Why do protestants name their churches after Saints?

[mercygate]

Of course! How could I ignore this!

Just as we know that medieval English Catholicism was basically independent of Rome, except for the occasional wicked attempt by the Pope to exert hegemony. . . .

(NOTE: in case anyone is missing this, mercygate and I are satirizing some of the sillier Anglican attitudes.)

Edwin

. . . like that the English are scions of the 10 not-lost Tribes of Israel.

 

[Contarini]

Thank you for all the informative responses. I have learned a lot. I never made the connection that the Saints used are those from the Bible. That makes sense since protestants believe in scripture alone.
But there is an Anglican church in New York named St Ingatius of Antioch? How can an early church father and a doctor of the Catholic Church be honored and used in the name of a protestant church?

Because you do not understand Protestantism, particularly Anglicanism. Many Protestants honor the Church Fathers, and this is particularly true of Anglicanism. In fact, many Anglicans (such as the parish mercygate used to belong to) would not consider themselves Protestant at all, although this is a relatively recent development (19th century, but with some roots going back to the 17th).

St Ignatius wrote and preached that we receive the flesh and blood of Christ (not just a symbol) during communion. But that’s something protestants, including Anglicans, protested when breaking away from the church.

You are wrong. Anglicans never protested the idea that the Eucharist is more than just a symbol. In fact, most 16th-century Protestants rejected the idea that the sacraments were “bare signs”–it’s a view that you find one Protestant group ascribing to another, but almost never find Protestants actually embracing in the 16th century. (Zwingli came closest, but it can be argued that even he didn’t quite hold this.)

If you read the 39 Articles, which express the Protestant heritage of Anglicanism, you will find that they explicitly teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are received by believers in the Eucharist, albeit in a “heavenly and spiritual manner.” This is, in my opinion, fully compatible with what St. Ignatius says.

Furthermore, as I noted above, Anglicanism has changed quite a bit since the Reformation, and many/most Anglicans have moved in a much more Catholic direction. Generally it is the more Catholic Anglicans who name churches after non-Biblical saints.

I urge you to replace broad stereotypes with close observation of what Protestants actually believe and do. You may be pleasantly surprised.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[lak611]

I don’t know about the Lutherans, but until recently the Episcopalians recognized all the saints the pre-dated the Reformation. So they named Churches after whomever they pleased. My own parish was “St. Anthony of Padua.”

Nowadays, their calendar is littered with other names that they venerate: John Donne, Martin Luther King, et al.

The Anglicans also recognized St. Thomas More.

 

[mgrfin]

Because you do not understand Protestantism, particularly Anglicanism. Many Protestants honor the Church Fathers, and this is particularly true of Anglicanism. In fact, many Anglicans (such as the parish mercygate used to belong to) would not consider themselves Protestant at all, although this is a relatively recent development (19th century, but with some roots going back to the 17th).

You are wrong. Anglicans never protested the idea that the Eucharist is more than just a symbol. In fact, most 16th-century Protestants rejected the idea that the sacraments were “bare signs”–it’s a view that you find one Protestant group ascribing to another, but almost never find Protestants actually embracing in the 16th century. (Zwingli came closest, but it can be argued that even he didn’t quite hold this.)

If you read the 39 Articles, which express the Protestant heritage of Anglicanism, you will find that they explicitly teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are received by believers in the Eucharist, albeit in a “heavenly and spiritual manner.” This is, in my opinion, fully compatible with what St. Ignatius says.

Furthermore, as I noted above, Anglicanism has changed quite a bit since the Reformation, and many/most Anglicans have moved in a much more Catholic direction. Generally it is the more Catholic Anglicans who name churches after non-Biblical saints.

I urge you to replace broad stereotypes with close observation of what Protestants actually believe and do. You may be pleasantly surprised.
In Christ,
Edwin

I know, Edwin, that you enjoy telling Catholics that we don’t understand Protestantism, or Anglicanism, or Evangelicanism, or Methodism as it is currently practiced.

If you really believed it yourself, you should explain what really separates us, and what has to be done to unite us.

St Ignatius never believed in the Eucharist as any Protestant group believes. He believed in the Real Presence, as Catholics believe. That goes for Ignatius of Antioch as well as Ignatius of Loyola.

Pre-Anglican church saints would never accept what the 16th century English church did. It is wrong to take these saints to yourself.

I guess what we should be surprised about is that Protestant churches, regardless of how much they mirror the Roman Catholic Churches, are just “ecclesial communities”, at best, and are not members of the Mystical Body of Christ. We are not ‘pleasantly surprised’ to say 'Anglicans believe as we do”.

There exists a single Church of Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Catholic faithful are not permitted to imagine that the “Church of Christ” is nothing more than a collection of divided Churches and ecclesial communities.

The current ‘closeness’ of Anglicanism does not account for the historical complete break with the RCC, that put the Anglican church, not just into apostasy, but heresy. We have to be on guard against that old falsehood, “One church is as good as another”. Or, ‘we are almost the same as you.” So, if one Anglican community believes exactly what Roman Catholics believe, excepting of course, the Primacy of Peter, it does not make them ‘the same’ as we.

There is one single Catholic and apostolic Church, and that is the Roman Catholic Church. There is one Body, and one Head. The Church has reminded the Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church, which does not exist outside the RCC. That historical continuity does not exist in the Anglican, or English, Episcopalian church.

As for Anglicans, they have no valid Orders, and no valid Eucharist. I know what they believe and profess does not jibe with this, but we have to go to the recent official statement of the Catholic Church, Dominus Jesus.

If Anglicans want to be part of the Catholic Church, please come and join us to resolve this break with Christ’s Body, which they have initiated. So that the Canon of the Mass may be true for you: “Communicantes et memoriam venerantes…et omnium Sanctorum tuorum; concedas, in omnibus protectionis tuae muniamur auxilio.”

Credo…in unam, sanctam, catholicam, et apostolicam Ecclesiam…

peace

 

[BrewMax]

I’ve only lived in Ohio and Arizona, and just a few years ago I moved to Texas. I am baffled at how many protestant churches around here have Saints in their church names. Examples:
Saint Paul United Methodist Church
Saint Stephan United Methodist Church
San Jacinto Assembly of God
When I lived in Arizona a non-demoninational protestant asked me why Catholics worship Saints. Aah! I said, “we do not worship Saints!” and explained we honor them as they’ve lived exemplory and holy lives and we can ask them to pray for us just as we can ask any other person to pray for us. Now I live in Texas and protestants use saint names everywhere. The Catholic Church is the one who canonizes saints, not protestants. Why do protestants name their churches after Saints?

I think you are mistaken in your knowledge of Protestant churches. Anglicans recognize those who have died or have attested their lives especially in dire circumstances to Christ as saints. Why should they not have the right to name their churches after saints?

 

[GKC]

“St Ignatius never believed in the Eucharist as any Protestant group believes. He believed in the Real Presence, as Catholics believe. That goes for Ignatius of Antioch as well as Ignatius of Loyola”

Goes for lots of Anglo-Catholics, too. You know, Trent, Session XIII, Canon 1, etc.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Singinbeauty]

Considering the bible even states that ALL christians are saints, why would it be surprising that protestants would use saint’s names to title their churchs? We don’t deny that saints exist.

 

[mgrfin]

“St Ignatius never believed in the Eucharist as any Protestant group believes. He believed in the Real Presence, as Catholics believe. That goes for Ignatius of Antioch as well as Ignatius of Loyola”

Goes for lots of Anglo-Catholics, too. You know, Trent, Session XIII, Canon 1, etc.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

Please Gilbert,

You tell us only part of the story of the Council of Trent, Session XIII: Chapter 1 eventually leads to Chapter 3, i.e. Transsubstantiation, which Anglicans do not accept, if I read the 39 Articles correctly.

You don’t worship or adore Christ in the Eucharist. Roman Catholics do.

Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer denied the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence.

Anglicans are far off from where the Catholic Church is on this vital issue.

Add to that, the denial of the Sacraments, excepting baptism. We don’t believe Anglican acceptance of the Eucharist is anything like ours - what you believe is not the Eucharist.

No, you don’t believe what Ignatius of Antioch or Ignatius of Loyola believed regarding the Eucharist. (I am sure Protestants will honor Ignatius of Antioch for historical reasons, but certainly not Ignatius of Loyola, many of whose followers were put to death by the English revisionists).

peace

 

[mgrfin]

The Anglicans also recognized St. Thomas More.

We are going to have to copyright our saints’ names so they can’t ‘borrow’ them.

peace

 

[mercygate]

I know, Edwin, that you enjoy telling Catholics that we don’t understand Protestantism, or Anglicanism, or Evangelicanism, or Methodism as it is currently practiced.

If you really believed it yourself, you should explain what really separates us, and what has to be done to unite us.

St Ignatius never believed in the Eucharist as any Protestant group believes. He believed in the Real Presence, as Catholics believe. That goes for Ignatius of Antioch as well as Ignatius of Loyola.

Pre-Anglican church saints would never accept what the 16th century English church did. It is wrong to take these saints to yourself.

I guess what we should be surprised about is that Protestant churches, regardless of how much they mirror the Roman Catholic Churches, are just “ecclesial communities”, at best, and are not members of the Mystical Body of Christ. We are not ‘pleasantly surprised’ to say 'Anglicans believe as we do”.

There exists a single Church of Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Catholic faithful are not permitted to imagine that the “Church of Christ” is nothing more than a collection of divided Churches and ecclesial communities.

The current ‘closeness’ of Anglicanism does not account for the historical complete break with the RCC, that put the Anglican church, not just into apostasy, but heresy. We have to be on guard against that old falsehood, “One church is as good as another”. Or, ‘we are almost the same as you.” So, if one Anglican community believes exactly what Roman Catholics believe, excepting of course, the Primacy of Peter, it does not make them ‘the same’ as we.

There is one single Catholic and apostolic Church, and that is the Roman Catholic Church. There is one Body, and one Head. The Church has reminded the Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church, which does not exist outside the RCC. That historical continuity does not exist in the Anglican, or English, Episcopalian church.

As for Anglicans, they have no valid Orders, and no valid Eucharist. I know what they believe and profess does not jibe with this, but we have to go to the recent official statement of the Catholic Church, Dominus Jesus.

If Anglicans want to be part of the Catholic Church, please come and join us to resolve this break with Christ’s Body, which they have initiated. So that the Canon of the Mass may be true for you: “Communicantes et memoriam venerantes…et omnium Sanctorum tuorum; concedas, in omnibus protectionis tuae muniamur auxilio.”

Credo…in unam, sanctam, catholicam, et apostolicam Ecclesiam…

peace

The Saints are not the personal, private property of the Catholic Church, they lived for Jesus Christ, and yes: for His Church, but for the whole world.

Those non-Catholics who recognize the merits of the Saints and honor their holy lives are to that degree “on our side” and this kind of carping only exacerbates the split. This kind of Mine! Mine! Mine! attitude is extremely offputting to those who already have problems with the REAL difficulties posed by the human defects so broadly evident everywhere in Church.

As for Saints that can unite Anglicans and Catholics, how about Charles Lwanga and companians – the Martyrs of Uganda? Many were Anglican. They all perished in the flames together for the Name of Jesus Christ.

 

[mercygate]

Considering the bible even states that ALL christians are saints, why would it be surprising that protestants would use saint’s names to title their churchs? We don’t deny that saints exist.

True enough, Singinbeauty, but as you know, many Protestants believe that it is impossible to know for certain that any of our holy forbears remained a saint after he died.

 

[mercygate]

Please Gilbert,

You tell us only part of the story of the Council of Trent, Session XIII: Chapter 1 eventually leads to Chapter 3, i.e. Transsubstantiation, which Anglicans do not accept, if I read the 39 Articles correctly.

You don’t worship or adore Christ in the Eucharist. Roman Catholics do.

Many Anglicans DO believe in Transubstantiation, and DO have Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. The Society of St. Margaret was founded on devotion to the Passion of Our Lord and Adoration was part of their charism.

Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer denied the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence.

Anglicans are far off from where the Catholic Church is on this vital issue.

Many have recovered that aspect of the faith. The 39 Articles are no longer binding. Also, the work of Newman et al, in the early 19th Century enabled many to “read” the articles in a way that could be compatible with Apostolic teaching.

Add to that, the denial of the Sacraments, excepting baptism. We don’t believe Anglican acceptance of the Eucharist is anything like ours - what you believe is not the Eucharist.

No, you don’t believe what Ignatius of Antioch or Ignatius of Loyola believed regarding the Eucharist. (I am sure Protestants will honor Ignatius of Antioch for historical reasons, but certainly not Ignatius of Loyola, many of whose followers were put to death by the English revisionists).

peace

Your post is a mix of history and non history. The Oxford Movement in the early 19th Century restored much Catholic theology to a great portion of Anglicanism.

I was trained in Seminary for the Episcopal priesthood. I can honestly say that the faith I knew, practiced and loved as an Anglican was in every way, the Catholic faith, even to acknowledging that the Pope is the true head of the Church on earth. My quibble was with the discipline of obedience to Rome, and with the necessity of accepting the last 2 Marian dogmas on an equal footing with the doctrines of the Creed.

My life, my practice (Mass attendance, observation of Holy Days, prayer, fasting, devotion, not contracepting, were “more” Catholic than the lives of most of the Catholics I meet in my Catholic Church.

Your view of THIS kind of Anglicanism casts stones at something you may never have encountered, but, I assure you, exists very strongly. It is THESE Anglicans who are marching beside you in January at the pro-life march, who are standing with you at abortion mills, praying the Rosary beside you.

 

[GKC]

Please Gilbert,

You tell us only part of the story of the Council of Trent, Session XIII: Chapter 1 eventually leads to Chapter 3, i.e. Transsubstantiation, which Anglicans do not accept, if I read the 39 Articles correctly.

You don’t worship or adore Christ in the Eucharist. Roman Catholics do.

Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer denied the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence.

Anglicans are far off from where the Catholic Church is on this vital issue.

Add to that, the denial of the Sacraments, excepting baptism. We don’t believe Anglican acceptance of the Eucharist is anything like ours - what you believe is not the Eucharist.

No, you don’t believe what Ignatius of Antioch or Ignatius of Loyola believed regarding the Eucharist. (I am sure Protestants will honor Ignatius of Antioch for historical reasons, but certainly not Ignatius of Loyola, many of whose followers were put to death by the English revisionists).

peace

As I think Contarini has told you, you don’t know much about Anglicans. (and it’s Canon 2, not Chapter 3, of Trent, Session XIII, that references transubstantiation).

As I often have to tell folks, the Articles are meaningless to most Anglicans, unless they happen to affirm some particular ones, personally (you affirm many of them yourself, I’d warrant). They are not binding on any Anglican save the ordinands of the CoE (which requirement is ignored), and one Anglican jurisidiction in Africa (since about 2 years ago).

That is to say, as I have said so many times, when you generalize about Anglicans, you most often will err. Anglo-Catholics most certainly will be found, worshipping and adoring the Real Presence in the consecrated elements. I myself have assisted in Benediction and Adoration of the Blessed Body (we were short of trained acolytes that day). It’s why no one save someone in holy orders is permitted to touch or distribute the elements, after consecration (no EEMs in our parish), why we have a piscina, which connects to consecrated ground, why the unconsumed Body and Blood are consumed after Mass, though the Body is reserved in the Tabernacle (centered on the altar), where the sanctuary lamp shows the Lord is in His house, and is referenced, with genuflections and and bowing, whenever one approaches or crosses before the altar. That is to say, because we know the consecrated elements, the Body and Blood, are truly, really and substantially the soul and divinity, the whole of Christ, worthy of worship and adoration. Which might sound familiar.

While we don’t worship Cranmer, or genuflect to his personal doctrines, which part of which of his Prayer Books are you referring to?

Anglo-Catholics, and many other flavors of Anglicans, affirm all 7 sacraments. What we believe about the Eucharist is what you believe about the Eucharist.

When I first posted anything, anywhere, maybe 8 years ago, it was to correct some errors about the relationship between Anglicans in general, and the British monarchy. I discovered that explaining details and varieties of Anglicanism was a full time job. It still is. I soldier on.

Pax.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[GKC]

Many Anglicans DO believe in Transubstantiation, and DO have Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. The Society of St. Margaret was founded on devotion to the Passion of Our Lord and Adoration was part of their charism.

Many have recovered that aspect of the faith. The 39 Articles are no longer binding. Also, the work of Newman et al, in the early 19th Century enabled many to “read” the articles in a way that could be compatible with Apostolic teaching.

Your post is a mix of history and non history. The Oxford Movement in the early 19th Century restored much Catholic theology to a great portion of Anglicanism.

I was trained in Seminary for the Episcopal priesthood. I can honestly say that the faith I knew, practiced and loved as an Anglican was in every way, the Catholic faith, even to acknowledging that the Pope is the true head of the Church on earth. My quibble was with the discipline of obedience to Rome, and with the necessity of accepting the last 2 Marian dogmas on an equal footing with the doctrines of the Creed.

My life, my practice (Mass attendance, observation of Holy Days, prayer, fasting, devotion, not contracepting, were “more” Catholic than the lives of most of the Catholics I meet in my Catholic Church.

Your view of THIS kind of Anglicanism casts stones at something you may never have encountered, but, I assure you, exists very strongly. It is THESE Anglicans who are marching beside you in January at the pro-life march, who are standing with you at abortion mills, praying the Rosary beside you.

Mercygate,

You posted as I was typing. Thank you.

And this gives me the chance to add that His Holiness was remembered at our Mass yesterday.

GKC

 

[Jennifer_G]

there is a st. martin lutheran church near me.
did the lutheran’s canonize martin luther?

Yes, Lutherans consider Martin Luther a saint. He’s listed in their hymn booklet as one of the saints. (Ironically, a few popes are listed, but are called “Bishop of Rome”, including Pope John XXIII.) Protestants (at least Lutherans) name their churches after the apostles, or one of the early martyrs like St. Stephen, save for the occasional “St. Mary’s Lutheran Church”.

 

[mgrfin]

As I think Contarini has told you, you don’t know much about Anglicans. (and it’s Canon 2, not Chapter 3, of Trent, Session XIII, that references transubstantiation).

As I often have to tell folks, the Articles are meaningless to most Anglicans, unless they happen to affirm some particular ones, personally (you affirm many of them yourself, I’d warrant). They are not binding on any Anglican save the ordinands of the CoE (which requirement is ignored), and one Anglican jurisidiction in Africa (since about 2 years ago).

That is to say, as I have said so many times, when you generalize about Anglicans, you most often will err. Anglo-Catholics most certainly will be found, worshipping and adoring the Real Presence in the consecrated elements. I myself have assisted in Benediction and Adoration of the Blessed Body (we were short of trained acolytes that day). It’s why no one save someone in holy orders is permitted to touch or distribute the elements, after consecration (no EEMs in our parish), why we have a piscina, which connects to consecrated ground, why the unconsumed Body and Blood are consumed after Mass, though the Body is reserved in the Tabernacle (centered on the altar), where the sanctuary lamp shows the Lord is in His house, and is referenced, with genuflections and and bowing, whenever one approaches or crosses before the altar. That is to say, because we know the consecrated elements, the Body and Blood, are truly, really and substantially the soul and divinity, the whole of Christ, worthy of worship and adoration. Which might sound familiar.

While we don’t worship Cranmer, or genuflect to his personal doctrines, which part of which of his Prayer Books are you referring to?

Anglo-Catholics, and many other flavors of Anglicans, affirm all 7 sacraments. What we believe about the Eucharist is what you believe about the Eucharist.

When I first posted anything, anywhere, maybe 8 years ago, it was to correct some errors about the relationship between Anglicans in general, and the British monarchy. I discovered that explaining details and varieties of Anglicanism was a full time job. It still is. I soldier on.

Pax.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

I stand corrected, but it is Chapter 4 and Canon 2. My memory fails me at times.

So what you are telling us there are Anglicans out there who are the same as Roman Catholics, in worship, belief and practice.

Yet we still have this division. You are still outside this Mystical Body of Christ, and your priesthood is still invalid, so your eucharist is not the Eucharist.

You accept ‘female’ and gay priests, and homosexuality as an accepted lifestyle. (Although you will affirm that only part of this is true). As with everything else, it is only partially true. Partial truth is not truth. To be partially false, is to be false.

What you are arguing for is what the Holy See is arguing against. Pick a fight with Benedict, not with me. He still thinks you are outside the Mystical Body of Christ, that you are not a real Church, or Christian community. And it’s his ‘opinion’ that counts.

It would be nice if when we ‘google’ “What Anglicans believe” we could get this distinction that you make, that the 39 Articles are not accepted anymore, nor Cranmer and his Book of Common Prayer.

You blame us for your poor PR job. I don’t think that is fair. The blame is yours.

And, it is about time to straighten out this disunity thing, instead of telling us what we don’t know, that you are the same as us. I can’t accept that until you say “Adsum”.

peace

 

[mercygate]

I stand corrected, but it is Chapter 4 and Canon 2. My memory fails me at times.

So what you are telling us there are Anglicans out there who are the same as Roman Catholics, in worship, belief and practice.

Absolutely: a relatively small, but strong, minority.

Yet we still have this division. You are still outside this Mystical Body of Christ, and your priesthood is still invalid, so your eucharist is not the Eucharist.

It can hardly be said that they are “outside the mystical Body of Christ” since they have perfectly valid Baptsm. As for the Eucharist, this gets a little grey. Ever since the promulgation of Apostolicae curae in 1896, certain branches of Anglicanism have sought to invigorate their Apostolic lines by having episcopal consecrations joined by unquestionably “valid” (although illicitly ordained) bishops from groups whose Apostolic Succession is not in doubt: Old Catholics, Polish National Catholics, certain Orthodox lines. At least two Anglican men have been ordained in the Catholic Church “sub conditione” rather than de novo because there was sufficient grounds to accept the possible validity of their orders (as both GKC and Contarini will gladly affirm. IOW: in many cases, the Eucharist is, indeed, truly the Eucharist in Anglican settings.

You accept ‘female’ and gay priests, and homosexuality as an accepted lifestyle. (Although you will affirm that only part of this is true). As with everything else, it is only partially true. Partial truth is not truth. To be partially false, is to be false.

Tut, tut. Many of the Anglicans who hold to Catholic doctrine have sought episcopal jurisdiction outside those Anglican churches that have adopted these novelties. The strongly orthodox Bishops of Uganda have embraced several of them.

What you are arguing for is what the Holy See is arguing against. Pick a fight with Benedict, not with me. He still thinks you are outside the Mystical Body of Christ, that you are not a real Church, or Christian community. And it’s his ‘opinion’ that counts.

My “opinion” is that you do not know what Benedict has said, or you would not say stuff like THIS. As a CATHOLIC, I find your posturing to be insolent and absurd.

It would be nice if when we ‘google’ “What Anglicans believe” we could get this distinction that you make, that the 39 Articles are not accepted anymore, nor Cranmer and his Book of Common Prayer.

You blame us for your poor PR job. I don’t think that is fair. The blame is yours.

Google is your best shot? Gimme a break.

And, it is about time to straighten out this disunity thing, instead of telling us what we don’t know, that you are the same as us. I can’t accept that until you say “Adsum”.

peace

I’m glad that the Anglicans who have been agonizing over their conversion to the Church for the last 160 years have not had you standing at the door to meet them. Many of these people have been manfully fighting against all of the things that have corrupted the Anglican Communion over the past 50 years, and have poured out their life’s energy for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You do them a horrific disservice by your malicious and detractive characterization.

 

[mgrfin]

Many Anglicans DO believe in Transubstantiation, and DO have Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. The Society of St. Margaret was founded on devotion to the Passion of Our Lord and Adoration was part of their charism.

Many have recovered that aspect of the faith. The 39 Articles are no longer binding. Also, the work of Newman et al, in the early 19th Century enabled many to “read” the articles in a way that could be compatible with Apostolic teaching.

Your post is a mix of history and non history. The Oxford Movement in the early 19th Century restored much Catholic theology to a great portion of Anglicanism.

I was trained in Seminary for the Episcopal priesthood. I can honestly say that the faith I knew, practiced and loved as an Anglican was in every way, the Catholic faith, even to acknowledging that the Pope is the true head of the Church on earth. My quibble was with the discipline of obedience to Rome, and with the necessity of accepting the last 2 Marian dogmas on an equal footing with the doctrines of the Creed.

My life, my practice (Mass attendance, observation of Holy Days, prayer, fasting, devotion, not contracepting, were “more” Catholic than the lives of most of the Catholics I meet in my Catholic Church.

Your view of THIS kind of Anglicanism casts stones at something you may never have encountered, but, I assure you, exists very strongly. It is THESE Anglicans who are marching beside you in January at the pro-life march, who are standing with you at abortion mills, praying the Rosary beside you.

Thank you, Mercygate, for your insights.

So, what you are saying is that the obstacles for you, and for others, were two Marian doctrines, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption? If that be the case, I take back opinions I have held, but more urgently ask, 'is that all there is?"

We are talking nonesense then. Both of the dogmas are reasonable. Mary was free of sin, according to what the Angel said; and after her death, she was taken up into heaven. Pretty simple, and understandable.

There should be a great rush for the Tiber if that is all there is.

thanks,
peace

 

[mercygate]

Thank you, Mercygate, for your insights.

So, what you are saying is that the obstacles for you, and for others, were two Marian doctrines, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption? If that be the case, I take back opinions I have held, but more urgently ask, 'is that all there is?"

We are talking nonesense then. Both of the dogmas are reasonable. Mary was free of sin, according to what the Angel said; and after her death, she was taken up into heaven. Pretty simple, and understandable.

There should be a great rush for the Tiber if that is all there is.

thanks,
peace

I believed the Marian Dogmas andused to defend them to CATHOLICS, who were inclined to dismiss them as marginal.

And no: that is not all there is. Someone who has not been raised in a deeply anti-Catholic environment laced with a lot of individualistic notions cannot really understand how hard it is even for a convinced person to say: “I submit.”

 

[mgrfin]

Absolutely: a relatively small, but strong, minority.

It can hardly be said that they are “outside the mystical Body of Christ” since they have perfectly valid Baptsm. As for the Eucharist, this gets a little grey. Ever since the promulgation of Apostolicae curae in 1896, certain branches of Anglicanism have sought to invigorate their Apostolic lines by having episcopal consecrations joined by unquestionably “valid” (although illicitly ordained) bishops from groups whose Apostolic Succession is not in doubt: Old Catholics, Polish National Catholics, certain Orthodox lines. At least two Anglican men have been ordained in the Catholic Church “sub conditione” rather than de novo because there was sufficient grounds to accept the possible validity of their orders (as both GKC and Contarini will gladly affirm. IOW: in many cases, the Eucharist is, indeed, truly the Eucharist in Anglican settings.

Tut, tut. Many of the Anglicans who hold to Catholic doctrine have sought episcopal jurisdiction outside those Anglican churches that have adopted these novelties. The strongly orthodox Bishops of Uganda have embraced several of them.

My “opinion” is that you do not know what Benedict has said, or you would not say stuff like THIS. As a CATHOLIC, I find your posturing to be insolent and absurd.

Google is your best shot? Gimme a break.

I’m glad that the Anglicans who have been agonizing over their conversion to the Church for the last 160 years have not had you standing at the door to meet them. Many of these people have been manfully fighting against all of the things that have corrupted the Anglican Communion over the past 50 years, and have poured out their life’s energy for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You do them a horrific disservice by your malicious and detractive characterization.

Thank you very much for your comments. I assure you there were well received, and welcomed.

I own shares of Google, and I think it is a very good search engine, at least as a start. I did not say ‘wikipedia’.

Pius XII made it clear who are members of the Mystical Body of Christ. As I read it, those who are baptized, and are not united with the Roman Catholic Church are outside the Mystical Body of Christ.

You say:
“It can hardly be said that they are “outside the mystical Body of Christ” since they have perfectly valid Baptism.”

Your conditioning with ‘hardly’ means that they are outside the Body of Christ, if you follow my reasoning. Otherwise, tell me that you disagree with Mystici Corporis – they have valid baptism so they are members of the Mystical Body of Christ – is that what you are saying???

1. “They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.”

You say that I don’t know what Benedict has said. I have read Dominus Jesus, which is basically his document, and more recent updates to it. I have said nothing contrary to this doctrine. You are free to quote Benedict, as I do:

1. “Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him

“On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.”

As in any case where there is ‘prudent doubt’ about the validity of Orders conferred, (e.g. Polish bishop ordaining) conditional Orders are to be conferred. (C.I.C. 845 #2)

I am sorry that you believe I am ‘malicious and detractive”. These are ‘argumenta ad hominem, which I will not address.

maranatha