Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic?

[Contarini]

Contarini!
Regarding your comments about Trent and Nice please see message 445.
Personally, I think you are clutching at straws!

Well, I think you are using language in an unconscionably misleading way. How can you say that the Tridentine “Profession of Faith” is an “addition” to the Nicene Creed without condemning the 39 Articles on the same terms?

The Quartodeciman controversy is a nice example of how the early Church worked, because it refutes both those like you who claim that the Pope was just another bishop, and the claim by some RCs that the Pope is above all accountability and cannot be resisted. I don’t disagree with your summary of what happened or the significance of the fact that Victor had to back down. However, the fact that his action was taken seriously at all is also significant. Clearly he was not just another bishop–he had some kind of authority to speak for the universal Church, which is why so many bishops jumped on him when he misused that authority.

I am refering to the fact that the Pope played the role of a Government officer in enforcing the Emperors authority , even to the extent of using the police.

I refer to the papacy in the reign of the Valentinians and Gratian.( Primitive saints and the See of Rome.) also to Leo the Great’s plea to Val.111rd, for police help in enforcing Leo’s will on S.Hilary and having him arrested and taken prisoner,(to Rome?)

So you think that these incidents prove that the fourth-century bishops of Rome were nothing but civil servants?

I wonder what you would say of Archbishops of Canterbury in that case!

Anyway, you are basing a huge claim on extremely limited and anecdotal evidence.

**

Roman Claims having no scriptural base! "To Strong " your reply?

**

It is not enough to pull quotes out of the Bible as Rome does and use them to prove false Roman claims.

Agreed. And in fact I never said that there was proof for these claims. I said that there was support. Peter does seem to be given some sort of role as leader within the company of apostles. That doesn’t mean that everything Rome claims for the Papacy is correct. It doesn’t even necessarily mean that the Papacy is the inheritor of that role. But it means that there is some basis for the later development, and we need to discuss how strong that basis is and what our alternative is if we reject the development of the papacy within the Roman Communion.

Trent, or if you demand, the Tridentine Creed, in one of its saner moments emphasised the need to consult tradition and the ancient fathers It is professed, concerning Holy Scripture, “NOR WILL I EVER UNDERSTAND IT OR INTERPRET IT, EXCEPT ACCORDING TO THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE HOLY FATHERS.” ( Emphasis mine.)

I have actually always thought that was one of Trent’s sillier moments, since it’s pretty hard to find anything on which the Fathers were unanimous.

Now various Roman Scholars Maldonatus, Mansi and Launoy all come down on the side of the Rock, being Peter’s faith.as does,SS.Hilary, Gregory Nyssen and S.John Chrysostom along with S.Cyril of Alexandria. Whilst S. Augustine thinks that the Rock is Christ,Himself! Origen, claims that the Rock was ,"all men who have the same faith.

If we go on this tack, Launoy a better class Roman Scholar,

I’m not sure what that means or what criteria you have for judging this. The “better class Roman Scholars” today (at least if judged by normal academic standards) are more likely to say that the whole passage is irrelevant because Jesus probably didn’t say it and didn’t intend to found a Church at all!

found that,
" there are 17 Fathers in favour of the Rock being Peter.
44 in favour of the Faith Peter confessed ,
16 for it being Christ Himself and eight for it being all the apostles.

I think it’s funny that you inveigh against prooftexting and then cite a quantitative analysis of patristic texts as relevant. This is worse than prooftexting. It’s a thoroughly mechanical and frivolous way of approaching the issue. It doesn’t address the nuances of each text or how they are related to each other or the relative importance of the various Fathers. And it assumes that these are mutually exclusive options, when it seems to me that the correct answer is “all the above.”

I was very precise, the pope/papacy is a great cause of Schism and heresy in the Church.
To be honest I would say the greatest!

If that’s your idea of precision, I’m not sure that further conversation with you has any purpose.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

[Yep Highchurchman!

You caught me dead to right Gov!

I did post under that name and was about to this time when someone suggested I got away from the old image! The reason I stopped is that my MAC hard drive was faulty and I always had trouble with the word Highchurchman, though I didn’t know why. When I had everything repaired I did mean to carry on,as I have just said. Anyhow ,Fred is my dog. I feel he’s always with me. Where did we meet earlier? I remembered your name ,but couldn’t remember the details.

AFAIK, we have never met. But your phraseology is idiosyncratic enough to allow your tracks to be found, easily.

My board name is the only one I have ever used, and we might, I suppose, have passed before, but not to my knowledge.

I defer any comment on the latest post above, in deference to Contarini. Who is, sometimes, something like the elusive Pimpernel.

But you are not making your case, as he and I are commenting on it.

Greetings to Fred.

GKC

Added: Or, sometimes Contarini is front and center.
[/quote]

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

"My point, however, was not that Brigid exercised the office of a bishop, but that Mel’s reading of the consecration of a bishop over Brigid signified that women’s ordination was not entirely foreign to the traditional mind of the church
.
Or that it is a legend, and not history. Could be.

Hi GKC!

I don’t know that, when looking at the legends of the saints, a distinction between legend and history is necessary or useful. I think what you’re getting at is the value of the factual basis of the story, but I don’t see this episode in Brigid’s life as any more or less factual than the story of Francis and the wolf, Benedict seeing Scholastica’s soul ascend into heaven, Martin rending his cloak, Lucy gouging out her eyes, Anthony preaching to the fish, etc. The point is not so much that any of these things can be proved to have happened, but what they reveal about the people in the story, the faith they held and the Lord they loved. I believe these events are true. The question of whether or not they are factual is immaterial to me.

But I understand that some may feel differently!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

 

[GKC]

Further to my last: Or, sometimes Contarini is front and center.

So I will further, but briefly, say, that in discussing the RCC, on an RC board, with two slightly non-symmetrical Anglicans, you aren’t going to forward your case much dwelling on infallibility (I expect Honorius to show up any moment). The thesis we engaged was that Trent made the Church into another Church, and VatI has no bearing on that. Further, the idea that Trent itself changed the Nicene Creed, even to the extent it differed in previously cited incarnations, is not supportable. And my particular point, that the words attributed to MacCulloch are not only not his (absent a page citation), they are nonsense, makes your use of references suspect.

Otherwise, Contarini dixit..

GKC

 

[GKC]

Grace & Peace!

Hi GKC!

I don’t know that, when looking at the legends of the saints, a distinction between legend and history is necessary or useful. I think what you’re getting at is the value of the factual basis of the story, but I don’t see this episode in Brigid’s life as any more or less factual than the story of Francis and the wolf, Benedict seeing Scholastica’s soul ascend into heaven, Martin rending his cloak, Lucy gouging out her eyes, Anthony preaching to the fish, etc. The point is not so much that any of these things can be proved to have happened, but what they reveal about the people in the story, the faith they held and the Lord they loved. I believe these events are true. The question of whether or not they are factual is immaterial to me.

But I understand that some may feel differently!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

No, I am questioning whether there was a factual basis to the story at all. I certainly agree with you as to the historicity of many pious legends about Saints.It’s why the idea of trying to establish doctrine on them is not a wise idea. Any attempt to do so shows far more of what the people reading the legend believe than it does of the historical personages.

Facts are never immaterial to truth.

And yes, I read Tolkien and Lewis.

GKC

 

[ICA04]

Wow, that’s very deep.

It’s very true too.

 

[ICA04]

So are you one of those folks that hold to the theory that the RCC was behind all the inquisitions and that they condoned it all? You do know that these deplorable acts were done at the behest of the government of Spain right? The monarchy? Just as you can’t hold all Americans responsible for Abu Graib I would hope you’d have the common sense not to try and drag a 2,000 year old proud institution through the mud due to some sickening torture by Ferdinand, Isabella, and company? Torture in the name of religion, yes. Sanctioned,condoned, and overseen by Rome, no.

Nobody was talking beatings either. It appeared to me to just be a plea for Anglicans to recognize the Pope for what he is and hope they’ll abandon Anglicanism for Rome. I would hope the same thing, no beatings included…

I personally would hope not and from what I’ve seen, Anglicans are hardly beating a path to Rome. This whole Anglicans coming home to Rome thing is way overrated.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

No, I am questioning whether there was a factual basis to the story at all. I certainly agree with you as to the historicity of many pious legends about Saints.It’s why the idea of trying to establish doctrine on them is not a wise idea. Any attempt to do so shows far more of what the people reading the legend believe than it does of the historical personages.

Let me state again that I don’t believe that the issue of women’s ordination has anything to do with doctrine or theology and my use of the legend of Brigid was not to show that Church has always doctrinally believed in women’s ordination but that the idea of a woman being ordained was not foreign to the mind of the church. I’m not trying to establish doctrine from the story, nor am I trying to prove that Brigid existed, that Bishop Mel existed, that the act actually occurred or anything along those lines. The story exists in the legendarium of the church. This must mean something having to do with the type of person / persons represented in the story and their relationship (or the relationship of their virtues) to the church. This particular episode says to me that this sort of person was worthy of being ordained a bishop–granted this speaks to a perception of her character and authority and not to any doctrinal issue. Nonetheless, the story depicts her as being worthy. One can deny its factual basis entirely, but the logic of the legend and the point it’s making does not depend on anyone’s affirmation or denial.

Facts are never immaterial to truth.

I hesitate to affirm this if it simply means that truth is a higher order of fact. It seems to me that fact is related to quantity or the quantifiable, and truth related to quality or the valuable. A fact without truth is valueless, in other words.

But the truth does not need historical fact in order to be represented. Art, for instance, conveys an experience of truth without the necessity of making any reference to historical facts. One could say that the individual mise en scene of a poem, a work of fiction, a painting or a play supplies the necessary facts which are pertinent to it. Divorced from that mise en scene, however, those “facts” (which may be that the King of Denmark has been killed by his brother; that Lear has divided his estate; that Rothko has placed a black bar just so on a red canvas) may be quite meaningless divorced from the artwork’s mise en scene.

I would argue that viewing the Legends of the Saints with reference to historical fact is not as meaningful as viewing them in relationship to the truth they are attempting to convey–in other words, they are more akin to art than journalism. As such, their relationship to truth doesn’t depend on historical analysis, but on their own internal logic and how this accords with the greater context in which these stories are placed–that is, the life of the Church.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

 

[GKC]

Grace & Peace!

Let me state again that I don’t believe that the issue of women’s ordination has anything to do with doctrine or theology and my use of the legend of Brigid was not to show that Church has always doctrinally believed in women’s ordination but that the idea of a woman being ordained was not foreign to the mind of the church. I’m not trying to establish doctrine from the story, nor am I trying to prove that Brigid existed, that Bishop Mel existed, that the act actually occurred or anything along those lines. The story exists in the legendarium of the church. This must mean something having to do with the type of person / persons represented in the story and their relationship (or the relationship of their virtues) to the church. This particular episode says to me that this sort of person was worthy of being ordained a bishop–granted this speaks to a perception of her character and authority and not to any doctrinal issue. Nonetheless, the story depicts her as being worthy. One can deny its factual basis entirely, but the logic of the legend and the point it’s making does not depend on anyone’s affirmation or denial.

I hesitate to affirm this if it simply means that truth is a higher order of fact. It seems to me that fact is related to quantity or the quantifiable, and truth related to quality or the valuable. A fact without truth is valueless, in other words.

But the truth does not need historical fact in order to be represented. Art, for instance, conveys an experience of truth without the necessity of making any reference to historical facts. One could say that the individual mise en scene of a poem, a work of fiction, a painting or a play supplies the necessary facts which are pertinent to it. Divorced from that mise en scene, however, those “facts” (which may be that the King of Denmark has been killed by his brother; that Lear has divided his estate; that Rothko has placed a black bar just so on a red canvas) may be quite meaningless divorced from the artwork’s mise en scene.

I would argue that viewing the Legends of the Saints with reference to historical fact is not as meaningful as viewing them in relationship to the truth they are attempting to convey–in other words, they are more akin to art than journalism. As such, their relationship to truth doesn’t depend on historical analysis, but on their own internal logic and how this accords with the greater context in which these stories are placed–that is, the life of the Church.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

The legend of Mel says nothing as to the mind of the Church, since the usual form of the story has Mel speaking absent-mindedly (which speaks not only to matter, but intent). One might as well look to Bishop Miligro for the mind of the Church. But as to your other points, that is precisely why I mentioned Tolkien/ Lewis, meaning the concepts of mythology and truth/fact. It requires that at least once, Fraser’s Dying God actually have happened, which we know it did. Which requires the Mel legend to be factual.

The truth in view here is what was the *praxis *of the Church. And the Mel legend says nothing to that.

GKC

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The legend of Mel says nothing as to the mind of the Church, since the usual form of the story has Mel speaking absent-mindedly (which speaks not only to matter, but intent).

Not to labor the issue (since we obviously disagree on the potential value of the story!) but when it’s pointed out to Bishop Mel what he just did, he lays the credit not on his absent-mindedness, but on God’s will.

The truth in view here is what was the *praxis *of the Church. And the Mel legend says nothing to that.

I won’t argue with you that the legend says nothing about praxis. But that hasn’t been my point…the rhetoric surrounding the issue seems to suggest that the thought of women’s ordination is entirely foreign to the mind of the church. I just don’t buy it! Do I think it was practiced at any time in antiquity? Not at all. But I don’t think the idea was viewed at all times and in all places within the catholic church with the same disdain with which it is viewed by some today. That’s all!

But anyway…this has been a tangent!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

 

[GKC]

Grace & Peace!

Not to labor the issue (since we obviously disagree on the potential value of the story!) but when it’s pointed out to Bishop Mel what he just did, he lays the credit not on his absent-mindedness, but on God’s will.

I won’t argue with you that the legend says nothing about praxis. But that hasn’t been my point…the rhetoric surrounding the issue seems to suggest that the thought of women’s ordination is entirely foreign to the mind of the church. I just don’t buy it! Do I think it was practiced at any time in antiquity? Not at all. But I don’t think the idea was viewed at all times and in all places within the catholic church with the same disdain with which it is viewed by some today. That’s all!

But anyway…this has been a tangent!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

Tangent no doubt, and with a typo from me, I see.

But divorce the legend from fact, and it drops into the category of parable (if not fairy tale). And then one must decide if that parable in fact speaks to the mind of the Church. And without the historical basis, there is no reason to do so. It is no evidence as to the mind of the Church, and no evidence, a fortiori, as to her practice.

Might there have been those of heterodox views? Always have been. Which is why things get defined.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I personally would hope not and from what I’ve seen, Anglicans are hardly beating a path to Rome. This whole Anglicans coming home to Rome thing is way overrated.

I wouldn’t go as far as to say it is overrated really. There have been many people I know who have abandoned the Episcopal church for Catholicism. And there have been many parishes in several countries that converted to Catholicism. I’ve also read of Episcopal or Anglican bishops who have converted. I wouldn’t say there’s a mass exodus but there are many conversions. One thing is for sure, Anglicanism in England is dying on the vine as attendance numbers and practicing Anglicans are being far outnumbered by Roman Catholics. One reason for this is the influx of Polish to England in recent years and other Europeans of Catholic dissent, but also Anglicanism has become so ambiguous and there is such a leadership vacuum as well as a following of social/wordly trends that Catholicism is a wonderful alternative.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Dear Friend,

If I were to be offended by such a life style as you mention, I would be a poor Christian or Catholic indeed!
I have problems withit,in that I do not altogether understand it. I have gay friends and relatives and have no problems with them, nor they with me! I do not judge people, if I can help it and trust they do not judge me. If an actively gay Clergyman sought my vote for Bishop, I would refuse him. If he put up for election to Parliament and his politics were mine,his sexual orientation would be no bar!

Trusting this is acceptable to your good self?

God Bless,

Jim.

Hey Jim,

I really disagree wholeheartedly and I think you’re not understanding my position. When you say, “If I were to be offended by such a life style as you mention, I would be a poor Christian or Catholic indeed!” I have to say that you actually are being a poor Catholic by believing that. A good Catholic would follow the teaching of the Church and condemn homosexual behavior BUT love the person who is committing the sinful act. I never said I hate homosexuals. I do not trust someone who is of the left-wing persuasion theologically when it comes to history because they will paint their views from that vantage point. I never said gay folks are idiots or incompetent but I, as a Catholic opposed to the gay lifestyle, am not going to trust a writer who has a history of leading a gay movement in the Anglican Church.

When you said “I have gay friends and relatives and have no problems with them, nor they with me! I do not judge people,” that’s just wonderful. I never said you should have a problem with THEM. But you should have a problem with their lifestyle.

I have a problem with divorce, infidelity in a heterosexual marriage, drug use, pornography, and many other sins that heterosexuals have. Sin is sin. And homosexuality according to Scripture and the Catholic Church, is a major sin.

I was perplexed as to why you’d deny a homosexual a bishopric but you’re ok with them as legislators? I wouldn’t approve of either. I don’t want that lifestyle advanced, period. Why would you feel a gay man would advance his lifestyle as a bishop but not as a legislator?

And finally, trusting WHAT is acceptable to my “good self?” Ya lost me…

Scott

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I have read over the responses to this topic a couple times since it was first posted. We have had discussions on the proper title of an Anglican female priest, the Catholic Church and now this choice of words. Most of us probably went to church today or last night and we were reminded of the Season of Lent. I am sure that we were all reminded that Lent is a time to grow in God’s love and become more faithful disciples of Jesus Christ our Lord. Needless to say, we are tested. “Episcopagan” tested me, big time!

I was reminded of my pastor’s words…

“God stands ready to forgive, heal and save us out of pure love. We have to get honest about the harsh reality of the human condition (yours and mine included). God has the solution, but we need to see the role we play as part of the problem. From here we need to realize that we will not be able to help ourselves, others or the world on our own. We need to surrender ourselves to God’s love. If we can lay our sins, brokenness and burdens down at the foot of the cross and commit to trusting God as much as we can at that time, you and I can find a new light and a new life.
If we can die to an old way of life, you and I can be reborn to a new resurrected life in, through and with Christ. May God grant us a holy and fruitful Lent.”

Peace!
Your sister in Christ!

I agree with the part about respect, surrendering ourselves to Christ’s will and the understanding that we are all broken, myself especially included. Sorry my episcopagan joke was not well-received. Seeing as how in the Midwest recently a BUDDHIST was ‘consecrated’ as a Bishop in the Episcopal Church and the fact that many parishes in the liberal Episcopal denomination call upon mother goddesses and synchretism with other pagan religions, all of those pagan references and fascinations have led to orthodox Anglicans using the “episcopagan” term. I heard it on orthodox Anglican websites and it gave me a chuckle because it seemed appropriate to that context.

With all due respect, I refuse to call a female priestess anything as I don’t recognize them as priests, never have, never will. Hell will freeze over when I call anyone “mother” except the most Blessed Virgin Mary or my mom, Sally. There are no such things as women priests so from an orthodox Catholic angle, sorry, it ain’t happenin’ for me. They are just parishoners to me, not priests. Cranmer, Ridley, Cromwell, Hooker, and Andrewes would be rolling in their graves to think of the notion.

Sorry I tested your Lenten resolve but I get just as hot and angry at the notion of women priests as you do Catholics calling Episcopalians “episcopagans.” I will apologize for that part.

 

[GKC]

I agree with the part about respect, surrendering ourselves to Christ’s will and the understanding that we are all broken, myself especially included. Sorry my episcopagan joke was not well-received. Seeing as how in the Midwest recently a BUDDHIST was ‘consecrated’ as a Bishop in the Episcopal Church and the fact that many parishes in the liberal Episcopal denomination call upon mother goddesses and synchretism with other pagan religions, all of those pagan references and fascinations have led to orthodox Anglicans using the “episcopagan” term. I heard it on orthodox Anglican websites and it gave me a chuckle because it seemed appropriate to that context.

With all due respect, I refuse to call a female priestess anything as I don’t recognize them as priests, never have, never will. Hell will freeze over when I call anyone “mother” except the most Blessed Virgin Mary or my mom, Sally. There are no such things as women priests so from an orthodox Catholic angle, sorry, it ain’t happenin’ for me. They are just parishoners to me, not priests. Cranmer, Ridley, Cromwell, Hooker, and Andrewes would be rolling in their graves to think of the notion.

Sorry I tested your Lenten resolve but I get just as hot and angry at the notion of women priests as you do Catholics calling Episcopalians “episcopagans.” I will apologize for that part.

AFAIK, the Buddhist isn’t wearing a miter, yet. Or have you a later word from Minnesota?

GKC

 

[grampben]

With all due respect, I refuse to call a female priestess anything as I don’t recognize them as priests, never have, never will. Hell will freeze over when I call anyone “mother” except the most Blessed Virgin Mary or my mom, Sally.

What about a mother superior from an order?

 

[GKC]

What about a mother superior from an order?

A hit. A palpable hit.

GKC

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Further to my last: Or, sometimes Contarini is front and center.

So I will further, but briefly, say, that in discussing the RCC, on an RC board, with two slightly non-symmetrical Anglicans, you aren’t going to forward your case much dwelling on infallibility (I expect Honorius to show up any moment). The thesis we engaged was that Trent made the Church into another Church, and VatI has no bearing on that. Further, the idea that Trent itself changed the Nicene Creed, even to the extent it differed in previously cited incarnations, is not supportable. And my particular point, that the words attributed to MacCulloch are not only not his (absent a page citation), they are nonsense, makes your use of references suspect.

Otherwise, Contarini dixit..

GKC

You are not going to forward your case dwelling on infallibilty !

I’m sorry about that GKC, I’ll try harder next time, I didn’t realise the strengths of the opposition. But I have to say that in my opinion Infallibility and Jurisdiction are the weaknesses of the Roman case for their ridiculous claims. Further to this it is the basis of my opposition to their grandiose position. All other things fall away at the when compared with these. Who in their right mind is going to fall out in these days on the strength of Transubstantiation compared with the Real Presence. I believe in the latter , so do a lot of the Roman Laity, but cannot see it differs much from Rome’s point of view.
I believe in May’s Assumption, or falling asleep. I believe it , not because it is a matter of salvation, or Rome’ claim’s but because it is in the memory of the Church,(like S.Peter in Rome!)

So too, I believe that Trent was a Robber Council and that what we now call and indeed Rome herself calls ,The Roman Catholic Church, was the offspring of Trent! Neither, do
I hold those beliefs on the strength of McCulloch’s Book, or his quote. They are held because i have studied Anglican history and Tradition as taught be the Anglican Fathers of the Reformation. After taking opinions from fellow students we believe that you have misunderstood things. Well, we all do that. I believe it on the weight of history and tradition. Maybe, I have not persuaded you and your friend, it was not my intention to try, simply to put a point of view. By the way, I intervened to put a case why "Anglicans think that they are Catholic.

**You mention Honorius next? **
I was not going to mention Honorius as it happens, but it is a clear refutation of Roman Claims for an infallible pope as I have come across and the modern Roman response shows as much as anything the weakness of the Romanist position.

 

[GKC]

You are not going to forward your case dwelling on infallibilty !

I’m sorry about that GKC, I’ll try harder next time, I didn’t realise the strengths of the opposition. But I have to say that in my opinion Infallibility and Jurisdiction are the weaknesses of the Roman case for their ridiculous claims. Further to this it is the basis of my opposition to their grandiose position. All other things fall away at the when compared with these. Who in their right mind is going to fall out in these days on the strength of Transubstantiation compared with the Real Presence. I believe in the latter , so do a lot of the Roman Laity, but cannot see it differs much from Rome’s point of view.
I believe in May’s Assumption, or falling asleep. I believe it , not because it is a matter of salvation, or Rome’ claim’s but because it is in the memory of the Church,(like S.Peter in Rome!)

So too, I believe that Trent was a Robber Council and that what we now call and indeed Rome herself calls ,The Roman Catholic Church, was the offspring of Trent! Neither, do
I hold those beliefs on the strength of McCulloch’s Book, or his quote. They are held because i have studied Anglican history and Tradition as taught be the Anglican Fathers of the Reformation. After taking opinions from fellow students we believe that you have misunderstood things. Well, we all do that. I believe it on the weight of history and tradition. Maybe, I have not persuaded you and your friend, it was not my intention to try, simply to put a point of view. By the way, I intervened to put a case why "Anglicans think that they are Catholic.

**You mention Honorius next? **
I was not going to mention Honorius as it happens, but it is a clear refutation of Roman Claims for an infallible pope as I have come across and the modern Roman response shows as much as anything the weakness of the Romanist position.

I often put an Anglican case for the matter, since the first time I posted on line around 8-9 years ago. And my first correspondent was a learned man named Contarini. But from the first, my aim was not to make RCs think like Anglicans, but to show what some Anglicans might think, Anglicanism being a loose term these days. And when I speak of differences, I say that I cannot affirm that the Pope possesses universal ordinary authority, or a personal charism of infallibility, as properly defined. On that we are in accord, but I don’t hyper-ventilate over it.

As to the RP or to Transubstantiation, there is no necessary conflict, the PR being the what, Transubstantiation being the how. I can affirm canon 1, Session XIII, of Trent with no problem. But as with the Orthodox, I don’t think we can get the nuances down right, and, thankfully, we don’t have to. As Lewis puts it, in the first person voice in LETTERS TO MALCOLM, the command was “Take, eat”. not “Take, understand”.

The Dormition of the BVM, or the Assumption, for Anglicans, pious opinion, for RCs,
de fide. No problem for me.

I base my conclusions on the weight of my readings, myself. No, I am not convinced, at all. But I do know the ground.

Greetings to Fred. I note your compliment. It is particularly true of Contarini.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

Seeing as how in the Midwest recently a BUDDHIST was ‘consecrated’ as a Bishop in the Episcopal Church

I was not aware of this, but as I expected when I saw your post, it turns out that he practices Zen. Can you list the things that he believes as a Zen practitioner that are incompatible with Christianity?

Are you aware that a number of Catholic priests also practice Zen? The argument is that Zen involves no metaphysical commitments incompatible with Christianity (as Theravada Buddhism does) and no devotion to other deities (as many forms of Mahayana do). If you have a solid refutation of this argument, I’m interested to hear it. I do not accept this kind of thing uncritically, but neither to I condemn it without examination.

and the fact that many parishes in the liberal Episcopal denomination call upon mother goddesses and synchretism with other pagan religions,

“Many” parishes is an exaggeration, I think. Abuses do sometimes happen.

all of those pagan references and fascinations have led to orthodox Anglicans using the “episcopagan” term. I heard it on orthodox Anglican websites and it gave me a chuckle because it seemed appropriate to that context.

Chuckling at the sorrows of your fellow Christians does not seem like a very healthy practice. And “orthodox” Anglicans can be quite nasty–I wouldn’t advise you to imitate them, or indeed any partisans of either side in our present troubles.

I am happy to see that you are more comfortable in the embrace of the Roman Communion than you once were, but I could wish that this did not lead to your taking such an abrasive tone with other Christians.

Sorry I tested your Lenten resolve but I get just as hot and angry at the notion of women priests as you do Catholics calling Episcopalians “episcopagans.”

So an internal action on our part, conferring Holy Orders on human beings created in God’s image and for whom Christ died, is seen by you as equivalent to a crude insult?

This is the kind of thinking that leads to religious persecution. Apparently we offend you simply by daring to be different from you, and you see nasty insults as a legitimate response to such an outrageous provocation.

Edwin