Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic?

[luckyfredsdad]

If so, you were abysmally taught.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

Is that so? Well you are probably right! Perhaps I should have run it by you previously! I shall know better next time.

But till then, maybe you could explain what Diarmid McCulloch the Historian meant in his book on the European Reformation when he said tha, ,“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 traces its origins to the Hussite Movement. The Roman Church recast itself at the long running Council of Trent.”

Article from the Faith & Worship, No 58 ed, of the Prayer Book Society.Written by Bishop Chartres of London.
Also you could elucidate on TP Baultrees ideas when he said, “Such writers as Field and others in our Church have always written of the Council of Trent as the great agent in severing the papal communion formerly and specifically from that which was Catholic and stamping it Papal and Roman.” In the notes to my edition it tells me that,"The term Roman in the Articles refers specific teachings of the Council of Trent.

Now there are many more Anglican Catholic and Protestant voices to be quoted in the same cause if you are interested! If so, just say!
LFD

 

[luckyfredsdad]

QUOTE=VARC;4906729]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.

As to the ethnicity of the missionaries who brought Christianity to the British Isles. Alford, who was a distinguished Roman Scholar, in his “Regia Fides,” claimed that “before Paul had come to Rome Aristobulus was absent in Britain.”

Robert Parsons, SJ>, who was a pain in the neck for all Elizabeth’s friends claimed in his book,‘The Three Conversions of England,’ admits ,‘That the Christian Religion began in Britain within 50yrs of Christ’s ascension’.
Whilst the medieval councils of the West, which Rome claims as Ecumenical, gave England the precedence at the general Councils because of the early provenance of the English Church which someone gives as 490AD.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

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.

Whilst I agree the article by Longenecker should be read, as indeed should all articles on the subject, and studied with a clear mind. What is so interesting about Longenecker’s offering? As some one said he used to be an Anglican priest, so what? In some circles he’s called an apostate! As such he has to justify his leaving the Church! This is not to rubbish him, but why should his word be accepted and our own apologists shot down or rejected? He is not known or admired for a scholar!

Interestingly, Father Kevin Eastell, writing in the Messenger of the Catholic League, Feb.07.pge 3, claims that,’ one’, of our Celtic Bishops, 'was present at the Council of Nicea AD325 '.

 

[GKC]

QUOTE=VARC;4906729]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.

As to the ethnicity of the missionaries who brought Christianity to the British Isles. Alford, who was a distinguished Roman Scholar, in his “Regia Fides,” claimed that “before Paul had come to Rome Aristobulus was absent in Britain.”

Robert Parsons, SJ>, who was a pain in the neck for all Elizabeth’s friends claimed in his book,‘The Three Conversions of England,’ admits ,‘That the Christian Religion began in Britain within 50yrs of Christ’s ascension’.
Whilst the medieval councils of the West, which Rome claims as Ecumenical, gave England the precedence at the general Councils because of the early provenance of the English Church which someone gives as 490AD.

The claim for precedence was based on the participation at the 314AD Council of Arles. It was a competition for eldest Daughter of the Church, with France , in particular.

There is no basis for assuming that Christianity was extant in Britian in 80AD (though it could have been), unless you are a follower of Lewis and the Arimathea/Glastonbury theory.

GKC

 

[GKC]

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.

No, not completely, I’m nearer to what you are saying. And the 150 years doesn’t require much explanation. If Alban is historical, and was martyred (figures differ) somewhere between 200+ and 250+AD, one can assume that Chrstianity might date from some period a few years earlier (at least) than 200AD. Which, in 150 years, could approximate the date of the Council of Arles.

So, where’s Longenecker’s article found?

GKC

 

[SpiritMeadow]

With respect, there is a difference between teaching and preaching rôles and the sacerdotal and sacramental function.

Because Christ did not breathe on any women as he did to the Apostles (thus conferring sacramental authority) and because of the universal 2,000-year practice within the Church of not ordaining women, the Church has no authority whatsoever to ordain women. No doubt the greatest woman of all, the Mother of God, would’ve been a perfect candidate to become a… clergywoman… if Christ had so desired. There was, however, an unordained order of deaconesses, but this had fallen into disuse, and was superceded by nuns and sisters.

No offense, just giving the Catholic side of things.

Yes I am aware that today it is claimed by the Vatican, that they “can’t ordain women” because Christ disallows it. That is but an interpretation of course, and I understand that you accept and believe it. Paul certainly didn’t seem to, and there is plenty of archaelogical evidence as well to the contrary starting with what is known as the “Paul Cave.” JPII pretty much said that the decision not to ordain women was mostly based on tradition. In that I suggest he missed some of the earliest traditiions. There is female Apostle noted in Paul’s letters named Junia, which has been altered to a male name because it was later thought unseemly, and thus assumed wrong. The problem is the male name, presently translated is completely unknown in those times. But in the end, I don’t expect you CAN even consider this stuff, because you are bound to accept the JPII on this, though i am informed from some Papal documents that it is not yet infallibly held.

There is no point in discussing it therefore is there really?

 

[GKC]

Is that so? Well you are probably right! Perhaps I should have run it by you previously! I shall know better next time.

That’s good. I’ll try and help.

But till then, maybe you could explain what Diarmid McCulloch the Historian meant in his book on the European Reformation when he said tha, ,“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 traces its origins to the Hussite Movement. The Roman Church recast itself at the long running Council of Trent.”

We’ll assume that it’s Diarmaid MacCulloch you mean, couldn’t be two differing by only a couple of "a"s, and we’ll assume the book is his THE REFORMATION: A HISTORY, just for precision. And you are saying that Mr. MacCulloch referred to a Hussite Church in Bohemia, as loyal to the Pope? Interesting. That’s almost a perfect inversion of what Mr. MacCullough actually wrote, on p. 37. This suggests that you haven’t read the book, are not familiar with why Bohemia was the subject of that paragraph, and perhaps are not familiar the Hussite movement. Or the Utraquists. Or the Unitas Fratrum. Of course, I could be wrong. Tell me how you read p. 37, paras 1 and 2. And if you have another page reference, let’s see it. And the RCC certainly did recast itself at Trent, and likely Mr. MacCulloch said as much somewhere, though not in the loc. cit… Was still the RCC, before and after, though.

Do I understand that it’s Chartres, to whom you give the credit, for that little gem?

Article from the Faith & Worship, No 58 ed, of the Prayer Book Society.Written by Bishop Chartres of London.
Also you could elucidate on TP Baultrees ideas when he said, “Such writers as Field and others in our Church have always written of the Council of Trent as the great agent in severing the papal communion formerly and specifically from that which was Catholic and stamping it Papal and Roman.” In the notes to my edition it tells me that,"The term Roman in the Articles refers specific teachings of the Council of Trent.

Sounds a lot like Baultree (?) is speaking, perhaps as an Anglican (which I’m too, of course)? Certainly that might be something an Anglican would say. But you’d need something a little less parti pris, a little more scholarly. That’s as if I tried to counter Apostolicae Curae by the simple expedient of saying the Archbishop of Canterbury didn’t agree, and neither did the Archbishop of York.

What’s the volume you quote Baultrees (?) from?

Now there are many more Anglican Catholic and Protestant voices to be quoted in the same cause if you are interested! If so, just say!
LFD

Sure. Trot them out. Maybe I can help, maybe not.

Do they get any better?

Contarini would love this.

GKC

 

[SpiritMeadow]

While I am not ***exactly ***sure where the Anglicans lost the Apostolic Commission, I think it has something to do with the consecration of Matthew Parker. I am a Roman Catholic attending a Continuing Anglican college [St. Andrews] and they are ***perfectly ***orthodox though a little hyper-critical of ‘Romanism’. I ***hate ***that word.

But you see, we have not lost it. The Roman Catholic Church for quite obvious reasons says we have, but in good conscience would you expect them to say otherwise? We certainly don’t answer to them, or validate their rather obviously self-serving conclusion. This is not said with rancor, but in honesty. They certainly don’t listen to our pronouncements and certainly can’t expect us to listen to theirs regarding our church.This is simply common sense.

 

[GKC]

josie L;4906695:

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.

Whilst I agree the article by Longenecker should be read, as indeed should all articles on the subject, and studied with a clear mind. What is so interesting about Longenecker’s offering? As some one said he used to be an Anglican priest, so what? In some circles he’s called an apostate! As such he has to justify his leaving the Church! This is not to rubbish him, but why should his word be accepted and our own apologists shot down or rejected? He is not known or admired for a scholar!

Interestingly, Father Kevin Eastell, writing in the Messenger of the Catholic League, Feb.07.pge 3, claims that,’ one’, of our Celtic Bishops, 'was present at the Council of Nicea AD325 '.

Most Anglican scholars (AFAIK) don’t agree, i.e. Moorman/A HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND or Carpenter/A POPULAR HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Though both affirm that the British bishops concurred in the Council’s decisions. Hughes (THE CHURCH IN CRISIS) doesn’t list Britain among the countries from which the 300+ bishops at Nicea hailed. No reason not to, if there was much reason to think so.

If you have some scholarly refernces to British bishops at Nicea, I’d be willing to learn. It’s a small point, though.

GKC

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Spiritmeadow;

As you know, the Catholic Church is open to all who seek to be a part of her. So, we as Catholics hope that you will choose to be included, welcome!.

What do you think of the following? Which I sourced from another Catholic website. This pretty much sums up the way many Catholics feel about the qualifier of “Roman” being added to Catholic.

Q: When did the term “Roman Catholic Church” come into being?

A: It is not possible to give an exact year when the Catholic Church began to be called the “Roman Catholic Church,” it is possible to approximate it. The term originates as an insult created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. They thus coined the term “Roman Catholic” to distinguish those “other” Catholics and create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term).

Different variants of the “Roman” insult appeared at different times. The earliest form of the insult was the noun “Romanist” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525. The next to develop was the adjective “Romish” (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic Church), which appeared around 1525-1535. Next came the noun “Roman Catholic” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which was coined approximately 1595-1605. Shortly thereafter came the verb “to Romanize” (to make someone a Catholic or to become a Catholic), which appeared around 1600-10. Then between 1665 and 1675 we got the noun “Romanism” (the system of Catholic beliefs and practices), and finally we got a late-comer term about 1815-1825-the noun “Roman Catholicism,” which is a synonym for the earlier “Romanism.”

A similar complex of insults arose around the term “pope.” About 1515-25 the Anglicans coined the term “papist” and later its derivative “papism.” A quick follow-up, in 1520-1530, was the adjective “popish.” Next came “popery” (1525-1535), and then “papistry” (1540-1550), with its later derivatives, “papistical” and “papistic.” (Source: Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, 1995 ed.)

This complex of insults is revealing as it shows the depths of animosity English Protestants had toward the Church. No other religious body (perhaps no other group at all-even national or racial ones) has such a complex of insults woven into the English language as does the Catholic Church. Even today many Protestants who have no idea what the origin of the term is cannot bring themselves to say “Catholic” without qualifying it or replacing it with a Roman insult.

Source: Nazareth Resource Library

Your objection to the use of the word “Priestess” as offfensive is understandable. Will you stop using words that are bound to offend many Catholics on CAF??

God Bless.

I’d be a lot more willing to receive your remarks had your website not been Catholic (aligned with Rome) in nature. Is it at all possible that the term was not meant to be rude but as the site also admits to separate Anglicans as Catholics from the Church of Rome, also Catholic. The later seems much more likely and the reasoning makes superb sense as well.

We are not discussing issues regarding wording about popes. I have used no such language and would not. I continue to point out that it was the Roman Church that taught me to use the appelation Roman Catholic lest I confuse my listener as to any other Catholic branch.

You have been deprived of nothing. You apparently are peeved that others use the appelation and you feel it belongs only to you. I have found this same syndrome about the apostles creed and nicene creed as well, and probably about any number of ritualistic practices that many of us share in common.

I think you are merely trying to create this issue as payback, but as I said, I don’t object as long as you realize that Catholic includes all orthodox and apostolic churches, and that is more than just the Roman one.

I am not at all in disagreement that the Church of Rome has received its unfair share of insults. Like Jews, they have born a good deal of ridicule in our nation’s past. Ironically those that argue for more prayer in school and so forth, forget that it was the Church of Rome who received the benefits of separation of church and state. Before that in some states they could not hold office, own property, and were even ridden out of state and sometimes hanged. Washington had to prevent his troops at Valley Forge from hanging the pope in effigy, an event that was held every year.

You are barking up the wrong tree if you think that in any way shape or form I dislike the Church of Rome. I have always loved her and will always love her, misguided though I think she is at times. She is the largest part of the Universal catholic church.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

newadvent.org/cathen/01491a.htm
Please read a full history at this link of why the Catholic church declared Anglican priesthood invalid, and thus our Anglican brothers and sisters separated. Politics should never override theology.

You seem new so I’ll just say we are all aware of the Roman conclusions regarding Anglican ordination. Politics should not over ride theology, but you must understand that Anglicans and other denominations do not accept Roman Catholic determinations on this point. Would you expect us to? Do you accept any non-RCC theology? Of course not. YOu see?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Sorry if I’m a little behind the times … but why would we be offended at being called “Roman Catholic”?

I think this is a case of political correctness run amok.

Material is of the opinion that Catholic belongs exclusively to the Roman Church and no other, so she objects to the Roman being attached. How is one to refer to the American churches who profess Catholicism but not Papal authority? Or Anglicans and Lutherans who profess catholicism as part of the universal church? Again, the dictionary says that Catholic church incompasses all of them and the EO. Thus why we try to be correct in our statements and in making sure that we are distinguishing exactly whom we are referring to.

 

[josie_L]

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.

I never said that Christianity did not exist before Constantine, in fact I stated that the evidence left behind bespoke of roman christianity. Read my posts with Varc the information is contained therein.

The Nicene creed was created by a Church that was (literally) one, holy catholic and apostolic for an audience that was united to that Church in theology and practice.

God Bless.

 

[GKC]

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.

Well, tastes vary, but I find Henry to be a fascinating train wreck.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[ICA04]

And how are you sure? Visited my parish, have you?

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

No, but I have been in many other Anglican churches. Some were Evangelical low church but many were high church Anglo Catholics who were practically Rome minus the pope.

 

[Peter_J]

**“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?

Hi Luckfredsdad,

I take it you’re responding to

“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 e.g. “the Henritic religious organization” or whatever); so I don’t really see why you want to call us “the Papal Church” rather than 1 of the 3 names I just mentioned.

There’s a difference between something being an accurate description, and being an accepted name. To say that the RCC is “Papal” is accurate, but “the Papal Church” is not one of the accepted names of the RCC.

Similarly, I haven’t no reluctance to say that the Orthodox Church is “non-Catholic”, but I wouldn’t call it “the Non-Catholic Orthodox Church”, because that isn’t an accepted name for the Orthodox 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.

I respect your opinion, although I’m not particularly interested in engaging it.

 

[trinitybeliever]

I apologize, that was sarcasm. It’s past my bedtime. I’ll explain my snarky comment tomorrow.
God Bless

GKC, Let me attempt;
First, as to the OP I have read the entire thread and I believe I do understand why (some) Anglicans call themselves Catholic with a big “C”. However I do take issue with the fundamental logic of it. Heres why.

To be a part of the Catholic Church is to be in full communion with it. Anglicans aren’t.
So, if I was not part of the Catholic Church, Yet claimed to be true Catholic, then that assumes that the Catholic Church is somehow falsely claiming that Identity.
If the Catholic Church is falsely claiming the identity of Catholic then its authority would be invalid.

Is this accurate?

 

[trinitybeliever]

I’d be a lot more willing to receive your remarks had your website not been Catholic (aligned with Rome) in nature. Is it at all possible that the term was not meant to be rude but as the site also admits to separate Anglicans as Catholics from the Church of Rome, also Catholic. The later seems much more likely and the reasoning makes superb sense as well.

We are not discussing issues regarding wording about popes. I have used no such language and would not. I continue to point out that it was the **Roman Church **that taught me to use the appelation **Roman Catholic **lest I confuse my listener as to any other Catholic branch.

You have been deprived of nothing. You apparently are peeved that others use the appelation and you feel it belongs only to you. I have found this same syndrome about the apostles creed and nicene creed as well, and probably about any number of ritualistic practices that many of us share in common.

You assume.

I think you are merely trying to create this issue as payback, but as I said, I don’t object as long as you realize that Catholic includes all orthodox and apostolic churches, and that is more than just the Roman one.

I am not at all in disagreement that the **Church of Rome **has received its unfair share of insults. Like Jews, they have born a good deal of ridicule in our nation’s past. Ironically those that argue for more prayer in school and so forth, forget that it was the **Church of Rome **who received the benefits of separation of church and state.

No such separation exists in the US, But that is an interesting point in regards to the Church of England and Anglicanism.

Before that in some states they could not hold office, own property, and were even ridden out of state and sometimes hanged. Washington had to prevent his troops at Valley Forge from hanging the pope in effigy, an event that was held every year.

You are barking up the wrong tree if you think that in any way shape or form I dislike the Church of Rome. I have always loved her and will always love her, misguided though I think she is at times. She is the largest part of the Universal catholic church.

The article coming from a Catholic source is obviously a problem for you. But can it be disproven?

My point is simply that I, as a Catholic, prefer not to be labeled by those outside the church with a qualifier. I believe I understand why you as an Anglican, think that I should have no problem calling myself a Roman Catholic; A title derived from and invented by your church. But I do. So if you please, call us by our name which is Catholic.

Furthermore, If you would like to call yourself Catholic or catholic, I guess that is up to you. (Although, as you can see by my previous post, I am still trying to understand the logic of it.)

My fundamental point is the Catholic Church is not working at defining the Anglican Church so, Why is it that Anglicans ( and other Churches outside of Catholicism) seek to define the Catholic church?

For your benefit, The definition I am using of Catholicism is “in full communion with the Catholic Church”

 

[trinitybeliever]

I’d be a lot more willing to receive your remarks had your website not been Catholic (aligned with Rome) in nature. Is it at all possible that the term was not meant to be rude but as the site also admits to separate Anglicans as Catholics from the Church of Rome, also Catholic. The later seems much more likely and the reasoning makes superb sense as well.

So, are you saying that Catholics labeled themselves as Roman Catholics?

We are not discussing issues regarding wording about popes. I have used no such language and would not. I continue to point out that it was the **Roman Church **that taught me to use the appelation **Roman Catholic **lest I confuse my listener as to any other Catholic branch.

It was just part of the full article, No implication of what you said, However, it does address what another previous poster wrote.

You have been deprived of nothing. You apparently are peeved that others use the appelation and you feel it belongs only to you. I have found this same syndrome about the apostles creed and nicene creed as well, and probably about any number of ritualistic practices that many of us share in common.

You assume too much.

I think you are merely trying to create this issue as payback, but as I said, I don’t object as long as you realize that Catholic includes all orthodox and apostolic churches, and that is more than just the Roman one.

I’m not sure what you mean by payback? Do I or the Catholic Church have something to pay you or the Anglicans back for?

I am not at all in disagreement that the **Church of Rome **has received its unfair share of insults. Like Jews, they have born a good deal of ridicule in our nation’s past. Ironically those that argue for more prayer in school and so forth, forget that it was the **Church of Rome **who received the benefits of separation of church and state.

No such separation exists in the US, But that is an interesting point in regards to the Church of England and Anglicanism.

Before that in some states they could not hold office, own property, and were even ridden out of state and sometimes hanged. Washington had to prevent his troops at Valley Forge from hanging the pope in effigy, an event that was held every year.

Not that I doubt it happened but, Cites? If it did happen, what was the reason for the harsh prejudice? Were they members of some other church? Perhaps one from England? Just Curious.

You are barking up the wrong tree if you think that in any way shape or form I dislike the Church of Rome. I have always loved her and will always love her, misguided though I think she is at times. She is the largest part of the Universal catholic church.

We Catholics love the Anglicans as well. And we pray for our unification in full Communion.

 

[GKC]

GKC, Let me attempt;
First, as to the OP I have read the entire thread and I believe I do understand why (some) Anglicans call themselves Catholic with a big “C”. However I do take issue with the fundamental logic of it. Heres why.

To be a part of the Catholic Church is to be in full communion with it. Anglicans aren’t.
So, if I was not part of the Catholic Church, Yet claimed to be true Catholic, then that assumes that the Catholic Church is somehow falsely claiming that Identity.
If the Catholic Church is falsely claiming the identity of Catholic then its authority would be invalid.

Is this accurate?

Depends on what it means to be Catholic. If it means to be in communion, yes. If it means to possess apostolic succession, no.

But sure, I understand your taking issue.

GKC