Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wimom3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
VARC said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you look at the liturgies that developed among Celtic Christians, I think you see that papal jurisdiction, even when it was established, sometimes had a hard time “getting up there.” Culturally, geographically (and meteorologically!), there was a lot of separation in just a few miles.
 
40.png
josie_L:
That is incorrect.

Why do you accept the catholicity of Constantinople but reject the catholicity of anglicans? How about the copts? PNCC? the Armeninians? the Assyriran church of the East? How do you qualify catholicity?
 
**“the Papal Church”? Not very ecumenical of you. We prefer to be called “the Catholic Church”, “the Roman Catholic Church”, or “the Roman Catholic Communion”.
**
**Consider: we Catholics call the Church of England “the Church of England”
**
Not the Papal Church?

The Roman Catholic Church ,I was taught, was created at the Council of Trent! It is in fact a sect, probably the biggest Christian Sect.
 
luckyfredsdad said:
**“the Papal Church”? Not very ecumenical of you. We prefer to be called “the Catholic Church”, “the Roman Catholic Church”, or “the Roman Catholic Communion”.
**
**Consider: we Catholics call the Church of England “the Church of England”
**
Not the Papal Church?

The Roman Catholic Church ,I was taught, was created at the Council of Trent! It is in fact a sect, probably the biggest Christian Sect.
Click to expand...
If so, you were abysmally taught.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
luckyfredsdad said:
**“the Papal Church”? Not very ecumenical of you. We prefer to be called “the Catholic Church”, “the Roman Catholic Church”, or “the Roman Catholic Communion”.
**
**Consider: we Catholics call the Church of England “the Church of England”
**
Not the Papal Church?

The Roman Catholic Church ,I was taught, was created at the Council of Trent! It is in fact a sect, probably the biggest Christian Sect.
Click to expand...
wow please give reference to your last statement i really need to know where you got that info from!!wow!!
 
VARC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your statement that Christian missionaries came to the British isles, without defining who these Christian missionaries were is dishonest. The evidence which was found in the British Isles, suggests that the missionaries were Roman, and ECF such as Origen and Tertullian knew of these people and considered them Catholic. It was established that these Christians also had a hierarchy wherein their Bishops participated in Catholic councils (the Council of Arle and Rimini) which I have already mentioned. What YOU refer to as history is in actuality a MYTH. Read the Article by Dwight Longenecker, who used to be an Anglican priest.

Oh and Hi, Jim. How are you?
 
josie_L said:
Your statement that Christian missionaries came to the British isles, without defining who these Christian missionaries were is dishonest. The evidence which was found in the British Isles, suggests that the missionaries were Roman, and people such as Origen and Tertullian knew of these people and considered them Catholic. It was established that these Christians also had a hierarchy wherein their Bishops participated in Catholic councils (the Council of Arle and Rimini) which I have already mentioned. What YOU refer to as history is in actuality a MYTH. Read the Article by Dwight Longenecker, who used to be an Anglican priest.
Click to expand...
You read your bias into everything. The missionaries that evangelized the Britsh Isle were possibly ethnically Roman from the Empire but were not subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman See. Roman jurisdiction came to the Isle under Augustine in the sixth century.

Why do you accept the catholicity of Constantinople but reject the catholicity of anglicans? How about the copts? PNCC? the Armeninians? the Assyriran church of the East? How do you qualify catholicity? I doubt there is much consistency in your reasoning. You just regurgitate what you are told.
 
VARC said:
You read your bias into everything. The missionaries that evangelized the Britsh Isle were possibly ethnically Roman from the Empire** but were not subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman See**. Roman jurisdiction came to the Isle under Augustine in the sixth century.

Why do you accept the catholicity of Constantinople but reject the catholicity of anglicans? How about the copts? PNCC? the Armeninians? the Assyriran church of the East? How do you qualify catholicity? I doubt there is much consistency in your reasoning. You just regurgitate what you are told.
Click to expand...
This statement is unfounded, considering what History reveals. Did you read the article, I mentioned?
 
josie_L said:
Your statement that Christian missionaries came to the British isles, without defining who these Christian missionaries were is dishonest. The evidence which was found in the British Isles, suggests that the missionaries were Roman, and ECF such as Origen and Tertullian knew of these people and considered them Catholic. It was established that these Christians also had a hierarchy wherein their Bishops participated in Catholic councils (the Council of Arle and Rimini) which I have already mentioned. What YOU refer to as history is in actuality a MYTH. Read the Article by Dwight Longenecker, who used to be an Anglican priest.

Oh and Hi, Jim. How are you?
Click to expand...
Hi. I’m pretty good, if you don’t count the tax season and a couple of other issues driving me nuts.

But remember, as in Thomas’ book I cited, about early Christianity in Britain, which is not pro or con anything, some think that the mentions by Tertullian and Origen are sort of pro forma, kind of an “even to the uttermost ends of the earth (or Empire)” which Britian pretty much was. That is, it doesn’t prove a detailed knowledge of just what was going on with Christians in that area. OTOH, some Anglican scholars (Moorman, A HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND) assume that those mentions do prove some form of active Christianity, around 200AD, at least.

Scholarship is just not clear on it.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Hi. I’m pretty good, if you don’t count the tax season and a couple of other issues driving me nuts.

But remember, as in Thomas’ book I cited, about early Christianity in Britain, which is not pro or con anything, some think that the mentions by Tertullian and Origen are sort of pro forma, kind of an “even to the uttermost ends of the earth (or Empire)” which Britian pretty much was. That is, it doesn’t prove a detailed knowledge of just what was going on with Christians in that area. OTOH, some Anglican scholars (Moorman, A HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND) assume that those mentions do prove some form of active Christianity, around 200AD, at least.

Scholarship is just not clear on it.

GKC
Click to expand...
Jim, is what I said pertaining to the councils false, please read the article, just to see what it has to say. There is much that would corroborate the fact that these Christians were influenced by Rome (the CC).

P.S. I don’t know what passes for scholarship these days, but what I hear makes me think some people are living in an alternate Universe.
 
VARC said:
You just regurgitate what you are told.
Click to expand...
Don’t we all… 😉

Seriously, though. All we do is quote ECFs, Scripture, Councils, Bulls, Scholars, and Encyclicals.

We’re all arguing the same way. Just with different sources and biases.
 
josie_L said:
Jim, is what I said pertaining to the councils false, please read the article, just to see what it has to say. There is much that would corroborate the fact that these Christians were influenced by Rome (the CC).

P.S. I don’t know what passes for scholarship these days, but what I hear makes me think some people are living in an alternate Universe.
Click to expand...
I read Longenecker, long ago, and will do so again.

Added: Oh, drat. How do I find it?

No, what you said about Rimini and Arles is accepted. And, if you read my posts again, from last night, 11:28 and 11:57, and this morning at 1:28. you’ll see that, in general, I’m agreeing with you. Again,the point is, little is known about the origin of Christianity in Britian, though it seems to date to around 200AD. But just who brought it and how, is not clearly known. What is known is that, within roughly 150 years, the Church in England was organised, including into dioceses, and interacting with the continental Church, at those councils. Which suggests that, by that time, they were functioning as were all such dioceses. But doesn’t tell us everything we might want to know, particualrly about the Celtic Church in the West and in Ireland…

Scholarship is spotty, sure, and always has been. You have to read widely, compare stuff, and be discriminating. Thomas, the gentleman who wrote the book I mentioned, is a scholar. Never got a chance to meet him, before my friend died, but always wanted to.

GKC
 
GKC said:
I read Longenecker, long ago, and will do so again.

Added: Oh, drat. How do I find it?

No, what you said about Rimini and Arles is accepted. And, if you read my posts again, from last night, 11:28 and 11:57, and this morning at 1:28. you’ll see that, in general, I’m agreeing with you. Again,the point is, little is known about the origin of Christianity in Britian, though it seems to date to around 200AD. But just who brought it and how, is not clearly known. What is known is that, within roughly 150 years, the Church in England was organised, including into dioceses, and interacting with the continental Church, at those councils. Which suggests that, by that time, they were functioning as were all such dioceses. But doesn’t tell us everything we might want to know, particualrly about the Celtic Church in the West and in Ireland…

Scholarship is spotty, sure, and always has been. You have to read widely, compare stuff, and be discriminating. Thomas, the gentleman who wrote the book I mentioned, is a scholar. Never got a chance to meet him, before my friend died, but always wanted to.

GKC
Click to expand...
Do you believe what VARC believes, I think that is what I’m driving at? And, do you think she has a concrete reason to believe it?

P.S. The 150 years that you refer to is explained in the article, by Longenecker.
 
VARC said:
You read your bias into everything. The missionaries that evangelized the Britsh Isle were possibly ethnically Roman from the Empire but were not subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman See. Roman jurisdiction came to the Isle under Augustine in the sixth century.

Why do you accept the catholicity of Constantinople but reject the catholicity of anglicans? How about the copts? PNCC? the Armeninians? the Assyriran church of the East? How do you qualify catholicity? I doubt there is much consistency in your reasoning. You just regurgitate what you are told.
Click to expand...
Christianity had arives in The British Isles long before Constantines conversion and has remained here ever since.

We have archealogical evidence of this.

Even Bede admited there were Christians here before Augustine arrived.

As for Henry VIII and all that, I’m not going into it because it’s tedious and boring.

We Anglicans believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top