Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wimom3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
josie_L said:
Where do you get Augustine and Pope Gregory from what was stated in that quote in the article? And did you even read the article I mentioned?

“Around 450, the Saxons started to invade a weakened Britain, and for the next 150 years (until 597) the pagan Saxons persecuted the Christian Britons. The persecuted Christian minority fled west to Cornwall, Wales, and Ireland, and south to Brittany in France. It was only during this period that the Celtic church existed in isolation from the authority structures of Rome.”

I think this is what you may be refering to.
Click to expand...
There is no proof that christianity in Britain was under papal authority until Augustine. Christianity was brought there by missionaries from the apostolic era. It was governed by bishops in cities such as London and York independently of Rome like many other Christians churches of that era. Its existence is known through the attendence of said bishops to various church councils. It is also mentioned by writers such as Tertullian and Origen. Notable christians from pre-Augustine British christianity include the martyr St Alban, the bishop St Patrick and even the heretic Pelagius. While it is true that christianity was persucuted under the Saxons, it still existed. Pope Gregory commissioned Augustine to evangelize Britain in the sixth century. When he arrived, an established church, albeit persecuted, was already present. Augustine founded the See of Canterbury and began establishing papal jurisdiction on the British Isle.

That is a concise history of early christianity in England. The “church that Jesus founded”
was there for a long time before papal jurisdiction.
 
VARC said:
And your point is? I know that many British Christians were ethnically Roman and the christianity may have reached the island by means of the Empire. But it does not follow that those christians were under the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. Your citation expressly mentions bishops in London, York, and Lincoln but we know that Pope Gregory commisioned Augustine to evangelize a nation that already had christian bishops. **What does that tell you?**That those bishops were not under Roman authority!!!
Click to expand...
Sounds like something I’ve just said, re: Alban and bishops and councils. But the date of Alban’s death is conjectural, see (on this and many points) Thomas’ CHRISTIANITY IN ROMAN BRITAIN TO AD 500, written coincidentally, by the brother of a good friend of mine.

He considers Tertullian’s and Origen’s comments not to be serious proof of much about Britain at all. Point is, the origin and the nature of the earliest British Christians, is simply not clear. Though it is clear, that wherever they originated, and when, by the 4th century they were interacting with the continental Church, attending Councils, and voting anti-Arian.

We simply don’t know a lot about the origin of Christianity in Britain.

GKC
 
Just wanted to pause to point out something. Josie and I have been going back and forth about when papal jurisdiction came to Britain (an argument she could easliy have with a greek about when papal jursidiction came to Constantinople). It is safe to say that she believes that the Anglican Church started when Henry VIII seperated the church from the pope. She(?) probably believes that the Orthodox church began in 1054 after the Great Schism. So it is plain to see that in her eyes that the only thing the determines catholicity is subjugation to the bishop of Rome. And it doesn’t get much more sectarian than that.😉
 
trinitybeliever said:
I apologize, that was sarcasm. It’s past my bedtime. I’ll explain my snarky comment tomorrow.
God Bless
Click to expand...
That’s ok, I recognized the breed. I snark from time to time, myself. Restrained, and understated, but snark, all the same.

And if there is more to be explicated from the comment, than what is on its face, I’ll listen.

Pax.

GKC
 
VARC said:
That’s interesting. The definition of catholic is universal. But you limit catholicity based on whether or not one recognizes the absolute supremacy of a single bishop in a particular city. That is the opposite of catholicity. It is very sectarian.
Click to expand...
That’s because I know for whom and by whom the Apostle’s and Nicene creed was written and intended for. No one could have forseen the schism with the Orthodox and/or the Protestant reformation. At that point in time the Church which was one, holy, catholic, and apostolic was refered to as the Catholic Church.

And it is universal because it was intended by Jesus that all should join her. The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ and the only Bride of Christ, for Christ keeps his vows.
 
VARC said:
Just wanted to pause to point out something. Josie and I have been going back and forth about when papal jurisdiction came to Britain (an argument she could easliy have with a greek about when papal jursidiction came to Constantinople). It is safe to say that she believes that the Anglican Church started when Henry VIII seperated the church from the pope. She(?) probably believes that the Orthodox church began in 1054 after the Great Schism. So it is plain to see that in her eyes that the only thing the determines catholicity is subjugation to the bishop of Rome. And it doesn’t get much more sectarian than that.😉
Click to expand...
I think you are correct. And, yes, AFAIK, the essence of Catholicity for RCs, is communion with Rome. I never try to argue an RC out of anything that the RCC requires them to affirm.T’ain’t fitting. For me, the essence is Apostolicity. Which makes the Orthodox, the Anglicans (carefully selected) the Old Catholics (same) the PNCC, and the odd Swedish Lutheran, Catholic.

Do I expect concurrence from our RC friends? Nope.

GKC
 
VARC said:
She(?) probably believes that the Orthodox church began in 1054 after the Great Schism. So it is plain to see that in her eyes that the only thing the determines catholicity is subjugation to the bishop of Rome. And it doesn’t get much more sectarian than that.😉
Click to expand...
That is incorrect.
 
40.png
josie_L:
That is incorrect.

Expound on that, a little, if you would.

GKC
 
josie_L said:
Sorry, GKC, I did write why I believe this, its in the article I mentioned.
Click to expand...
Is that Longenecker’s article? I might have lost track.

BTW, Hank is another of my hobbies. I do a good Henry and his Hormones treatment.

GKC
 
Personally, I find Anglicanism to be very attractive. I just read the book Evangelical Is Not Enough, by Thomas Howard. He writes about the importance of liturgical worship, liturgical worship which he personally discovered in the Anglican Church. Though he eventually became Catholic himself, he writes very favorably about other liturgical traditions. It’s a poor reason to be Anglican, perhaps, but there is something appealing about being a member of a liturgical, traditional Church, while still being able to affirm both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. It takes away the need to make a choice between two Churches I admire very much, and I wouldn’t be dogmatically bound to accept some of the more troublesome Catholic teachings.

This attraction is not sufficient reason to make the choice, I don’t think, but it is there. Plus, I rather like the English. 🙂

*And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the Holy Lamb of God
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
And did the countenance divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark satanic mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant land.*
 
The_Iambic_Pen said:
Personally, I find Anglicanism to be very attractive. I just read the book Evangelical Is Not Enough, by Thomas Howard. He writes about the importance of liturgical worship, liturgical worship which he personally discovered in the Anglican Church. Though he eventually became Catholic himself, he writes very favorably about other liturgical traditions. It’s a poor reason to be Anglican, perhaps, but there is something appealing about being a member of a liturgical, traditional Church, while still being able to affirm both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. It takes away the need to make a choice between two Churches I admire very much, and I wouldn’t be dogmatically bound to accept some of the more troublesome Catholic teachings.

This attraction is not sufficient reason to make the choice, I don’t think, but it is there. Plus, I rather like the English. 🙂

*And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the Holy Lamb of God
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
And did the countenance divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark satanic mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant land.*
Click to expand...
William Blake.

Who sounds like he had just visited Glastonbury.

GKC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top