Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic?

[luckyfredsdad]

What was this rubbish? The filioque had been added some time before, and was hardly added unilaterally by the Pope. In fact the Popes had been the last holdouts in the West *against *the filioque.

Edwin

I have never mentioned the Filioque!
I was talking about the additions made to the Nice Creed at Trent! Additions which the fathers said should never be made. In essence Nice is set in stone.

Authority from State and Church>

My point is that the Papacy, has no inherent power or authority of its own. The Bishop of Rome has the authority of a Bishop, a descendant of the Apostles. Whatever authority accrues to a metropolitan and patriarch also lands on his doorstep. There is however no special authority that gives him jurisdiction or infallibility. All his authority in religion comes from the Church and as S.Thomas More says {roughly} he’s subservient to the Councils.! For two or three hundred years the pope was a civil servant as far as I can see!

Regarding the Bishop of Rome and the Gregorian Reforms!

I have no quarrel with the Bishop of Rome or his co- religionists. I object to his pretensions to be infallible and his claim to have jurisdiction over the Catholic Church and indeed over the rest of humanity.

There’s nothing in scripture or tradition to support these claims? Yet in pursuance of them, the Bishop of Rome has managed to become probably the greatest cause of schism or heresy in the Church! If, you and your friends wish to follow him, I wouldn’t interfere, but surely I have a duty as a Catholic priest to put the traditional and orthodox case?

Do I think the Government ought to have authority over the Church in a given area? I
I think that the Church should follow the Law of the Land, ,'as far as the Law of God allows." Then we should refuse it. I do not think that the Catholic Church is fit to rule politically, whether that Church is Roman or Anglican. The Government should govern by Christian principles. Think of Croatia during the last ww.

The Papacy interfered in English Law and was not against using Foreign Troops to gain their ends. I do not believe the papacy or the Roman Church has that right.

The Pope did back William The Butcher in 1066 and it was against the Church in England and as part of the papacies endevour to exalt the popes imagined authority. Incidentally, according to English and Orthodox History, after Hastings thousands of English men and women emigrated to the Eastern Roman Empire. They refused Latin style clergy and received permission to bring in and use their own English/ Anglican Clergy and were allowed to build their own Churches!

Since you haven’t bothered to discuss the alleged coup ?

But I have as far as I can and under these circumstances. You tell me that you have read about Trent. Well and good! Did you ever look at Trent from the perspective of later medieval Europe. Did you question what you read in conjunction with the past hundred years of struggle to bring the papacy under control? Or are you like your friend content with the dots and commas and satisfied that the pagination is in order.

Did you ask yourself why,Thorndyke the Interregnum Theologian, who was thought to be pro Roman wrote that,“The Counter Reformation was not the mending of the old Church but the making of a New Church!”. Or that John Evelyn, the Diarist wrote of the New Church of Trent and what he meant by it!
Why did the Church in France complain bitterly and loudly for two hundred or so years and why did the papacy sack the French Bishops at Napoleon’s behest?

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Not quite universal, it would seem (from this thread anyways).



Likewise, I generally expect Lutherans and Methodists to not be offended if I call them “Lutherans” and “Methodists”.

**In 1791, the Roman Catholic leadersship in England, in a letter to the House of Lords described themselves as Protestant Catholic Dissenters.

It is the name of your Church. All the Roman Churches around this area, where I live sport the name Roman Catholic Church, why are you ashamed of it? **

 

[GKC]

I have never mentioned the Filioque!
I was talking about the additions made to the Nice Creed at Trent! Additions which the fathers said should never be made. In essence Nice is set in stone.

Authority from State and Church>

My point is that the Papacy, has no inherent power or authority of its own. The Bishop of Rome has the authority of a Bishop, a descendant of the Apostles. Whatever authority accrues to a metropolitan and patriarch also lands on his doorstep. There is however no special authority that gives him jurisdiction or infallibility. All his authority in religion comes from the Church and as S.Thomas More says {roughly} he’s subservient to the Councils.! For two or three hundred years the pope was a civil servant as far as I can see!

Regarding the Bishop of Rome and the Gregorian Reforms!

I have no quarrel with the Bishop of Rome or his co- religionists. I object to his pretensions to be infallible and his claim to have jurisdiction over the Catholic Church and indeed over the rest of humanity.

There’s nothing in scripture or tradition to support these claims? Yet in pursuance of them, the Bishop of Rome has managed to become probably the greatest cause of schism or heresy in the Church! If, you and your friends wish to follow him, I wouldn’t interfere, but surely I have a duty as a Catholic priest to put the traditional and orthodox case?

Do I think the Government ought to have authority over the Church in a given area? I
I think that the Church should follow the Law of the Land, ,'as far as the Law of God allows." Then we should refuse it. I do not think that the Catholic Church is fit to rule politically, whether that Church is Roman or Anglican. The Government should govern by Christian principles. Think of Croatia during the last ww.

The Papacy interfered in English Law and was not against using Foreign Troops to gain their ends. I do not believe the papacy or the Roman Church has that right.

The Pope did back William The Butcher in 1066 and it was against the Church in England and as part of the papacies endevour to exalt the popes imagined authority. Incidentally, according to English and Orthodox History, after Hastings thousands of English men and women emigrated to the Eastern Roman Empire. They refused Latin style clergy and received permission to bring in and use their own English/ Anglican Clergy and were allowed to build their own Churches!

Since you haven’t bothered to discuss the alleged coup ?

But I have as far as I can and under these circumstances. You tell me that you have read about Trent. Well and good! Did you ever look at Trent from the perspective of later medieval Europe. Did you question what you read in conjunction with the past hundred years of struggle to bring the papacy under control? Or are you like your friend content with the dots and commas and satisfied that the pagination is in order.

Did you ask yourself why,Thorndyke the Interregnum Theologian, who was thought to be pro Roman wrote that,“The Counter Reformation was not the mending of the old Church but the making of a New Church!”. Or that John Evelyn, the Diarist wrote of the New Church of Trent and what he meant by it!
Why did the Church in France complain bitterly and loudly for two hundred or so years and why did the papacy sack the French Bishops at Napoleon’s behest?

As far as I know, it is I who made mention of reading Trent, so I’ll speak. And to the Nicene point.

It was not the Council that spoke to Trent, but the Synod following, which included the Creed in the sometimes called Professia Fidei Tridentine, pursuant to chap. II of Trent Session XXV. Which makes the Creed one of the 12 parts of the sometimes called Creed of Pius IV. Tell me what changed in the Creed itself. Say, as the Creed of 325 differed from that of 381/451.

I also wrote above that there were points on which we agreed, and there are, politics are an invariable component of all history, the Church included. In my discussing, here and there, my own specialty, the Henrician affair(s), I expound on the matter often, in detail, and back into history to at least to Henry II. As with the story of Apostolicae Curae, ditto. All history is the same in that regard. The structure of the Church changed, over time and changed driven by, inter alia, political components. It moved one direction in the Gregorian period, shifted again when hit wih the Western Schism, took an interesting turn with the Conciliar movement (which I sympathize with, and you’re roughly right about More), and formed up again, in the decrees and reforms of Trent. Same Church.

Your problem, IMO, is your extreme statements, and your problematic use of sources. Anyone who can use that (apparently a chained reference) paraphrase of MacCulloch and think it represents either history, or MacCulloch, lacks credibility. And yes, then comes what you might know of the Articles. And so on.

You state that you are not an Anglican, and I can believe it, while what you might be comes into focus, slowly. OTOH, while you might not be Anglican, have you ever been “highchurchman”?

Taxes call. Do find that page in MacCulloch.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

What was this rubbish? The filioque had been added some time before, and was hardly added unilaterally by the Pope. In fact the Popes had been the last holdouts in the West *against *the filioque.

Edwin

I’ve mentioned on other threads that one of the main reasons I could never be Protestant is the filioque. Protestants (typically) accept the insertion of the filioque into the Creed, and yet reject the authority of the Pope to authorize that addition. It just doesn’t make any sense.

 

[Peter_J]

Come on you Anglicans, it is time to swallow your pride and submit yourselves to the Supreme Pontiff. You risk damnation by not doing so. The Pope is the Prime Minister of the Church, the one to whom Christ entrusted the keys of the kingdom. He is the voice of Christ on earth, and if you refuse to listen to him, it is the same as ignoring the voice of Christ. Kyrie Eleison.

Oh you two. :tsktsk:

 

[Peter_J]

**In 1791, the Roman Catholic leadersship in England, in a letter to the House of Lords described themselves as Protestant Catholic Dissenters.

It is the name of your Church. All the Roman Churches around this area, where I live sport the name Roman Catholic Church, why are you ashamed of it? **

I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church, i.e. the one holy catholic and apostolic Church (while respecting the opinions of those who disagree with me).

Now, to answer your question, I’m not ashamed of the name “Roman Catholic Church”, and I’m not offended when anyone calls us by that name (see also this post) but in my own statements I’m slightly more likely to say simply “the Catholic Church”.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

GKC>
I’m aware of the difference between Council and Synod. How-and-ever, in two or three of my my reference books on the Council the two are lumped together and they stick in my memory as such.

Some five years ago a copy of the Creed of Pius 1vth, was given to me,by a Roman friend of mine. It had been handed out by a Roman Priest from a town some 9 miles away. It is a copy of the Nicene Creed with additions. Added to it is a later paragraph referring to Vat 1. concerning infallibility.

The Trent Profession of Faith contains a series of beliefs that are not Catholic i.e.Transubstantiation, Purgatry,"I recognise the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church as mother and mistress of all churches. I vow and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff… I accept and profess without doubting of the sacred canons …of the Holy Council of Trent .This true Catholic faith, without which no one can be in a state of salvation… It is the additions that I object to. I do not accept that the Church before Trent was the one that came out of it. To put it crudely it was hijacked by the Bishop of Rome. Or the major part was, not the English or the Eastern Orthodox but change it did. Why do you think that the English Bishops of the 16th, and 17th, Cent were so against it? To say nothing about the growing protestant movement in England or Western Europe. Read Bishop Hicckes, the Nonjuring Primus in ,His Answer, pg 172.

I do not base my thoughts on the New Church of Trent on simply McCulloch’s paragraph. It is based on my reading of the Religious situation and writings of the Church in the 16th and 17th, Cent. This is the Church in England I am talking about, the Church of the Laudian Fathers and the Non Jurors. Have you read Moffat, the Biblical Scholar’s comments written in the 1950s in his book,Tradition? Where he has a whole chapter on New Trent. Also CB Moss, had comments regarding the idea of no Roman Catholics before 1500, just what did they mean? Taking the attitude of the English Scholars to trent and Rome, it is not very hard to fathom.

By the way, you must have mis-read me, I am an Anglican of some seventy six years service, I am not a member or supporter of the Anglican Communion, neither am I an Anglo Catholic, but a Highchurchman, after the fashion of the fathers of the later reformation. (Hopefully?)

 

[GKC]

GKC>
I’m aware of the difference between Council and Synod. How-and-ever, in two or three of my my reference books on the Council the two are lumped together and they stick in my memory as such.

Some five years ago a copy of the Creed of Pius 1vth, was given to me,by a Roman friend of mine. It had been handed out by a Roman Priest from a town some 9 miles away. It is a copy of the Nicene Creed with additions. Added to it is a later paragraph referring to Vat 1. concerning infallibility.

The Trent Profession of Faith contains a series of beliefs that are not Catholic i.e.Transubstantiation, Purgatry,"I recognise the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church as mother and mistress of all churches. I vow and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff… I accept and profess without doubting of the sacred canons …of the Holy Council of Trent .This true Catholic faith, [without which no one can be in a state of salvation… It is the additions that I object to. I do not accept that the Church before Trent was the one that came out of it. To put it crudely it was hijacked by the Bishop of Rome. Or the major part was, not the English or the Eastern Orthodox but change it did. Why do you think that the English Bishops of the 16th, and 17th, Cent were so against it? To say nothing about the growing protestant movement in England or Western Europe. Read Bishop Hicckes, the Nonjuring Primus in ,His Answer, pg 172.

I do not base my thoughts on the New Church of Trent on simply McCulloch’s paragraph. It is based on my reading of the Religious situation and writings of the Church in the 16th and 17th, Cent. This is the Church in England I am talking about, the Church of the Laudian Fathers and the Non Jurors. Have you read Moffat, the Biblical Scholar’s comments written in the 1950s in his book,Tradition? Where he has a whole chapter on New Trent. Also CB Moss, had comments regarding the idea of no Roman Catholics before 1500, just what did they mean? Taking the attitude of the English Scholars to trent and Rome, it is not very hard to fathom.

By the way, you must have mis-read me, I am an Anglican of some seventy six years service, I am not a member or supporter of the Anglican Communion, neither am I an Anglo Catholic, but a Highchurchman, after the fashion of the fathers of the later reformation. (Hopefully?)

I remark the tone of this post. And thanks.

The actions of that synod, like the Rules Concerning Prohibited Books, arise out of Trent, and in reaction to it, and were not of the Council itself.

As to the Creed of Pius IV. It can be found on line, and comprises a preface sentence, and 12 articles, the first of which is the Nicene Creed. I ask in what respect that Creed differs from the Creed of the150 Fathers, which itself differs from the Creed of 325. And I gather , from your reply, that it was not the Creed itself that was amended. I am correct?
The addition of a VatI reference, on infallibility, after that Council, is understandable, given what Trent Session XXV required, and the Synod acted on, and which would be required to be updated, after VatI. The words you cite are found (mostly) in articles 10 and 12.

And my point is that it is the same Church, that Trent codified doctrine that had been evolving, and short cut other doctrine that I might have preferred to continue to evolve. But the history of the Church is one of fluidity and change. If some measure of error is incorporated, as de fide, it is still the Church (my RC friends will recall that I’m an Anglican). And not a different one.To take one instance, the issue of the Real Presence had been settled since Berengarius, not to say Ratramnus and Radbertus, though the understanding of it was not. Transubstantiation is as good an attempt of explaining how the wheels go around as might be found. To make it de fide, IMO is an error. But it is still the same Church, which made it, as which had settled the argument in favor of Radbertus’ position.

I have not read Moffat. But I have Moss’ CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, somewhere, lost at the moment, which is what I think you are referring to. Without it in front of me, I can’t confirm that, but I will take as another example what you are doing wrong with the words attributed to MaCulloch. He is not saying that the idea of the Roman Church suddenly appears post 1500, in Bohemia, and certainly not as being supported by the Hussite Church. He means that the Hussite Church was the first differentiation from the Catholic Church (divergence, in a sense the Lollards or Albegensians were not), which makes it useful to identify the original Church (of Rome) from this new thing, found in the bulk of Bohemia, save for some places still loyal to the Pope (i.e., the Church). That’s why I kept asking. It doesn’t say what you think. It says the opposite. Always assuming that we are looking at p. 37.

As to your eccelesiastical persuasion, I am still bringing it into focus. But, as you may know, I wasn’t asking that. I was asking about posting as “highchurchman”. You may discern why I ask.

Would you, for example, hold that Henry VIII was named as Supreme Head of the Church in England, under the Supreme Head Act of 1534, with the saving clause “as far as the Law of Christ allows”. Or that Elizabeth was Supreme Head at all, under the Act of Supremacy? I ask because I know of someone who apparently does, and he sounds a great deal like you.

As I said, I’ve read Trent. And lots of other things. Which I don’t mind discussing. Time and taxes permitting.

GKC
[/quote]

 

[defenderoftruth]

As an Anglican I can tell the first poster that REAL Anglicans (those that hold the true Anglican faith before it was corrupted) do not believe women should hold any position in the altar be it a “deacon” or “priest” or actually “acolyte”. We do not have homosexuals as priests or bishops and condemn homosexual acts as sinful. The so-called World Anglican Communion (Archbishop of Canterbury and the ECUSA combined) have ceased being Anglican a long time ago. (although there are some groups in Africa and other countries that sadly maintain communion with Canterbury) Canterbury/ECUSA are social activist wanna be “Christians” that forsake truth for what’s popular at the moment.

Yes I’m Traditional Anglican (Continuing Anglican) our church left the “world wide communion” when they were talking about ordaining women as priests back in the 70’s. As many can see Canterbury and ECUSA have gone greatly down hill from there…

Anglicans are Catholics without the Pope. Our services are high church and mirror pre-Vatican II liturgy minus the Latin (we are of English ancestry) and have both gifts (body and blood) in the Eucharist. Our priests dress the same and we have Gregorian Chant every Sunday and other Holy Days-again of course in English. We do use the 1928 Book of Common Prayer that is very Catholic in doctrine more Catholic than the 1662 actually. Roman Catholics are Catholics, Anglicans are both Anglican and Catholic ie Anglo-Catholics.

 

[GKC]

As an Anglican I can tell the first poster that REAL Anglicans (those that hold the true Anglican faith before it was corrupted) do not believe women should hold any position in the altar be it a “deacon” or “priest” or actually “acolyte”. We do not have homosexuals as priests or bishops and condemn homosexual acts as sinful. The so-called World Anglican Communion (Archbishop of Canterbury and the ECUSA combined) have ceased being Anglican a long time ago. (although there are some groups in Africa and other countries that sadly maintain communion with Canterbury and it’s heresies) Canterbury/ECUSA are social activist wanna be “Christians” that forsake truth for what’s popular at the moment.

Yes I’m Traditional Anglican (Continuing Anglican) our church left the “world wide communion” when they were talking about ordaining women as priests back in the 70’s. As many can see Canterbury and ECUSA have gone greatly down hill from there…

Anglicans are Catholics without the Pope. Our services are high church and mirror pre-Vatican II liturgy minus the Latin (we are of English ancestry) and have both gifts (body and blood) in the Eucharist. Our priests dress the same and we have Gregorian Chant every Sunday and other Holy Days-again of course in English. We do use the 1928 Book of Common Prayer that is very Catholic in doctrine more Catholic than the 1662 actually. Roman Catholics are Catholics, Anglicans are both Anglican and Catholic ie Anglo-Catholics.

You sound a good deal like me, Continuing Anglican and all. But do not be agitated if any here disagree with any points you make.

P.S. To use the Missal, in addition to the 28, is good, too. And remember that some orthodox Anglicans are still over on the reformed edge. It was ever thus.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Contarini]

I have never mentioned the Filioque!

I was trying to figure out what this “rubbish” might be. The addition of the Filioque was the last addition to the Nicene Creed I could think of. There were no additions made at Trent.

I was talking about the additions made to the Nice Creed at Trent!

There were none. The Nicene Creed as professed after Trent in the RCC was identical to the Nicene Creed used previously. You have been misinformed, or else you are confusing “further doctrinal definitions” with actual additions to the Nicene Creed. If you mean that Trent defined doctrinal matters not explicitly addressed by the Nicene Creed, then of course you are right. But you didn’t express yourself clearly. (I apologize if I’ve misunderstood you, but you still haven’t explained what the “rubbish” is, so I have to keep guessing!)

My point is that the Papacy, has no inherent power or authority of its own.

Does anyone or anything except God?

The Bishop of Rome has the authority of a Bishop, a descendant of the Apostles. Whatever authority accrues to a metropolitan and patriarch also lands on his doorstep. There is however no special authority that gives him jurisdiction or infallibility.

It does not seem to me that in the early Church the bishop of Rome was regarded as just another important bishop (the concepts of “metropolitan” and “patriarch” were relatively late). He seems quite early (see the Quartodeciman controversy) to have taken on some kind of responsibility for the orthodoxy of the Church as a whole. Vague and poorly defined, and perhaps no more than that of other important bishops, but it seems more likely to me that something more was going on even this early (2nd century).

All his authority in religion comes from the Church

No disagreement there.

and as S.Thomas More says {roughly} he’s subservient to the Councils.!

This was certainly a view promoted in the late Middle Ages. I have a certain fondness for it, but it does have problems. It’s not clear that in the early Church Councils were seen as representative assemblies in the way the late medieval conciliarists saw them.

For two or three hundred years the pope was a civil servant as far as I can see!

As usual, you fail to specify just what you are talking about. I’m really tired of guessing, but I’m unaware of any period in church history when the role of the pope could be described in quite such a reductionistic way.

There’s nothing in scripture or tradition to support these claims?

Too strong. The question is whether the support is adequate for the weighty nature of the claims. But there are Scriptural passages (Matt. 16; Luke 22:32), and a number of incidents and texts from the early Church, that do support Roman claims. There are reasons why learned and devout people accept these claims, just as there are reasons why learned and devout people reject them. The issues are not as clearcut as either you or your Roman counterparts like to claim.

Yet in pursuance of them, the Bishop of Rome has managed to become probably the greatest cause of schism or heresy in the Church! If, you and your friends wish to follow him, I wouldn’t interfere, but surely I have a duty as a Catholic priest to put the traditional and orthodox case?

You have a duty as a priest of the Catholic Church to be more precise in your language and more logical in your arguments, so as not to make the Anglican Communion an object of ridicule.

Do I think the Government ought to have authority over the Church in a given area?

I
I think that the Church should follow the Law of the Land, ,'as far as the Law of God allows." Then we should refuse it. I do not think that the Catholic Church is fit to rule politically, whether that Church is Roman or Anglican.

But that isn’t the question. The question is whether the state is fit to rule the Church: appoint bishops, etc., with no interference from the universal Church outside the frontiers of a given country.

The Papacy interfered in English Law

This is exhibit A for why we need a papacy. If we don’t have a Church capable of interfering with the laws of nations, then we don’t have a real Church. I am not talking about military and political force, and I agree with you entirely that the Church has desecrated her holy calling by using such methods. But the matter of principle remains: we are citizens first and foremost of the Holy Catholic Church, and the Church cannot allow itself to become an arm of the state, as happened in post-Reformation England and other places (even in Roman Catholic countries to a much greater degree than previously).

and was not against using Foreign Troops to gain their ends. I do not believe the papacy or the Roman Church has that right.

The Church shouldn’t be using troops, period.

 

[Contarini]

The Pope did back William The Butcher in 1066 and it was against the Church in England and as part of the papacies endevour to exalt the popes imagined authority.

I agree that the Pope’s backing of William was part of a greater assertion of Church authority over the civil rulers. As I said earlier, I think this was a tragic error. But from the Pope’s perspective, in this particular instance, he was upholding the sanctity of an oath which Harold had sworn on holy relics. Are you suggesting (totally apart from the question of whether this particular oath ought to have been upheld) that the Church should not try to hold political rulers accountable when they invoke the sacred things of the Christian faith to bind themselves? Try to understand the medieval approach a little instead of imposing your cynical modern ideology on the eleventh century.

Incidentally, according to English and Orthodox History, after Hastings thousands of English men and women emigrated to the Eastern Roman Empire. They refused Latin style clergy and received permission to bring in and use their own English/ Anglican Clergy and were allowed to build their own Churches!

I’m aware that English people emigrated to Constantinople and served as soldiers there. And one would expect that they would bring clergy of their own language and culture along with them. I would like to see documentation for the “refusal of Latin style clergy” in order to examine just what the rationale for that refusal might have been. I seriously doubt that it was because they imagined themselves to belong to some separate church.

But I have as far as I can and under these circumstances.

No, you haven’t. You have only spoken of peripheral matters. You haven’t even mentioned Gregory VII. You have made no case at all, except that the medieval papacy accepted some forgeries and used them to support its claims, and that it backed a ruler whom it believed to be the rightful heir to the English throne.

You tell me that you have read about Trent. Well and good! Did you ever look at Trent from the perspective of later medieval Europe.

Frequently. I was reading Jedin’s history of the Council of Trent during the spring of 1998, and used what I read there among other things to persuade myself to become Anglican rather than uniting with the Roman Communion. And I have frequently revisited these issues. I much prefer medieval Catholicism to the result of the “Catholic Reformation” (or its more radical Protestant counterparts), and that is one of the reasons I am not a member of the Roman Communion today.

Like some of the more ideological RC posters here, you seem to think that acceptance of a general line of argument commits one to acceptance of any wild and unfounded claim made in its defense.

Did you question what you read in conjunction with the past hundred years of struggle to bring the papacy under control?

Who was engaging in this struggle? Mostly the civil rulers, who eventually turned into the secular governments of Europe. Do you really like how that particular struggle turned out? Give me a tyrannical papacy over the tyranny of the modern state any day. But I don’t think we have to make this choice.

The history of medieval Western Christendom is not one of a struggle between papal “bad guys” and proto-Anglican/Gallican heroes. Medieval Christianity had multiple sources of authority and these sources were often in tension with each other. On the whole, I think this was healthy.

Or are you like your friend content with the dots and commas and satisfied that the pagination is in order.

In other words, we actually care about truth. Not just Truth with a capital T, which you and your Roman counterparts seem to think is all that matters (so that if you are defending Truth you don’t have to be very careful with the little truths of history), but the things that we can actually document about what happened in the past. Call us pedants, but that’s how we see things.

Did you ask yourself why,Thorndyke the Interregnum Theologian, who was thought to be pro Roman wrote that,“The Counter Reformation was not the mending of the old Church but the making of a New Church!”.

Did you ask yourself why being “thought to be pro Roman” is relevant in this context, given how easily that label was slapped on people for polemical reasons?

Or that John Evelyn, the Diarist wrote of the New Church of Trent and what he meant by it!

Of course I understand why this term was used by polemicists. That doesn’t justify it.

Why did the Church in France complain bitterly and loudly for two hundred or so years

Because it was largely dominated by the monarchy?

and why did the papacy sack the French Bishops at Napoleon’s behest?

That one I don’t know very much about, but I’m sure you can inform me

Edwin

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Defenderoftruth, I’m one of those that would take issue with some of what you write. Perhaps you can help me to understand your position a bit better? Much of what you write sounds like you’re very proud to be Anglican, and Continuing Anglican to boot. That’s great! It’s fine to be proud! But I would caution you that expressing that pride in ugly ways sometimes makes people wonder what really there is to be proud about. I would find it hard to believe that Continuing Anglicans define their faith in “us against all other pseudo-Anglican” terms. That seems a bit small-minded to me. It’s great as rhetoric, I suppose, but as a basis for faith, I don’t see its value. I’m not making an accusation, just an observation.

As an Anglican I can tell the first poster that REAL Anglicans (those that hold the true Anglican faith before it was corrupted) do not believe women should hold any position in the altar be it a “deacon” or “priest” or actually “acolyte”.

I’m assuming that the corruption of which you speak stems from the ordination of women? There was a time that I tried very hard to agree with the position against women’s ordination, but it always seemed (and continues to seem, to me) like a question of discipline and not of theology. Far fetched as it may seem, I always think of Bishop Mel’s ordination of St. Brigit as a bishop as an example, from tradition, of the fact that a woman as priest is not de facto foreign to the mind of the church. And I think the argument that a woman represents improper matter for the sacrament is not a particularly convincing argument. Saying that a woman qua woman cannot act in persona Christi seems like an argument that women are not fully human. Furthermore, to be denied a sacrament on the basis of a biological fact seems a bit absurd to me, almost suggesting that being a woman is a physical condition in which the effectual grace of the sacrament is impaired by biology. Since when does biology inhibit grace?

We do not have homosexuals as priests or bishops and condemn homosexual acts as sinful.

The first part of that sentence reminds me of Ahmadinejad’s claim that there are no homosexuals in Iran. Really? Perhaps you would be better off saying “active homosexuals”. Even then, however, such a categorical denial is not particularly convincing.

The so-called World Anglican Communion (Archbishop of Canterbury and the ECUSA combined) have ceased being Anglican a long time ago.

Given the number of Anglicanisms in the world defining what Anglicanism is and making their claim to Anglican heritage, how is making this denial (which you make in the quotation above) particularly useful or valid? It seems like you’re redefining what characterizes being an Anglican solely in in-group / out-group terms. Which does little for the veracity of your argument. That’s the brilliance of a term like “catholic”–it defies the us/them mentality, even despite efforts to the contrary.

Canterbury/ECUSA are social activist wanna be “Christians” that forsake truth for what’s popular at the moment.

I take issue with this statement, but do share your concern that too great a focus on social activism can obscure a focus on the sacrament. After all, it was the sacraments which led folks like Conrad Noel (the Red Vicar of Thaxted) to their activism and to the activism of many Anglo-Catholics. Just read how Bishop Frank Weston made his activist point in 1923: “You cannot claim to worship Jesus in the Tabernacle, if you do not pity Jesus in the slums. . . It is folly – it is madness – to suppose that you can worship Jesus in the Sacraments and Jesus on the throne of glory, when you are sweating him in the souls and bodies of his children.”

Anyway–just a few thoughts from one of your pseudo-Anglico-Catholic brethren.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

 

[GKC]

“That one I don’t know very much about, but I’m sure you can inform me.”

I’d guess it’s going to involve the Concordat and Gallicanism, at least. But I’ll wait and see.

GKC

 

[defenderoftruth]

Deo Volente,

I will not be responding to most of your post because it’s a “shame on you” post while trying to put YOUR church’s view out as somehow more “valid”.

I will however respond to the ordination of women thing. First off I am a woman (just so you don’t think this is a post by some “sexist” guy).

Anglo-Catholics rely on three things for doctrine: Scripture, Tradition, and Reason (the three legged stool)

With that said, we obviously aren’t Sola Scriptura (bible only) and don’t rely on the bible itself to tell us doctrine. So private interpetation is not the Anglican way.

Scripture tells us that women should not teach men in church or have authority over men in fact it says women should remain silent. (of course singing and responses in congregation are fine per Tradition). The church fathers ie Tradition were clear women were not to be priests and they even mentioned that some heretical sects did that and how inappropriate it was. So Reasonably you cannot say that it’s acceptable if you follow the Anglican formula of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. St. Brigid was a head of a convent of nuns she wasn’t a bishop.

I honestly don’t know how we can believe, teach, and accept the FACT women should not be priests and then all of a sudden in the 70’s decide “oh well this saint was a bishop” (not really) and we should just throw Scripture, almost 2000 years of Tradition, and Reason out the window to be “fair”.

We are all equal in the eyes of God but that doesn’t mean that we are all called to be priests. Men only-that’s what Scripture, Tradition, and Reason say. You can favor the more current train of thought to be “accepting” and “fair” but I’ll stick to what’s been taught.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

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

The Bishop of Rome and the Quarto-decimanism Controversy.

Victor sought to regularise the day on which Easter was kept. That was his privilige. When others,the Easterners, declined to follow him he excommunicated them.
Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus appears to have led the opposition to Victor . When the Bishop of Rome tried to excommunicate the Easterners according to commentators ,‘he drew on himself the censure of the Church." S.Irenaeus is especially mentioned as one of the ’ Bretheren’ of Gaul, who admonished Victor. Jerome also commented on Polycrates stand commenting on his, ‘ability and authority’.
Victor was rebuffed by most of the Church, even the western part.

**As usual, you fail to specify just what you are talking about. I’m really tired of guessing, but I’m unaware of any period in church history when the role of the pope could be described in quite such a reductionistic way.
**

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?)

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. 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.)

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, 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.
Archbishop Kenrick in a speech prepared for the Vatican Council. adopted this summary and wrote ,“From this it follows either that no argument at all, or only a very feeble one, can be drawn in proof of the primacy of Peter from the words,'on this rock will I build My Church…we should understand by the rock the faith professed by Peter and not Peter professing the faith.”
Even Gregory the Great said, " Establish your faith on the Rock of the Church, that is on the confession of Blessed Peter, prince of the apostles"

Precision of speech?

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! His instence on claiming jurisdiction and infallibility cause the severance of both the Orthodox and the Anglicns as well as various other groups. It isn’t Purgatory, or or any other other of the medieval ideas that have been floted or transubstantiation even. All these are disliked,but it is the popes claims to the above doctrines. In the Elizabethan age we hcould have his temporal claims added…

 

[GKC]

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

The Bishop of Rome and the Quarto-decimanism Controversy.

Victor sought to regularise the day on which Easter was kept. That was his privilige. When others,the Easterners, declined to follow him he excommunicated them.
Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus appears to have led the opposition to Victor . When the Bishop of Rome tried to excommunicate the Easterners according to commentators ,‘he drew on himself the censure of the Church." S.Irenaeus is especially mentioned as one of the ’ Bretheren’ of Gaul, who admonished Victor. Jerome also commented on Polycrates stand commenting on his, ‘ability and authority’.
Victor was rebuffed by most of the Church, even the western part.

**As usual, you fail to specify just what you are talking about. I’m really tired of guessing, but I’m unaware of any period in church history when the role of the pope could be described in quite such a reductionistic way.
**

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?)

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. 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.)

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, 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.
Archbishop Kenrick in a speech prepared for the Vatican Council. adopted this summary and wrote ,“From this it follows either that no argument at all, or only a very feeble one, can be drawn in proof of the primacy of Peter from the words,'on this rock will I build My Church…we should understand by the rock the faith professed by Peter and not Peter professing the faith.”
Even Gregory the Great said, " Establish your faith on the Rock of the Church, that is on the confession of Blessed Peter, prince of the apostles"

Precision of speech?

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! His instence on claiming jurisdiction and infallibility cause the severance of both the Orthodox and the Anglicns as well as various other groups. It isn’t Purgatory, or or any other other of the medieval ideas that have been floted or transubstantiation even. All these are disliked,but it is the popes claims to the above doctrines. In the Elizabethan age we hcould have his temporal claims added…

Yep. highchurchman.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Defenderoftruth, thank you for your response!

I will not be responding to most of your post because it’s a “shame on you” post while trying to put YOUR church’s view out as somehow more “valid”.

I apologize if it seemed like I was getting up on my high horse. I can be known to do that, and it’s not a particularly good character trait, nor is it a particularly charitable impulse. To be honest, though, I didn’t mean to say “shame on you” nor claim that my church’s view was more valid, but only ask, “is that really what and how you believe?” Often on these forums, rhetoric seems to warp an article of belief. That is not because the belief actually is warped, but because sometimes the passion with which a belief is held leads to infelicities of expression when that belief is stated with passion. I am not guiltless in this regard.

Anglo-Catholics rely on three things for doctrine: Scripture, Tradition, and Reason (the three legged stool)

I, too, am a fan of the three-legged stool.

Scripture tells us that women should not teach men in church or have authority over men in fact it says women should remain silent. (of course singing and responses in congregation are fine per Tradition). The church fathers ie Tradition were clear women were not to be priests and they even mentioned that some heretical sects did that and how inappropriate it was. So Reasonably you cannot say that it’s acceptable if you follow the Anglican formula of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

Again, being against women’s ordination makes more sense to me as a matter of discipline rather than theology–just as the celibate priesthood is a matter of discipline, not theology. The arguments against women’s ordination from a theological or sacramental perspective seem to say a lot of things about women that simply do not make sense to me and therefore appear contrary to reason and to conscience. I can understand how they would have made sense to the Fathers of the Church given their understanding of gender and gender roles. But an understanding of gender and gender roles seems to reflect a socio-cultural reality, not a strictly theological one.

Re: Paul and the role of women–there is a scholarly case that the lines in question are interpolations from a later hand. Given that Paul is the one who said that in Christ there is no Jew or gentile, male or female, I do not know how strong, really, the case from scripture against women’s ordination ultimately turns out to be.

(By the way, I do not think you’re a horrible person for being against women’s ordination. Nor do I believe that Continuing Anglicans are not Anglican, or that they do not represent a valid and catholic expression of the Christian faith!)

St. Brigid was a head of a convent of nuns she wasn’t a bishop.

Aboslutely correct. 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.

I honestly don’t know how we can believe, teach, and accept the FACT women should not be priests and then all of a sudden in the 70’s decide “oh well this saint was a bishop” (not really) and we should just throw Scripture, almost 2000 years of Tradition, and Reason out the window to be “fair”.

I don’t think it’s a fairness issue. I think it just requires seeing ideas through to their conclusions. Ideas have consequences–not least theological ideas! If we believe that women cannot be ordained because women are improper matter for the sacrament (which seems to be the most common argument), my question is–what, then, are we saying about women and their relationship to grace?

We are all equal in the eyes of God but that doesn’t mean that we are all called to be priests.

Agreed! Fortunately for the world, I am not called to be a priest!

Thank you again, defenderoftruth!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

 

[GKC]

"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.

GKC

 

[luckyfredsdad]

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.