Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wimom3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GKC said:
luckyfredsdad;4956571:
If I hadn’t bothered to look at the reference (MacCulloch), how would I know it’s from p. 37 (in my copy of the American edtion, 1st/1st). Silly, that.

And I not only know what the point was, I gave you the context, way above. It’s not saying what you think it does. And doesn’t use those words. Go and read. It’s in the 2nd paragraph on the page, though you will need to read the previous page, also. Pay especial attention to the sentence beginning “It may at first sight…” Good luck.

GKC
Click to expand...
**Are you calling the Bishop of London a fool or a liar? Or is it that you are one of these Neo Anglicans who have no confidence in the traditional Anglican Church? **
Click to expand...
 
luckyfredsdad said:
GKC;4956676:
**Are you calling the Bishop of London a fool or a liar? Or is it that you are one of these Neo Anglicans who have no confidence in the traditional Anglican Church? **
Click to expand...
In this context, I’m saying you have no idea what MacCulloch said, nor why it couldn’t be what you maintain it was. Which it isn’t.

I have no opinion as to His Grace’s characteristics. Though I possibly could form a limited one.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
GKC said:
luckyfredsdad;4956975:
In this context, I’m saying you have no idea what MacCulloch said, nor why it couldn’t be what you maintain it was. Which it isn’t.

I have no opinion as to His Grace’s characteristics. Though I possibly could form a limited one.

GKC
Click to expand...
I think that you should just declare your allegiance to Rome and get it over with.
Click to expand...
 
ICA04 said:
The churches and cathedrals you are referring to were England’s all along regardless of what the papal proclamations were. It wasn’t theft in the least. Rome owns what is in Rome, but not in England nor any other place regardless.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. It was Church property and was always recognized as such; and the Church was never under the authority of the Crown. Henry’s pillaging and decimation of the monasteries and Cathedrals is as vile and inexcusable as the other iconoclastic destructions propagated on the Continent by the more militant reformers or later by the French revolutionaries.

Go visit some of those ruins sometime. Heck, visit Canterbury and see what happened to St. Thomas Becket after Hank took over.
 
chris_molter said:
Wrong again. It was Church property and was always recognized as such; and the Church was never under the authority of the Crown. Henry’s pillaging and decimation of the monasteries and Cathedrals is as vile and inexcusable as the other iconoclastic destructions propagated on the Continent by the more militant reformers or later by the French revolutionaries.

Go visit some of those ruins sometime. Heck, visit Canterbury and see what happened to St. Thomas Becket after Hank took over.
Click to expand...
Hank took the jewels.

GKC
 
tomarin said:
A hit. A palpable hit. 🙂
Click to expand...
**

or a smooth answer ? **

He certainly knows the page no and other incidentals but is besotted with them!, but as he writes on this board he lacks any feel for Anglicanism, or the 16th, 17th, Cent. At least in my opinion. He might know history but does he understand it.
 
luckyfredsdad said:
**

or a smooth answer ? **

He certainly knows the page no and other incidentals but is besotted with them!, but as he writes on this board he lacks any feel for Anglicanism, or the 16th, 17th, Cent. At least in my opinion. He might know history but does he understand it.
Click to expand...
Both.

And at no place on this board, or anywhere else have I said anything resembling that I lack a feel for Anglicanism, or for the 16th and 17th century. The 16th, in particular, has been a hobby area of mine for around 10 years. Doesn’t equal my 45 years of studying Chesterton, but sufficient, all the same.

As to the last, yes, IMO. Knowing it is certainly a pre-requisite to understanding it. I do both.

GKC
 
chris_molter said:
Wrong again. It was Church property and was always recognized as such; and the Church was never under the authority of the Crown. Henry’s pillaging and decimation of the monasteries and Cathedrals is as vile and inexcusable as the other iconoclastic destructions propagated on the Continent by the more militant reformers or later by the French revolutionaries.

Go visit some of those ruins sometime. Heck, visit Canterbury and see what happened to St. Thomas Becket after Hank took over.
Click to expand...
**That the depoilation of the Church was a crime, I agree ! Henry and all the later Tudors were at it, as it were.

They were however no diffeent rom the Continental Monarchs, both France and the Austrian, despoiled the Convents. As for the pope his use of money is the stuff of legends,
“Can you show me in this great City of Rome anyone who would receive you as pope if they had not received gold or Silver for it?” [S.Bernard.]

“The entire world knows how profitable this fable of Christ has been to us and ours.”
Leo X.[1513 / 1521.]

One can see quite clearly,one way or another,it isn’t only the English Monarchy who were ,‘at it!.’
**
 
luckyfredsdad said:
**That the depoilation of the Church was a crime, I agree ! Henry and all the later Tudors were at it, as it were.

They were however no diffeent rom the Continental Monarchs, both France and the Austrian, despoiled the Convents. As for the pope his use of money is the stuff of legends,
“Can you show me in this great City of Rome anyone who would receive you as pope if they had not received gold or Silver for it?” [S.Bernard.]

“The entire world knows how profitable this fable of Christ has been to us and ours.”
Leo X.[1513 / 1521.]

One can see quite clearly,one way or another,it isn’t only the English Monarchy who were ,‘at it!.’
**
Click to expand...
Let’s not forget the Scandinavian countries, Germany, and Switzerland.
 
chris_molter said:
Wrong again. It was Church property and was always recognized as such; and the Church was never under the authority of the Crown. Henry’s pillaging and decimation of the monasteries and Cathedrals is as vile and inexcusable as the other iconoclastic destructions propagated on the Continent by the more militant reformers or later by the French revolutionaries.

Go visit some of those ruins sometime. Heck, visit Canterbury and see what happened to St. Thomas Becket after Hank took over.
Click to expand...
Blah Blah Blah. Go eat cake!
 
luckyfredsdad said:
**That the depoilation of the Church was a crime, I agree ! Henry and all the later Tudors were at it, as it were.

They were however no diffeent rom the Continental Monarchs, both France and the Austrian, despoiled the Convents. As for the pope his use of money is the stuff of legends,
“Can you show me in this great City of Rome anyone who would receive you as pope if they had not received gold or Silver for it?” [S.Bernard.]

“The entire world knows how profitable this fable of Christ has been to us and ours.”
Leo X.[1513 / 1521.]

One can see quite clearly,one way or another,it isn’t only the English Monarchy who were ,‘at it!.’
**
Click to expand...
I did include the Continental Reformers in my post. As for the Pope, when he misused Church funds, it would be similar to a seneschal misusing the Crown’s funds. When a King forcibly takes property from the Church, that’s despoiling and theft. Not to mention sacrilege.

BTW, that Leo quote is very likely ficticious, being invented by an anti-Catholic playwright named John Bale. Using it is equivalent to using the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as evidence against the Jews.
 
luckyfredsdad said:
**

or a smooth answer ? **

He certainly knows the page no and other incidentals but is besotted with them!, but as he writes on this board he lacks any feel for Anglicanism, or the 16th, 17th, Cent. At least in my opinion. He might know history but does he understand it.
Click to expand...
In other words, those of us who don’t buy into your ahistorical ideology don’t really “understand” history.

This won’t work. Those of us who care about historical accuracy have been hearing those sorts of accusations on this board from Catholic propagandists for years (at least I do–they generally know better than to tangle with GKC, and if they don’t he disarms them quickly by his genial manner, while I get mad and rile them further). It doesn’t mean anything. You are using this rhetoric of “understanding history” as a smokescreen to cover up the fact that you can’t defend your views historically.

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top