Who leads the protestants?

[Bluegoat]

King Henry VIII may have very well had a good case for annulment but he didn’t go about it the proper way nor had one granted. This means he acted outside the Church in respect to his marriage and much more so when he created a new denomination.

That would certianly be true from a Catholic perspective.

So it is a headless church? My understand of the Act of Supremacy is King Henry VIII pronounced himself as head of the newly formed Church of England.

No, that isn’t what I meant. Simply that the role of the monarch as Head in that case does not correspond to what the role of the Pope is as head. In many ways the whole relationship between the monarch and the church was not really worked out under Henry, but under Elizabeth it was worked out both theologically and practically.

So who then is the True Church?

The True Church is constituted by those who are united in Christ. This is not really so different from the RC view, which allows that the Church can include people who are unknown to be part of the Church Visible, but who do indeed dwell in Christ. Many Protestant groups would not say much more than that. Classical Anglicans would probably say that the Visible or institutional Church was comprised of the Apostolic Churches, in so long as they remain in Christ, as well as any other unseen members.

Of course the Catholic position is the pope is the successor of St. Peter. There is a clear line of succession and Jesus Christ Himself handed the keys of heaven to St. Peter with the authority to bind and loose on earth. I’m not sure how that’s not convincing.

I don’t think many Anglicans or Orthodox would disagree that their is a line of sucession. But they would say the Catholics have misunderstood the implications of that. In the case of Anglicans they would say he may well be the successor, but that does not mean his powers extend beyond what God intended them to be. Of course Catholics would agree, but they think those powers go much beyond what Anglicans do. Anglicans would say that it would be wrong to follow the Pope past the point in which he is following the role which he was meant to.

Many Orthodox would take a different view - because the Bishop of Rome stepped outside of the Church, the Body of Christ, he lost apostolic succession, and so there currently is no valid successor to St Peter.

Jesus never used the plural of the word church. St. Paul makes frequent mention of a singular church holding authority over Christendom. Only the Catholic Church holds the Four Marks with a clear line of succession from Christ Himself. Every other Christian denomination has a mortal start date like the Church of England with King Henry VIII in the 16th Century.

I think that is highly disputable. In any case, if the Church is constituted by Christ, then there is still only one Church, even if it does not appear that way to us. We can date many “beginnings” in the history of the Church, related to individuals. It doesn’t make them founders, and more than the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church were founded after the great schism. That is when the began to exist as really separate entities, but they weren’t founded.

The notion that the CoE didn’t separate is like saying the United States is really still a part of England given its shared principles of democracy and free markets.

It really depends on what you mean by separate - there was clearly a political division. But the English Church did not somehow pop up out of nowhere, it continued to share all of the history of the RC Church in England, and moved on from there into the future as did the Catholic Church. And the Church had of course been very healthy in England before it had anything to do with Rome. I don’t think nation-states are really a good comparison, since they are primarily political and geographic entities, and those things are essentially secondary to the Church. I think both Catholics and Protestants would agree on that.

 

[manualman]

Such as Ted Kennedy.

You think Ted Kennedy’s annullment was inappropriately granted? You don’t think habitual womanizing from quite early on might be a good indicator of lack of genuine consent? I think his horrible behavior showed that he was incapable of valid consent (at the time, at least). No, Teddy is a rather different animal from Henry VIII.

Basically the Anglican case comes down to:
Popes gave lots of inappropriate annullments when it was politically expedient for them to do so. Denying Henry’s was just political manipulation, so Henry was justified in defying that authority.

The first part of this may actually be TRUE. But the second part is way off the rails. It doesn’t MATTER what the pope’s motivations were, only whether the annullment should have been granted or not based on the moral and sacramental merits of the case. He had the dispensation to marry the previous woman, case closed - NOT grounds for anullment.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t think there is any question that the break from Rome was intentional, so I am not sure what you mean by that.

You cannot simultaneously claim continuation, and a break, at the same time. It is a logical (not to mention a material) contradiction in terms.

They broke from the Apostolic Successor (the Bishop of Rome); therefore, they did not continue in Apostolic Succession. For a short time they had illicit but valid Bishops, and so they had a material (though not a licit) succession, but when King Edward VI changed the wording of the ordination ceremony to specifically eliminate any references to the nature of the priesthood as understood by Catholics, the material aspect was also lost.

 

[Bluegoat]

You cannot simultaneously claim continuation, and a break, at the same time. It is a logical (not to mention a material) contradiction in terms.

They broke from the Apostolic Successor (the Bishop of Rome); therefore, they did not continue in Apostolic Succession. For a short time they had illicit but valid Bishops, and so they had a material (though not a licit) succession, but when King Edward VI changed the wording of the ordination ceremony to specifically eliminate any references to the nature of the priesthood as understood by Catholics, the material aspect was also lost.

It would only be a contradiction if it was meant in the same sense, and it isn’t. When a cell divides and a new cell comes into being, everything that it has comes from the old cell. It hasn’t appeared somehow from nothing. Yet there is another cell that is separate from the first cell. (Don’t try to push my analogy too far please - it’s not intended for such scrutiny!)

I think perhaps the difficulty is that you as a Catholic define the Church Universal as the Catholic Church. I don’t, and so the English Church continues to be part of the Church Universal, united in Christ. Just as it was before it was part of the Roman Church.

I really have no desire to discuss the validity of Anglican orders; suffice it to say I think the Catholic argument is wrong.

 

[jmcrae]

I think perhaps the difficulty is that you as a Catholic define the Church Universal as the Catholic Church.

I do because Jesus did. It is Jesus who set Peter in authority over the Church; not me.

Just as it was before it was part of the Roman Church.

Sorry?

St. Patrick, St. Augustine, and the other missionaries who brought Christianity to Britain were certainly in good standing with the Catholic Church - there is no “before” with regard to the Church in England being in full communion with the Church at Rome - they always were, until the Act of Secession by King Henry VIII.

 

[Bluegoat]

I do because Jesus did. It is Jesus who set Peter in authority over the Church; not me.

Sorry?

St. Patrick, St. Augustine, and the other missionaries who brought Christianity to Britain were certainly in good standing with the Catholic Church - there is no “before” with regard to the Church in England being in full communion with the Church at Rome - they always were, until the Act of Secession by King Henry VIII.

No, that isn’t actually the case. When Augustine arrived he found the Church was already established in England. There was some conflict between the new representatives from Rome and those who were already there, who had a number of different customs and practices. That Church had been around since the Roman occupation of Britain and had sent its own bishops and representatives to the various counsels. There was also a Celtic Church which existed in Scotland. It wasn’t until the 7th century that the British Church was fully integrated into the Roman Western Church.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

whilst the pope leads the catholics;who leads the protestants?

No one.

They are Lost Sheep.

 

[jmcrae]

No, that isn’t actually the case. When Augustine arrived he found the Church was already established in England. There was some conflict between the new representatives from Rome and those who were already there, who had a number of different customs and practices. That Church had been around since the Roman occupation of Britain and had sent its own bishops and representatives to the various counsels. There was also a Celtic Church which existed in Scotland. It wasn’t until the 7th century that the British Church was fully integrated into the Roman Western Church.

This makes absolutely no sense. If there were Christians in Britain before he came, then they must have been evangelized by other Roman Christians who had arrived earlier. There is nobody else who could have evangelized them. Keep in mind, even the Apostles were in union with Peter, so even if (as speculative legend would have it) Joseph of Arimethea walked and swam all the way from Jerusalem to Britain and converted them, it was within full communion with Peter - he was not founding his own religion.

I don’t believe that they simply sprang forth from the ground, fully formed.

 

[tweetymom]

No one.

They are Lost Sheep.

God leads them:thumbsup:

 

[Just_Lurking]

It wasn’t until the 7th century that the British Church was fully integrated into the Roman Western Church.

According to the following, the integration occurred at the Synod of Whitby in 664 (see here):

Oswy (ruled 642-670) married a Kentish princess who kept the Roman traditions and calendar. One year, Oswy was ready to celebrate Easter, when his wife was still fasting for Lent. Oswy determined that the kingdom would have one set of rules and one calendar, so he called a Church Council (Synod) to be held at Hilda’s monastery at Whitby in 664. Colman and Cedd presented the case for continuing to keep the Celtic traditions, but Wilfred told the King that St. Peter was in charge of the gates of heaven and St. Peter had started the Roman traditions, so the King said he’d rather not risk making St. Peter angry, and decided that from then on England would follow the Roman calendar and customs.

 

[Ockham]

English history fascinates me and I truly regret not having spent more time studying it. Admittedly Wiki isn’t the most authorative source, but what do you make of the following?

“Anglicans traditionally date the origins of their Church to the arrival in the Kingdom of Kent of the Gregorian mission to the pagan Anglo-Saxons led by the first Archbishop of Canterbury, St Augustine, at the end of the 6th century. However, the origin of the Church in the British Isles extends farther back. Christianity first gained a foothold during the Roman occupation of Britannia, possibly as early as the 1st century. The first recorded Christian martyr in Britain, St Alban, is thought to have lived in the early 4th century, and his prominence in Anglican hagiography is reflected in the number of parish churches of which he is patron. Restitutus (fl. 314) is known to have been the metropolitan bishop of London and he is named as having attended the Council of Arles. Irish Anglicans trace their origins back to the founding saint of Irish Christianity (St Patrick) who was a Roman Briton and pre-dated Anglo-Saxon Christianity. Anglicans also consider Celtic Christianity a forerunner of their church, since the re-establishment of Christianity in some areas in the early sixth century came via Irish and Scottish missionaries, notably Patrick and St Columba.[1]”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Church_of_England

 

[jmcrae]

English history fascinates me and I truly regret not having spent more time studying it. Admittedly Wiki isn’t the most authorative source, but what do you make of the following?

“Anglicans traditionally date the origins of their Church to the arrival in the Kingdom of Kent of the Gregorian mission to the pagan Anglo-Saxons led by the first Archbishop of Canterbury, St Augustine, at the end of the 6th century. However, the origin of the Church in the British Isles extends farther back. Christianity first gained a foothold during the Roman occupation of Britannia, possibly as early as the 1st century. The first recorded Christian martyr in Britain, St Alban, is thought to have lived in the early 4th century, and his prominence in Anglican hagiography is reflected in the number of parish churches of which he is patron. Restitutus (fl. 314) is known to have been the metropolitan bishop of London and he is named as having attended the Council of Arles. Irish Anglicans trace their origins back to the founding saint of Irish Christianity (St Patrick) who was a Roman Briton and pre-dated Anglo-Saxon Christianity. Anglicans also consider Celtic Christianity a forerunner of their church, since the re-establishment of Christianity in some areas in the early sixth century came via Irish and Scottish missionaries, notably Patrick and St Columba.[1]”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Church_of_England

It is my understanding that although St. Patrick was ordained a Bishop in England, he received his commission to go to Ireland from the Pope, and that it was the Pope who defended him when the English Bishops wanted to depose him.

 

[Bluegoat]

This makes absolutely no sense. If there were Christians in Britain before he came, then they must have been evangelized by other Roman Christians who had arrived earlier. There is nobody else who could have evangelized them. Keep in mind, even the Apostles were in union with Peter, so even if (as speculative legend would have it) Joseph of Arimethea walked and swam all the way from Jerusalem to Britain and converted them, it was within full communion with Peter - he was not founding his own religion.

I don’t believe that they simply sprang forth from the ground, fully formed.

Well, I have heard some people claim that they were in many ways closer to Orthodoxy as far as actual belief and practice. (I think there are even several weird little "Celtic Orthodox groups around that operate on that basis). Which is just as anachronistic really as calling them Roman Catholic - there was never any question that they were part of the Church, and those divisions just didn’t exist the way they do now. They were part of the Church, wherever the first missionaries came from.

I agree that whomever the first Christians to come to Britain were, they were not founding a new religion. That is basically my point. I would even say they were “in union” with Peter. But what did that mean to them? It didn’t seem to mean that they were under the direct power of the Bishop of Rome, or that they had a similar organization or the same liturgy. Eventually they did put themselves under Roman governance, and it seems to have been willingly, but it still wasn’t on the same terms as the medieval model.

I would certainly not assume the first Christians in Britain were Westerners. Someone more expert on the early church in Britain might weigh in, but I haven’t seen anything other than the legend about Joseph. Since they were occupied by Rome, it makes sense that the person might have come through Rome but Christian missionaries seem to have been a mobile bunch.

So when the English Church looks at it’s history, it sees a time when it was very much part of the Western Church, and had a relationship to Rome, but was not directly governed by Rome

 

[jmcrae]

Well, I have heard some people claim that they were in many ways closer to Orthodoxy as far as actual belief and practice. (I think there are even several weird little "Celtic Orthodox groups around that operate on that basis). Which is just as anachronistic really as calling them Roman Catholic - there was never any question that they were part of the Church, and those divisions just didn’t exist the way they do now. They were part of the Church, wherever the first missionaries came from.

I agree that whomever the first Christians to come to Britain were, they were not founding a new religion. That is basically my point. I would even say they were “in union” with Peter. But what did that mean to them? It didn’t seem to mean that they were under the direct power of the Bishop of Rome, or that they had a similar organization or the same liturgy. Eventually they did put themselves under Roman governance, and it seems to have been willingly, but it still wasn’t on the same terms as the medieval model.

I would certainly not assume the first Christians in Britain were Westerners. Someone more expert on the early church in Britain might weigh in, but I haven’t seen anything other than the legend about Joseph. Since they were occupied by Rome, it makes sense that the person might have come through Rome but Christian missionaries seem to have been a mobile bunch.

So when the English Church looks at it’s history, it sees a time when it was very much part of the Western Church, and had a relationship to Rome, but was not directly governed by Rome

Even in modern times, no place except Rome is governed “directly” by Rome - that’s what the Bishops are for. The Bishops govern their own Dioceses, while being in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. The Pope doesn’t actually try to micromanage anything.

 

[Ockham]

Well, I have heard some people claim that they were in many ways closer to Orthodoxy as far as actual belief and practice. (I think there are even several weird little "Celtic Orthodox groups around that operate on that basis). Which is just as anachronistic really as calling them Roman Catholic - there was never any question that they were part of the Church, and those divisions just didn’t exist the way they do now. They were part of the Church, wherever the first missionaries came from.

Hang on. One can’t be part of something they know nothing about. The Celtics couldn’t be part of the Church and then the missionaries from the Church showed up to convert them into something they already were.

I realize we are discussing the English, but I wasn’t expecting this chat to devolve into a Monty Python skit. Then again, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[Through_Him]

Why are the protestants coming into the traditional forum?
What is the agenda here?



I’m seeing this more and more, and sick of it.

 

[Ockham]

I’d rather debate mainline Protestants than Progressive Catholics. Maybe the Protestant agenda is reunification, whereas the Progessives might be looking the opposite way. In any event, we should be charitable to our fellow Christians.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

God leads them:thumbsup:

The Body of God is the Catholic Church.

It seems the Body is led by the Head which is Jesus.

These Protestant churches are harlots (using OT terminology). It is only in a mystical way that Protestants are saved and are Catholic without their consent. As a Pope once wrote, you must be Catholic to get to Heaven. True, true, true. And it is not my problem if Protestants cannot grasp or accept or know this theology. God, our Father, calls whom He mays. I can be ecumenical and still be Catholic. I do not need to cater to ignorance and falsehoods.

The bottom line is that there is only one Body which is the Church and this One Holy Apostolic Church is CATHOLIC.

The Protestants and some so called Catholics are LOST SHEEP. Not my fault and not to boast but to state the hard TRUTH.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I’d rather debate mainline Protestants than Progressive Catholics. Maybe the Protestant agenda is reunification, whereas the Progessives might be looking the opposite way. In any event, we should be charitable to our fellow Christians.

Progressive or HETERODOX?

I hate how so called Progressive or Liberal Catholics are actually Heterodox. A spade is a spade and I call them as I see them. Any so called Catholic that says women should be able to be priests, that contraception is good or that homosexuals should be allowed to marry are HETERODOX and teach evils. Period. They are not being Christ like and are friends of Satan because they do Satan’s bidding and not God’s.

I am also being very lenient by saying Heterodox since the teachings in themselves are HERESY. But I am taking the stance that they “Know not what they do” because they are ignorant and guided by the devil without realizing it. If they knew what they did then they have already condemned themselves.

 

[jmcrae]

Hang on. One can’t be part of something they know nothing about. The Celtics couldn’t be part of the Church and then the missionaries from the Church showed up to convert them into something they already were.

You read my mind - this whole thing makes no sense.

I realize we are discussing the English, but I wasn’t expecting this chat to devolve into a Monty Python skit.

I suspect that the thing about the Celts being non-Catholic Christians prior to the arrival of European missionaries is just a myth that was created to make it okay for Anglicans to read the King Arthur stories. They can say, “Oh, he was a Celtic Christian; he wasn’t actually Catholic.”

Then again, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.