Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic?

[GKC]

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.

Yes, some are evangelical and low, some Anglo-Catholic and high.

Which was my point.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[luckyfredsdad]

That’s good. I’ll try and help.

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?

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?

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

Do they get any better?

Contarini would love this.

B]The quote was correct and it did come from Chartres via Faith & Worship!
Now I suggest you read it and think about it, instead of being pompous!
As it happens I have read the book and indeed listened to McCulloch introduce it.

If you wish the list regarding the provenance of the Roman Catholic Church to be expanded,

Farqhar Hook the High Church writer of the late 1800s, in the CATHOLICISM OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. In this he says regarding Rome, “their church must remain what it was made at the Council of Trent”!

Thorndyke, the Interregnum Theologian, as well as Moffat the Biblical Scholar in his book on Tradition. CBMoss of course and others who I cannot at this moment remember. Most of these people can be read on Project Canterbury as can Baultree. Another whi is particularly straight on the matter is Bishop Field in his book, On the Church.

 

[GKC]

GKC;4907941:

That’s good. I’ll try and help.

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?

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?

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

Do they get any better?

Contarini would love this.

B]The quote was correct and it did come from Chartres via Faith & Worship!
Now I suggest you read it and think about it, instead of being pompous!
As it happens I have read the book and indeed listened to McCulloch introduce it.

If you wish the list regarding the provenance of the Roman Catholic Church to be expanded,

Farqhar Hook the High Church writer of the late 1800s, in the CATHOLICISM OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. In this he says regarding Rome, “their church must remain what it was made at the Council of Trent”!

Thorndyke, the Interregnum Theologian, as well as Moffat the Biblical Scholar in his book on Tradition. CBMoss of course and others who I cannot at this moment remember. Most of these people can be read on Project Canterbury as can Baultree. Another whi is particularly straight on the matter is Bishop Field in his book, On the Church.

Ok. I’ve read it. Knowing something can, I suppose, appear as pomposity. As can not nothing something. Tricky.

So, having read it, can you relate the words you attribute to Chartres, to what MacCulloch actually wrote, on p. 37. Or anywhere else in the book? Or to what the Hussite Church was?

Hook’s statement is unexceptional. Certainly (save as changed by something like VatI or II), the RCC would stay what Trent made it. Which was, inter alia, a reforming of the RCC as it was, pre 1545. It was partially to reform the Church that the Council was convened (though that was a secondary consideration). Hence, the sessions’ results are divided into Decrees and Reforms. Still, was the RCC, before and after, though.

Trent reminds me of something, though. You cited Baultree as saying “The term Roman in the Articles refers specific teachings of the Council of Trent” One assumes this is referring to the XXIX. Which were promulgated, as the XXXVIII, in 1563 (Number XXIX being restored in 1571).The Articles, in this incarnation, had a lengthy evolution. And Trent, after a lengthy life, ended in 1564. So the Articles are aimed at doctrines announced by Trent? Connect those dots for me.

And the term Roman, as opposed to Romish and Rome, is in them? I know of two Articles that use those. Can you relate them to Trent, as innovations, as opposed to the RCC historically?

Moss is a good man, but not with him, or the other names do you give much to work on. Which, to be of much use, would needs be more than a statement of opinion, and in context. An Anglican* ipse dixit*, no more than a RC one, is worth much, beyond establishing what the individual thought, even if it were in context, and direcly supporting your thesis. Which is not discernible…

So, if your original thesis was that the RCC, after Trent, had changed some doctrine, redefined and expanded same, and changed some practices, by reforming them, yes, that’s what happened. If you think that what you’ve been referring to says that the RCC wasn’t the RCC until after Trent, no.

GKC

 

[josie_L]

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”

I am in complete agreement.

 

[josie_L]

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

Sorry, Jim, I forgot about you or rather the question you asked of me, write in Celtic Coptic Myth on google search, you’ll find what you’re looking for. God Bless.

 

[ICA04]

Yes, some are evangelical and low, some Anglo-Catholic and high.

Which was my point.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

And I merely expounded on it on your behalf.

 

[josie_L]

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 '.

I took this exerpt out of a book entitled Early Roman and Celtic Christianity:

"Earliest places of Christian worship were not churches per se but meeting places constructed in domestic buildings. They are referred to as domus ecclesiae and abroad there are examples from as far east as Dura Europos on the Eurphrates in Iraq as well as several examples in Rome.** An example in Britain is at Lullingstone villa in Kent (Meates) with Christian wall-paintings as at Dura Europos and others have been suggested at a villa at Frampton in Dorset (Perring) and in the villa at Littlecote in Wiltshire (Toynbee). They belong to the first stage of the adoption of Christianity and such wealthy venues are not likely to be found in post-villa Britain when even the few late-Roman churches built in the towns were apparently no longer available for Christian use.** Romano-British buildings that may have been churches have been found in the towns of Silchester and Caerwent, under the present cathedral at Canterbury, others under the churches of St Martin’s at Colchester and in Exeter, Lincoln and St Albans. Extra-mural churches are likely to have been on the sites of Roman Christian cemeteries as they were in Italy."

The form of Christianity in the British Isles was of Roman influence, as is indicated in the exerpt above, validated, of course, by archaelogy.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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

Terribly sorry, but I cannot read your bright green script.

 

[GKC]

I took this exerpt out of a book entitled Early Roman and Celtic Christianity:

"Earliest places of Christian worship were not churches per se but meeting places constructed in domestic buildings. They are referred to as domus ecclesiae and abroad there are examples from as far east as Dura Europos on the Eurphrates in Iraq as well as several examples in Rome.** An example in Britain is at Lullingstone villa in Kent (Meates) with Christian wall-paintings as at Dura Europos and others have been suggested at a villa at Frampton in Dorset (Perring) and in the villa at Littlecote in Wiltshire (Toynbee). They belong to the first stage of the adoption of Christianity and such wealthy venues are not likely to be found in post-villa Britain when even the few late-Roman churches built in the towns were apparently no longer available for Christian use.** Romano-British buildings that may have been churches have been found in the towns of Silchester and Caerwent, under the present cathedral at Canterbury, others under the churches of St Martin’s at Colchester and in Exeter, Lincoln and St Albans. Extra-mural churches are likely to have been on the sites of Roman Christian cemeteries as they were in Italy."

The form of Christianity in the British Isles was of Roman influence, as is indicated in the exerpt above, validated, of course, by archaelogy.

And one might also look at Thomas’ book that I have been mentioning, which addresses this. But Roman here, of course, means Imperial Rome. Which was the most likely venue for Christianity, through the Army or the Imperial administrators. How, or when, still not known.

GKC

 

[GKC]

And I merely expounded on it on your behalf.

All assistance always appreciated. Not sure how it fits in with your original post, since many Anglo-Catholics do indeed consider themselves part of the Catholic Church (the subject of the thread, long ago), but not that part in communion with Rome. It’s one reason we prefer the 1928 BCP, over the 79 thing.

As I said, drop by the parish. It’s got Catholic all over it.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[GKC]

Sorry, Jim, I forgot about you or rather the question you asked of me, write in Celtic Coptic Myth on google search, you’ll find what you’re looking for. God Bless.

S’awright. I’ll go look. As I said, I think I’ve read Lonenecker before. I’ll bookmark him.

GKC

 

[josie_L]

And one might also look at Thomas’ book that I have been mentioning, which addresses this. But Roman here, of course, means Imperial Rome. Which was the most likely venue for Christianity, through the Army or the Imperial administrators. How, or when, still not known.

GKC

No, Jim I believe it refers to roman christianity. You need to read the online text. Just type in the words of the title to access the book.

 

[GKC]

No, Jim I believe it refers to roman christianity. You need to read the online text. Just type in the words of the title to access the book.

I’ll take a look. I could be wrong. But this is not in keeping with my other readings.

GKC

Ok, quick note. First I read Longenecker’s page. That’s not related to the issue here, but I certainly recognize it, and have read it before. It references the Glastonbury legend, Joseph of Arimathea, and related stuff, that I have a few books on and that I’ve argud over, with some fellow Anglicans, before. Nothing to see here, I’ll move on.

But I do remember now why Longenecker’s name was so familiar. He lives and works about 100 miles from me, and at the small RC bookstore that I used (last in the city and now closing, sadly) there was a newspaper clipping on the bulletin board, about his ordination. Small world. Like Thomas being the brother of my friend.

Now to look for the book.

GKC

 

[GKC]

No, Jim I believe it refers to roman christianity. You need to read the online text. Just type in the words of the title to access the book.

Ok, found it, and a good article it is. Even mentions the Celtic Church, as you will have seen

But it uses the words “Roman” and “Romano-Britain” in two senses. One, and the most general use of these terms archeologically, and historically, refers to Britain during that period when Rome was ruling it (more or less). This is the predominant use in the article, and esp. in the portions you quoted (but not the exclusive use; more in a moment). As I said, this is what is most often meant, when these terms are used, as in Thomas’ title CHRISTIANITY IN ROMAN BRITAIN: TO AD 500.

An aside: my daughter’s degree is in Classics and Latin, and she taught Latin for 5 years. Her favorite hobby in the subject was Roman Britain, and I’ve given her many titles on it (which is why I’ve only got Thomas’ book on hand), including two this last Christmas.

So, in your quote, “late-Roman churches” and “Romano-British buildings”, refers to a period of time, not the Church in Roman. Go to the next to the last para and you should see what I mean. This is the way the words are most often used, in this area. I won’t try to convince you, further, but so it is.

However, there are several places in the article where reference is made to the Church based in Rome, as in para 2, and others you can find. But in general these terms refer to the period in time when the Church in Britain was functioning as any other frontier diocese, sending bishops to Councils, and getting visited, etc. That is, it’s in the 4th century. Which leaves the earliest question still to be asked. How came Christianity to Britain, and when (around 100AD? Earlier?).

It’s a good article.

GKC

 

[josie_L]

I’ll take a look. I could be wrong. But this is not in keeping with my other readings.

GKC

Ok, quick note. First I read Longenecker’s page. That’s not related to the issue here, but I certainly recognize it, and have read it before. It references the Glastonbury legend, Joseph of Arimathea, and related stuff, that I have a few books on and that I’ve argud over, with some fellow Anglicans, before. Nothing to see here, I’ll move on.

But I do remember now why Longenecker’s name was so familiar. He lives and works about 100 miles from me, and at the small RC bookstore that I used (last in the city and now closing, sadly) there was a newspaper clipping on the bulletin board, about his ordination. Small world. Like Thomas being the brother of my friend.

Now to look for the book.

GKC

Longenecker spoke of early christianity in the British Isles has being roman christian, in practice (and through archaelogical artifacts), it has everything to do with what Varc and I were discussing. God Bless Jim, will write to you soon.

 

[GKC]

Longenecker spoke of early christianity in the British Isles has being roman christian, in practice (and through archaelogical artifacts), it has everything to do with what Varc and I were discussing. God Bless Jim, will write to you soon.

Ok. And notice that Lonenecker speaks of 3rd and 4th Century.

GKC

 

[josie_L]

Ok, found it, and a good article it is. Even mentions the Celtic Church, as you will have seen

But it uses the words “Roman” and “Romano-Britain” in two senses. One, and the most general use of these terms archeologically, and historically, refers to Britain during that period when Rome was ruling it (more or less). This is the predominant use in the article, and esp. in the portions you quoted (but not the exclusive use; more in a moment). As I said, this is what is most often meant, when these terms are used, as in Thomas’ title CHRISTIANITY IN ROMAN BRITAIN: TO AD 500.

An aside: my daughter’s degree is in Classics and Latin, and she taught Latin for 5 years. Her favorite hobby in the subject was Roman Britain, and I’ve given her many titles on it (which is why I’ve only got Thomas’ book on hand), including two this last Christmas.

So, in your quote, “late-Roman churches” and “Romano-British buildings”, refers to a period of time, not the Church in Roman. Go to the next to the last para and you should see what I mean. This is the way the words are most often used, in this area. I won’t try to convince you, further, but so it is.

However, there are several places in the article where reference is made to the Church based in Rome, as in para 2, and others you can find. But in general these terms refer to the period in time when the Church in Britain was functioning as any other frontier diocese, sending bishops to Councils, and getting visited, etc. That is, it’s in the 4th century. Which leaves the earliest question still to be asked. How came Christianity to Britain, and when (around 100AD? Earlier?).

It’s a good article.

GKC

JIm, I was not discussing the how and when, so much as the who, it was imperative for me to know who these first Christian missionaries were that landed in the British Isles. As to the text in question, I see what you mean, but being that the earliest artifacts found are of roman christian influence and nothing has been found to indicate something different and/or earlier, the simplest/rational understanding of the who/when/how of christianity in the British Isles was mentioned in Longenecker’s article:

“Ten years after the crucifixion of Christ, the Emperor Claudius successfully invaded Britain. Over the next three hundred and fifty years the Romans established a thriving colony in virtually the whole of Britain. With the Roman armies, came Roman religions, and one of the religions was the new religion of Christianity. The first Christians in Britain therefore, were Roman Christians.”

 

[GKC]

JIm, I was not discussing the how and when, so much as the who, it was imperative for me to know who these first Christian missionaries were that landed in the British Isles. As to the text in question, I see what you mean, but being that the earliest artifacts found are of roman christian influence and nothing apart from these artifacts as been found to indicate something earlier in influence, the simplest/rational understanding of the who/when/how of christianity in the British Isles was mentioned in Longenecker’s article:

“Ten years after the crucifixion of Christ, the Emperor Claudius successfully invaded Britain. Over the next three hundred and fifty years the Romans established a thriving colony in virtually the whole of Britain. With the Roman armies, came Roman religions, and one of the religions was the new religion of Christianity. The first Christians in Britain therefore, were Roman Christians.”

But, as I have read (and I have no dog in the fight) the issue is still open. To say “Roman Christian” is to say Christians who were Roman, part of Roman-Britain. Not to say, Roman Catholic (as we would say) Christians, necessarily.

Added: and you don’t necessarily have to think in terms of missionaries. It was most likely a case of individuals who were Christians, coming with the legions, or settlers. Question is, if so, who and what sort of Christian.

But that’s a good article, and it’s part of a series of good articles. The next one (link at the bottom) discusses the Celtic influence some, and the 14th, IIRC, shows the point I was making about refrences to Roman and Romano-Britian.

But if you are satisfied, ok by me. Doing some research and some reading is the way to go.

GKC

 

[josie_L]

But, as I have read (and I have no dog in the fight) the issue is still open. To say “Roman Christian” is to say Christians who were Roman, part of Roman-Britain. Not to say, Roman Catholic (as we would say) Christians, necessarily.

Added: and you don’t necessarily have to think in terms of missionaries. It was most likely a case of individuals who were Christians, coming with the legions, or settlers. Question is, if so, who and what sort of Christian.

But that’s a good article, and it’s part of a series of good articles. The next one (link at the bottom) discusses the Celtic influence some, and the 14th, IIRC, shows the point I was making about refrences to Roman and Romano-Britian.

But if you are satisfied, ok by me. Doing some research and some reading is the way to go.

GKC

The Church was unified (same theology was being preached) at this point in time and since the bishop of Rome was head of that Church (beginning with Peter), it makes sense to see how roman christianity was exported to the British Isles. This I believe is what Longenecker is refering to in his article (remember, he is a catholic convert and a priest).

 

[trinitybeliever]

Terribly sorry, but I cannot read your bright green script.

Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow
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.

Is this better?