (when I suggest that Catholic Tradition has something to do with Rome, most of my fellow Episcopalians look at me as if I were crazy). And furthermore, what medieval Catholics meant by being tied to Rome was something much stronger than this.

What we oppose as Anglicans is not the primacy of Rome, but the additions to the Deposit, as they do say! The flouting of the teaching and faith of Holy Tradition!

Then why aren’t you a member of the Orthodox Communion, which clearly maintains Holy Tradition? Does Anglican cultural identity matter more to you than the Faith?

I could quote you John Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury. and a host of others besides those above!

You make my case much easier by mentioning Jewel, an unambiguously Protestant theologian whose views were essentially Reformed.

Your claim that the Anglican Church broke from tradition is unfortunate.

It is the fact that is unfortunate.

You should prove such serious assertions.

The 39 Articles are all the proof I need. They clearly endorse the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, assert that all the major “particular churches” have erred (which strongly implies that there was by the 16th century no infallible Church left on earth), embrace a receptionist view of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and condemn Catholic devotional practices connected to the sacraments and the Communion of Saints.

If you want to take a Tract 90 line, consider that the author of Tract 90 eventually abandoned this position. It’s an argument born of sheer desperation and thoroughly unconvincing historically.

There is plenty of other proof–there has been ever since the Reformation a substantial portion of the Anglican church (I would say a majority, but I won’t try to prove that) which unambiguously considers itself Protestant, regards the Reformation as a rightful break with the Catholic tradition, and has no problem embracing the official teachings of the Church of England and other Anglican provinces (with the exception of baptismal regeneration, which the low-churchers have had to explain away).

The Church believes and has never denied its belief in Holy Tradition it is a major part in our Catholic belief.

If by Holy Tradition you mean apostolic teaching passed down authoritatively within the Church in a manner not necessarily dependent on scriptural exegesis, then you are clearly wrong. Article 6 is a clear rejection of that view. There are of course other senses of Tradition, some of them possibly Catholic. We could argue about that. But I will maintain that the sixteenth-century Anglican Reformers understood tradition in the same way the Continental Reformers did–as human interpretation and application of the Word of God revealed in Scripture. Such tradition, when sound (i.e., when based on good exegesis of Scripture and/or reasonable application of Scriptural principles), should be treated with respect but not insisted on as necessary to salvation. When contrary to what application of standard exegetical method shows to be the plain meaning of Scripture, it should be rejected out of hand.

For instance most of the leading Anglicans of the 16th and 17th Century including those unfortunates who were burnt by Mary believed in Tradition, if not in papalism.

In what sense?

I have to say that I am not an Anglo Catholic! If I accept any other title than Anglican Catholic it is of High Church Man.

In what way do you differ from Anglo-Catholics?

Edwin

 

[seamusmohr]

seamusmohr;6692083:

. You quoted an authority who does not in fact support the argument you were making.

I did, by your own admission quote an authority and a 500yr old tradition, you didn’t! Rather you put your own view forward, don’t you think that’s a somewhat arrogant attitude?

No doubt. I’m aware that Anglicans have made this silly propagandistic claim. If it is meant that Catholics before 1500 did not acknowledge Rome’s authority in any sense in which Anglicans reject it, then it’s a plainly false claim.

You are putting words in to my mouth that were not spoken! I have said that Anglicans accepted the primacy of the pope, not as God given but through the Councils.
This was the attitude of Thomas More! He believed the papacy was subserviant to the Ecumenical Councils! [Letter to Cromwell] What do you think was the source and reason for the struggle taking place in the latin Councils of the middle ages?

Actually there were no additions to the faith at Trent regarding the papacy–none that I can think of. The papacy became much more powerful within the Catholic Church after Trent, but that was not because of anything explicitly taught by Trent but because of historical circumstances and the drive toward reform by centralization.

Anyone who has read the vast amount of literature emanating fro Trent, will be able to make up their own minds, I’ll leave it to them!

You’re making too much of Trent, which as I said did not in fact address papal authority (at least not in any new way) /.quote]
I’m beginning to suspect that either you have not studied Trent or your vanity is getting in the way!

Speaking of pride–any Anglo-Catholic who refuses to seek union with the Orthodox Church is motivated by nothing but pride, in my opinion. It may be a noble collective kind of pride in the glories of Anglican tradition, but it’s pride.

Again, you’r inventing things, who refuses to to seek union with Orthodoxy? You are making it up!!

If we want to be truly Catholic, we have two choices (well, four if you consider the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East valid alternatives). It really is as simple as that.

I wouldn’t argue with that idea, if I was a member of the Episcopalian Church! But being in a Traditional Catholic Church already ??

Anglicanism is historically a conservative form of Protestantism which gave rise to a minority movement attempting to claim that it wasn’t Protestant at all. That’s not comfortable or pleasant for those of us who find Anglo-Catholicism appealing. But it’s the truth.

Again, who am I to argue with a mind that doesn’t have a clear view of what the Catholic Church is or what it teaches!

 

[seamusmohr]

They were making a valiant effort to do something that can’t be done–turn a Protestant church into a Catholic one.

You misunderstand the nature of the Church! There’s no such thing as a ‘Protestant Church,’ there’s only the Catholic Church and that, as the Prayer Book tells us is the Body of Christ! We become members by baptism and are confirmed in that membership by the bishop, becoming Members of Christ and Children of God. This doesn’t depend on your agreement Edwin. It depends on our acceptance of “The revelation of Christ once made to the Saints, this recorded in scripture and interpreted by the Holy Fathers in Council through the guidance of the Holy Ghost the Comforter!” In essence we believe that the Holy Scriptures are completed, explained and interpreted by Holy Tradition and that this is found in the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Consensus of the Greek Fathers of the Early Centuries. This is the belief of the Church in England, what is now referred to as the Anglican Church, it does not claim to be the whole of the Catholic Church but simply, to use a phrase from Moss, as a Communion of Catholics within the Body of Christ!

For those Christian organisations who do not hold the Faith revealed by Christ, given to the apostles and held by the Catholic Church they are sects! A sect as I was taught is an organisation, usually a religious one that has departed from the parent body on a single issue, i.e baptism, congregationalism or indeed the papacy at Trent!It was the Anglican Fathers of the Reformation who insisted that the new Roman order was essentially catholic and still part of the Church.

I respect them, but they were clearly wrong…

That you respect our Fathers is I’m sure appreciated. But your approbation is not necessary though is welcome. The fact is we do not make the Church Catholic or orthodox, it is our membership of Christ and our belief in the teachings of the Apostles that imparts to us the catholicity we all seek!

The number of Anglicans before the 19th-century who maintained anything like Anglo-Catholicism is pretty small. .

I repeat for the third time, I am not an Anglo Catholic, not now nor in my 77yrs in the Church have I ever been one! You have a fixation with them that is unhealthy! The Church in England has a provenance of some two thousand years, give and take a year or two! Anglo catholicism as we know it has about 100 yrs. The Anglican Fathers believed in Revelation,Scripture and Tradition such as was held in the first 1000 years of the Church! Do you I might ask?

Most Anglicans don’t agree with us on this point, unfortunately (when I suggest that Catholic Tradition has something to do with Rome, most of my fellow Episcopalians look at me as if I were crazy). And furthermore, what medieval Catholics meant by being tied to Rome was something much stronger than this.

Again your weakness is apparent, It isn’t what individual Anglicans do or want! It is the faith that the Church holds to!

Then why aren’t you a member of the Orthodox Communion, which clearly maintains Holy Tradition? Does Anglican cultural identity matter more to you than the Faith?

I hold to Anglicanism, because it is the Catholic and Apostolic faith as held in this corner of the world for two thousand years! Explain to me where the Faith taught in the Church is different from that taught by Orthodoxy!

You make my case much easier by mentioning Jewel, an unambiguously Protestant theologian whose views were essentially Reformed.

He believed and taught Holy Tradition as well as any Orthodox and better than most Roman Catholics!

The 39 Articles are all the proof I need. They clearly endorse the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, assert that all the major “particular churches” have erred (which strongly implies that there was by the 16th century no infallible Church left on earth), embrace a receptionist view of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and condemn Catholic devotional practices connected to the sacraments and the Communion of Saints.

The 39 Articles do not endorse protestantism! They are no more than tracks in the dust or sand, beyond which the wild men, Calvinists or Anglo Papists must not go! Kidde said they should be viewed through the prism of the Councils. They only condemn Trentist abborations, not catholic Doctrine!

If you want to take a Tract 90 line, consider that the author of Tract 90 eventually abandoned this position.

There is plenty of other proof–there has been ever since the Reformation a substantial portion of the Anglican church (I would say a majority, but I won’t try to prove that) which unambiguously considers itself Protestant, regards the Reformation as a rightful break with the Catholic tradition, and has no problem embracing the official teachings of the Church of England

.
Regarding Holy Tradition and what it means read the Anglican Fathers of the 17th and 18th,Cent. The Church has a history of some two thousand years in this country to understand you have to go deeper than the 1920’s and what someone called,’ the party.’

In what way do you differ from Anglo-Catholics?

I think the Anglo Catholic teaching has more to do with peripherals than with Revelation etc.

 

[Contarini]

Contarini;6695451:

I did, by your own admission quote an authority and a 500yr old tradition, you didn’t! Rather you put your own view forward, don’t you think that’s a somewhat arrogant attitude?

Given that I have Rome and the Orthodox (not to mention many other Anglicans and other Protestants and secular scholars) with me, no, it’s not arrogant at all. The arrogance lies with the Anglicans who try to concoct a novel definition of Catholicity to defend their innovative national church.

You are putting words in to my mouth that were not spoken! I have said that Anglicans accepted the primacy of the pope, not as God given but through the Councils.
This was the attitude of Thomas More! He believed the papacy was subserviant to the Ecumenical Councils! [Letter to Cromwell] What do you think was the source and reason for the struggle taking place in the latin Councils of the middle ages?

So why did Thomas More resist Henry VIII’s break with Rome to the death? More thought that Henry’s version of Anglicanism–far more Catholic than any official form of Anglicanism since–was a break with historic Catholicism. You may well hold the same view of the Church that More did (in which case you are certainly an Anglo-Catholic by my definition), but in that case the most Catholic version of official Anglicanism that has yet existed would consider you a traitor!

You are making my point for me: even a non-papalist late medieval Catholic like More recognized that the break with Rome under Henry was a break with medieval Catholicism as a whole.

Anyone who has read the vast amount of literature emanating fro Trent, will be able to make up their own minds, I’ll leave it to them!

In short, you can’t document your claim. You appeal throughout to authority instead of making substantive arguments.

I’m beginning to suspect that either you have not studied Trent or your vanity is getting in the way!

Then it should be easy for you to point to the decrees of Trent regarding the papacy that went beyond medieval Catholicism.

Again, you’r inventing things, who refuses to to seek union with Orthodoxy? You are making it up!!

Do tell me–what initiatives have the bishops of your particular Traditionalist Anglican jurisdiction taken to seek union with the Eastern Churches? I may indeed be ignorant–then instruct me.

I wouldn’t argue with that idea, if I was a member of the Episcopalian Church! But being in a Traditional Catholic Church already ??

You clearly mean something very different by Catholicism than the Fathers or anyone before modern times. The Fathers agreed with one voice that unity is essential for Catholicity. You can’t just go off in a corner and have a “Traditional Catholic Church” that is out of communion with other parts of the Catholic Church. If you aren’t in full communion with the rest of the Catholic Church, you are in schism. It’s as simple as that.

Are you in communion with the Orthodox? If not, do you accuse them of schism or heresy? If not, then you are in schism.

You have much less excuse than we Episcopalians do. I remain Episcopalian because I don’t want to break communion with those who do not entirely share my view of the Church. But you have broken communion with them. There is nothing to commend your position except American Protestant sectarianism.

Again, who am I to argue with a mind that doesn’t have a clear view of what the Catholic Church is or what it teaches!

I have a clear view. It happens not to be yours. But yours happens not to be that of the Fathers, who thought unity was an essential attribute of the Catholic Church.

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

I have a clear view. It happens not to be yours. But yours happens not to be that of the Fathers, who thought unity was an essential attribute of the Catholic Church.

Edwin

I’m straying from your dargument here, but I think it dovetails into the rest of the discussion. Were the Fathers in a position to comment on the issues with unity that the Church faces now? My difficulty is that I see no Church which has unity, including Orthodoxy which to me comes closest. (They were implicated in the schism, they continue to be implicated in lack of unity, and I think they are missing something they need.)

If we accept that unity is a mark of the Church, then to me the only answer is it means something different than I might accept.

 

[Contarini]

You misunderstand the nature of the Church! There’s no such thing as a ‘Protestant Church,’ there’s only the Catholic Church and that, as the Prayer Book tells us is the Body of Christ! We become members by baptism and are confirmed in that membership by the bishop, becoming Members of Christ and Children of God.

Are you saying that Protestant churches (Lutherans, Reformed, Methodists, Baptists, etc.) aren’t churches at all or that they are Catholic?

I find some merit in the view that all baptized Christians are part of the Catholic Church–this is the main reason I remain Episcopalian. I have vacillated for years between this and the more traditionally Catholic view that apostolic succession, purity of doctrine, and unity with the rest of the Catholic Church are essential to Catholicity. Insofar as I have a stable position, it would be that these latter things are essential to full Catholicity, but that it’s dubious whether any church has them–certainly Anglicanism lacks the last two. Therefore, we should strive for greater Catholicity. A “Protestant church” in my definition would then be a body of Christians which lacks some part of Catholicity due to the break with Rome at the Reformation (of course, some defects in Catholicity may well go back earlier).

But if you are saying that Protestant churches aren’t real churches at all, then you are maintaining what I would consider a classic Anglo-Catholic position (though I will avoid the term in future since you dislike it). And this position is not that of the Fathers, any more than the Protestant “all baptized believers make up the Church” position is. The Fathers did not think that you could have the Catholic Church simply on the basis of apostolic succession apart from unity with the rest of the Catholic Church. The Donatists had apostolic succession, after all.

This doesn’t depend on your agreement Edwin. It depends on our acceptance of “The revelation of Christ once made to the Saints, this recorded in scripture and interpreted by the Holy Fathers in Council through the guidance of the Holy Ghost the Comforter!” In essence we believe that the Holy Scriptures are completed, explained and interpreted by Holy Tradition and that this is found in the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Consensus of the Greek Fathers of the Early Centuries. This is the belief of the Church in England, what is now referred to as the Anglican Church,

Please point me to the official post-Reformation Anglican document expressing adherence to all Seven Councils. In fact what you are saying is the position only of one faction within Anglicanism.

it does not claim to be the whole of the Catholic Church but simply, to use a phrase from Moss, as a Communion of Catholics within the Body of Christ!

Which isn’t in communion with the rest of the Body. This is absolutely contrary to Catholic Tradition.

For those Christian organisations who do not hold the Faith revealed by Christ, given to the apostles and held by the Catholic Church they are sects! A sect as I was taught is an organisation, usually a religious one that has departed from the parent body on a single issue, i.e baptism, congregationalism or indeed the papacy at Trent!It was the Anglican Fathers of the Reformation who insisted that the new Roman order was essentially catholic and still part of the Church.

Hooker suggested that this was true in some sense, and he got in a lot of trouble for saying it, even though he qualified it much more heavily than most Anglicans would do today.

I can’t see that your friend Jewel believed any such thing.

And why isn’t the conception of royal supremacy a “single issue” which makes Anglicanism a sect by your definition?

 

[Contarini]

The fact is we do not make the Church Catholic or orthodox, it is our membership of Christ and our belief in the teachings of the Apostles that imparts to us the catholicity we all seek!

But if you don’t believe that unity is essential, you don’t believe in what the Catholic Church has historically held to be apostolic teaching.

I repeat for the third time, I am not an Anglo Catholic, not now nor in my 77yrs in the Church have I ever been one! You have a fixation with them that is unhealthy! The Church in England has a provenance of some two thousand years, give and take a year or two! Anglo catholicism as we know it has about 100 yrs. The Anglican Fathers believed in Revelation,Scripture and Tradition such as was held in the first 1000 years of the Church!

OK, you don’t like the phrase “Anglo-Catholic.” Your position seems to match Anglo-Catholicism as I understand it, but I can probably get by without using the term since you find it offensive!

Do you I might ask?

Yes.

Again your weakness is apparent, It isn’t what individual Anglicans do or want! It is the faith that the Church holds to!

Which is expressed where? Different Anglicans will tell you different things.

I hold to Anglicanism, because it is the Catholic and Apostolic faith as held in this corner of the world for two thousand years! Explain to me where the Faith taught in the Church is different from that taught by Orthodoxy!

Well, I don’t know which Traditionalist jurisdiction you belong to, so I couldn’t tell you this. But certainly the 39 Articles would not be accepted by the Eastern Orthodox. Just find some Orthodox and ask them.

He believed and taught Holy Tradition as well as any Orthodox and better than most Roman Catholics!

That does not seem to be the consensus of scholars. A recent study on Jewel (John Jewel and the English National Church, by Gary Jenkins) has apparently argued that Jewel’s appeal to Tradition was polemical rather than forming the basis of his theology, which was thoroughly Erastian. And it seems to me that Jewel’s Apology doesn’t go beyond criticizing certain fairly superficial developments of late medieval Catholicism–it doesn’t illustrate a deep adherence to the principles of patristic theology. I could of course be wrong, but I can’t see how Jewel’s theology differs from that of mainstream Continental Reformers such as Bucer and Vermigli.

The 39 Articles do not endorse protestantism! They are no more than tracks in the dust or sand, beyond which the wild men, Calvinists or Anglo Papists must not go! Kidde said they should be viewed through the prism of the Councils. They only condemn Trentist abborations, not catholic Doctrine!

I know that’s the standard spin. But there is no historical evidence that the Articles were intended to be viewed “through the prism of the [Seven] Councils,” and that is not in fact how many Anglicans have historically viewed them.

The “tracks in the dust or sand” drawn by the Articles happen to correspond to those of continental Reformed Protestantism, with the exception that they are somewhat vaguer and broader than the confessions drawn up on the Continent. In other words, sure the Articles make a bit more room for Catholic faith than the continental Reformed confessions do. But on the Eucharist and penance they are less clearly Catholic than the Lutheran confessions, and at no point that I can see do they clearly affirm any Catholic doctrine generally denied by the Continental Reformed.

Note for instance that Article XIX defines the Church in the classical Protestant sense, not mentioning bishops or apostolic succession. Similarly, Article XXIII speaks of the calling of ministers without mentioning the three Catholic orders. These are mentioned in XXXII and XXXVI as de facto part of the order of the Church of England, but never as essential features of the Church.

Regarding Holy Tradition and what it means read the Anglican Fathers of the 17th and 18th,Cent. The Church has a history of some two thousand years in this country

What country? England?

to understand you have to go deeper than the 1920’s and what someone called,’ the party.’

And yet your interpretation of Anglican history is exactly that of “the party,” and is found unconvincing by many Anglicans as well as by other Christians and secular scholars.

I think the Anglo Catholic teaching has more to do with peripherals than with Revelation etc.

Fair enough. You appear to identify Anglo-Catholicism with some of the liturgical frippery one finds in Anglo-Catholic circles. I use the term to mean certain substantive claims about the nature of Anglicanism, claims with which you appear to agree. But the phrase isn’t helping communication, so I’ll drop it when addressing you.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I’m straying from your dargument here, but I think it dovetails into the rest of the discussion. Were the Fathers in a position to comment on the issues with unity that the Church faces now? My difficulty is that I see no Church which has unity, including Orthodoxy which to me comes closest. (They were implicated in the schism, they continue to be implicated in lack of unity, and I think they are missing something they need.)

If we accept that unity is a mark of the Church, then to me the only answer is it means something different than I might accept.

There are two possibilities:

1. The Fathers were wrong about unity. This is the position that I, and all Anglicans (not to mention other Protestants), hold de facto, whether we admit it or not. But it bothers me.
2. There is one Church that is the true Catholic Church on earth, which has unity within itself.

The problem with 2 is that nearly everyone who holds it qualifies it in some way, and an unqualified assertion that one particular Christian body is the true Catholic Church (making all others simply outside the Church) is unconvincing to me.

So I think either way we have to modify the patristic position, just as we see them modifying it themselves (see the shift between Augustine and Cyprian on the rebaptism of heretics, though admittedly Rome had disagreed with Cyprian all along and the Orthodox seem not to agree with Augustine entirely to this day!). But I think that if we simply abandon the idea that unity is an essential, we are abandoning a key ingredient of historic, orthodox Christianity. So to my mind the possibly tenable forms of the above propositions are:

1a. There is no one Church existing today, but that is a dreadful situation and remedying it should be our top priority; or

2a. There is one Church existing today, but the rest of us participate in the Church in imperfect ways.

The Roman Communion clearly endorses 2a, which to my mind is one of the advantages they have over the Orthodox (who seem much more committed to 2 straight). 1a is, as I said, my position de facto, but it’s an almost unbearable one practically and seriously raises the question of whether Christianity is true in the first place.

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

There are two possibilities:

1. The Fathers were wrong about unity. This is the position that I, and all Anglicans (not to mention other Protestants), hold de facto, whether we admit it or not. But it bothers me.

1a. There is no one Church existing today, but that is a dreadful situation and remedying it should be our top priority;

1. There is one Church that is the true Catholic Church on earth, which has unity within itself.

2a. There is one Church existing today, but the rest of us participate in the Church in imperfect ways.

The Roman Communion clearly endorses 2a, which to my mind is one of the advantages they have over the Orthodox (who seem much more committed to 2 straight). 1a is, as I said, my position de facto, but it’s an almost unbearable one practically and seriously raises the question of whether Christianity is true in the first place.

Hmm, I agree that the OC goes in for 2, and the Catholics 2a. I agree that the position of Protestants understands unity somewhat differently, but you haven’t really defined what you mean by that.

But why do find 1a to be unbearable practically speaking?
Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Bluegoat,

Protestants define unity in different ways. Probably the most common position is the idea that “invisible unity” is enough–an idea which I reject with all my heart.

The more tenable approach is to say that visible disunity is a form of brokenness, but is never complete–there are all kinds of unity that we have, in a common Faith (at least on core points as expressed in the historic Creeds), a common baptism, etc.

As for why I think 1a is unbearable–I personally find it unbearable because it posits that we currently lack an essential note of the Church, and because in practice it’s hard to know how to go about restoring unity, given the many different places we can draw lines between essentials and inessentials and the difficulty in deciding whether our lack of unity with a given group of Christians is our fault or theirs. I would suggest (perhaps egotistically) that Protestants who don’t find this position unbearable fail to take unity seriously enough and are lapsing into a de facto “invisible unity” position.

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat,

Protestants define unity in different ways. Probably the most common position is the idea that “invisible unity” is enough–an idea which I reject with all my heart.

The more tenable approach is to say that visible disunity is a form of brokenness, but is never complete–there are all kinds of unity that we have, in a common Faith (at least on core points as expressed in the historic Creeds), a common baptism, etc.

As for why I think 1a is unbearable–I personally find it unbearable because it posits that we currently lack an essential note of the Church, and because in practice it’s hard to know how to go about restoring unity, given the many different places we can draw lines between essentials and inessentials and the difficulty in deciding whether our lack of unity with a given group of Christians is our fault or theirs. I would suggest (perhaps egotistically) that Protestants who don’t find this position unbearable fail to take unity seriously enough and are lapsing into a de facto “invisible unity” position.

Edwin

I suppose I am not surprised that we lack an essential note of the Church, in the form of visible unity. We lack so much else here, because we are fallen, I don’t see how that could fail to affect how we behave in the visible part of the Church. How is expecting visible unity here different than expecting to see each baptized person to become visibly regenerate and perfect?

I don’t know, I suppose if I say the Catholic position as at all tenable I might bite with their vision of unity, but there are too many serious difficulties for me in other aspects of their theology. And either for Catholicism or the OC, do they really have unity of there are groups of “dis-unified” Christians around? I think this is similar to the idea which says that when man fell, all of creation fell.

 

[seamusmohr]

seamusmohr;6696468:

Given that I have Rome and the Orthodox (not to mention many other Anglicans and other Protestants and secular scholars) with me, no, it’s not arrogant at all. The arrogance lies with the Anglicans who try to concoct a novel definition of Catholicity to defend their innovative national church.

You wish, as my little niece would say! Read the history of the Church in England! As Eliza said,“We and our people- thanks be to God- follow no novel or strange religion,but that very religion ordained by Christ,sanctioned by the primitive catholic Church and approved by the consentient mind and voice of the early fathers.” [Letter of Elizabeth !]

So why did Thomas More resist Henry VIII’s break with Rome to the death?

He knew Henry and didn’t trust him. But this isn’t about Henry it is about Catholicity.

More thought that Henry’s version of Anglicanism–far more Catholic than any official form of Anglicanism since–was a break with historic Catholicism.

Yet Rome’s version of catholicism is based on a belief in the pope that More didn’t hold to or believe! I would imagine that apart from not trusting the King, he thought that Henry was rejecting the Patriarchy of the West, which Anglicans hold to and was given by the Church!

You are making my point for me: even a non-papalist late medieval Catholic like More recognized that the break with Rome under Henry was a break with medieval Catholicism as a whole.

" a break with medieval catholicism?" You’ve got it! That is just what the Church in England did.At no time did it break with catholicism, as I told you earlier, it simply rejected medieval accretions to the Deposit of Faith! These accretions were present all through the medieval period but ratified at Trent!

In short, you can’t document your claim. You appeal throughout to authority instead of making substantive arguments.

I appeal to the authority of the fathers of the First thousand years and supplemented by the Anglican fathers of the `Reformation [Laudians and Non Jurors!]
This is what the catholic religion is all about?

Then it should be easy for you to point to the decrees of Trent regarding the papacy that went beyond medieval Catholicism.

One of the main factors against the Council of Trent, is that it has no catholic Authority or legitimacy! For one so interested and keen for o/Orthodoxy I should have though this would have been apparent immediately! The Roman Catholic Church claim it as an Ecumenical Council, but traditionalists accept it only as a synod of the Papal Church!
Initially the Ecumenical Councils were all called by the Roman Emperors! They were organised and controlled by these same Emperors. The monarchs Commissioners saw to all the arrangements and invites were sent out to all bishops. Cost was no problem as the expences were paid by the state and state facilities for travel were available to all who asked. Whilst the Bishops were responsible for the agenda, the commisioners saw to fair play even though the Bishops produced the chairman. At the final meeting the members voted on acceptance of or agreement with the findings of the Council who ratified them.
They became infallible after the event following the acceptance of the universal Church!
This might shock us today, but at least it ensured a certain amount of fair play! They were free councils in which within the limits of organisation were free and fair!
With Trent none of these things were apparent.
**The meeting was called by the Bishop of Rome without any consultation with any bishops or monarchs other than those of his own group. His own servants organised and arranged the initial arrangements. Invitations were sent out to his supporters and refused to his opponents. All content for the agenda had to go through the Vatican! The few bishops and scholars who attended were seperated in to two groups and refused permission to discuss either the agenda or the items on it! There was no chance of a Free Council! Everything had to go to Rome before it was voted on. In fact the German Emperor said that the Holy Ghost had travelled between Rome and Trent in a valise! [Rough Trans.]
At the End before anything could be done by the delegates the proceedings were taken to Rome for the Pope’s signature before they could be finally accepted! All through the Council the attendance was a problem and the Bishop of Rome had to resort to ordering the Bishops of the Suburbicarian Church to attend and in most cases to pay their wages!
When this failed to provide enough carcases, new bishops were made! Funnily enough, Kidde in his Counter Reformation, tells us that at the earlier votes two thirds were in support of Lutheran ideas! **

 

[seamusmohr]

seamusmohr;6696468:

Do tell me–what initiatives have the bishops of your particular Traditionalist Anglican jurisdiction taken to seek union with the Eastern Churches? I may indeed be ignorant–then instruct me.

Certainly, I am told that our Bishops are in discussions with Orthodox Bishops! If you wish further info, why not write to Archbishop Haverland!

You clearly mean something very different by Catholicism than the Fathers or anyone before modern times. The Fathers agreed with one voice that unity is essential for Catholicity. You can’t just go off in a corner and have a “Traditional Catholic Church” that is out of communion with other parts of the Catholic Church. If you aren’t in full communion with the rest of the Catholic Church, you are in schism. It’s as simple as that

.
If you can show any basic differences between Traditional Anglicanism as in Revelation, Scripture and Tradition and orthodoxy please show me and explain!.
I certainly do not agree with Roman Catholicism, which to my mind is simply Trentism! But I accept in every way the faith as taught by Orthodoxy! You talk about,’ full communion with the rest of the Catholic Church"? Edwin,Edwin, the ,“rest of the Catholic Church,” isn’t even in Communion with itself! Spare me!!

Are you in communion with the Orthodox? If not, do you accuse them of schism or heresy? If not, then you are in schism.

Edwin there are two groups who claim to be the ,One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church! Anglicans as I have explained do not claim such exalted status. We claim to be no more than a Communion of believers within that Church! We are in separation with no Catholics, they might be with us, we regret this immensly, but it is not of our doing!

I remain Episcopalian because I don’t want to break communion with those who do not entirely share my view of the Church.

Why you remain Episcopalian is not my business Edwin, to my mind you are not an Anglican, I regret this, but it isn’t of my doing you will have to justify your behaviour, just as I will!

But you have broken communion with them. There is nothing to commend your position except American Protestant sectarianism.

Again, I or we have broken Communion with no one, protestants broke away from the Church, Rome went in to schism and perpetuates that state.We have tried to rectify this state of separation for 500 years! I’m proud of that!

I have a clear view. It happens not to be yours. But yours happens not to be that of the Fathers, who thought unity was an essential attribute of the Catholic Church.

We are in favour of Unity. Yet Unity can only come through agreement on Christ’s teaching and its interpetation by the Holy Fathers in Council. We seek unity on such grounds and refuse to accept deviations and additions!

Edwin

Regarding the first part of this missive regarding the Council of Trent,
At Trent the Council made an addition to the Creed, which goes against the teachings of the FATHERS OF NICE!