Why do protestants name their churches after Saints?

[mgrfin]

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.”

Well, apparently, a kind of solution is to find some apostate Polish bishops who are willing to ordain Anglican ordinandi, and consecrate a bishop or two to cement the departure of Anglicans.

I thought the trend was the opposite, with the ordination of women.

Despite what some Anglicans on this site might think, 'outside the Church" is still outside.

I try to sympatize with those who are raised in an anti-catholic environment, after all my forebears were the recipients of their anti-catholic viptuerance. Saying “adsum” is not the same as saying “I submit”.

The Faith is a gift. If you don’t believe that, there is no purpose to discussing any of this.

peace

 

[GKC]

I fear I must repeat myself. You don’t know much about Anglicans. And when you (or anyone) generalizes about Anglicanism, you are apt to err.

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

No problem. I do the same.

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

On many points, yes, on and the Real Presence particularly

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.

On the Anglican orders/Eucharist, this is precisely what the RCC teaches, precisely what any RC should affirm, and what I often remind them of. At least sentenia ad fidem pertinens. I note that some nuances must be considered, with respect to the infusion of OC/PNCC lines in Anglicanism, beginning in 1932 and now very wide spread, and the issue of the *sub conditione * ordination of Graham Leonard and John. J. Hughes. Please remember that Apostolicae Curae, like Henry, is one of my hobby areas, if you would like to discuss it. But for the bottom line, affirm what the RCC teaches. As a RC you should. As an Anglican, I have a differing opinion of the matter (so to speak).

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.

I affirm that for “me” and my sort, none of it is true, full stop. Including the punctuation. You need to know more about what a Continuing Anglican is. Not only is it not true, my Anglican jurisdiction and others like it are not even in communion with any who affim it at all.

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.

See first para, 3rd sentence, above.

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.

Not quite what I said, but sure, learning things is difficult and takes effort. Pays off when you discuss them.

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

I don’t blame you at all. I point out that you are speaking of things you know little or nothing about. Lots of people do.

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

The disunity thing is likely to drag on a little longer, whatever you and I do. However, I’m always glad to talk.

GKC

 

[mgrfin]

I fear I must repeat myself. You don’t know much about Anglicans. And when you (or anyone) generalizes about Anglicanism, you are apt to err.

GKC

Well, for fear of being double and tripled teamed on this thread, I don’t see too much to discuss. At least you were kind enough not to call me ‘malicious and detractive’, ignorant, abusive, etc., etc… Truth is I am a very affable, congenial individual.

I like my religion dogmatic. In assessing Anglicanism we are right, we are wrong, but usually wrong. Some believe this, some believe that, most don’t believe what we think they believe. It comes down to the thing, really, that Catholics don’t want to hear (including the Vatican): ‘We are the same as you", except we are camelions’. It all reminds me of guys selling Guggi bags on 5th Avenue.

In searching the Internet, it is hard to find any official statements backing you up. There are The 39 Articles, which it says, are part of Anglicanism, but these are passé, you say. The Book of Common Prayer, and Cranmer are also out of vogue, although they are listed as an essential basis of your religion. It sounds all very chic-chic.

The ‘game’ seems to beat us at our game: If Anglican priesthood is invalid, go get some dotering Polish bishops to ordain priests, and even consecrate bishops, But you have to be careful of those Poles though. You never know what they intend when they consecrate
.
When it comes to the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, the Sacrifice of the Mass, you now have all of that, you think. When it comes to doctrine, you accept most, excepting our Mariology and the Primacy of Peter, but even these things were taught in Anglican seminaries.

The most sensible thing is to throw up our hands in despair. It’s the insurmountable; we are facing the incomprehensible. Maybe someone ought to update Wikipedia so we know where you are today, and tomorrow, and the next day.

So much for the unchangeable, Catholic Church

maranatha

 

[GKC]

Well, for fear of being double and tripled teamed on this thread, I don’t see too much to discuss. At least you were kind enough not to call me ‘malicious and detractive’, ignorant, abusive, etc., etc… Truth is I am a very affable, congenial individual.

I like my religion dogmatic. In assessing Anglicanism we are right, we are wrong, but usually wrong. Some believe this, some believe that, most don’t believe what we think they believe. It comes down to the thing, really, that Catholics don’t want to hear (including the Vatican): ‘We are the same as you", except we are camelions’. It all reminds me of guys selling Guggi bags on 5th Avenue.

In searching the Internet, it is hard to find any official statements backing you up. There are The 39 Articles, which it says, are part of Anglicanism, but these are passé, you say. The Book of Common Prayer, and Cranmer are also out of vogue, although they are listed as an essential basis of your religion. It sounds all very chic-chic.

The ‘game’ seems to beat us at our game: If Anglican priesthood is invalid, go get some dotering Polish bishops to ordain priests, and even consecrate bishops, But you have to be careful of those Poles though. You never know what they intend when they consecrate
.
When it comes to the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, the Sacrifice of the Mass, you now have all of that, you think. When it comes to doctrine, you accept most, excepting our Mariology and the Primacy of Peter, but even these things were taught in Anglican seminaries.

The most sensible thing is to throw up our hands in despair. It’s the insurmountable; we are facing the incomprehensible. Maybe someone ought to update Wikipedia so we know where you are today, and tomorrow, and the next day.

So much for the unchangeable, Catholic Church

maranatha

Except for the portions of this which are historically incorrect, or personal opinion, it’s not that bad. If you are surprised that the internet will not make you knowledgeable about a given subject, so be it. What you call being double/tripled teamed might more accurately be expressed as the ratio of folks who know the subject, to you, who don’t.

Try this. Couch your sentences more like “What do you, as an Anglican, think/do/believe, about subject X? Do other Anglicans generally agree?” Don’t make staments about what Anglicans do/believe before you have some sort of data base to stand on, more sturdy than a cursory web search. Wherever your stock might be.

BTW, you are playing all around the correct criticism of Anglicanism here. But you don’t seem to spot it.

Oh, and yes, the articles are a part of Anglicanism. It’s called “history”. Almost the only thing I like about the 1979 Book TEC uses is where the Articles are printed.

Things are complicated, mgrfin. As I so often say about history itself. Sorry, but there it is.

And I’m an affable chap, myself. So irenic I can make your teeth hurt.

GKC

 

[mgrfin]

Try this. Couch your sentences more like “What do you, as an Anglican, think/do/believe, about subject X? Do other Anglicans generally agree?” Don’t make staments about what Anglicans do/believe before you have some sort of data base to stand on, more sturdy than a cursory web search. Wherever your stock might be.

Things are complicated, mgrfin. As I so often say about history itself. Sorry, but there it is.

And I’m an affable chap, myself. So irenic I can make your teeth hurt.

GKC

My teeth do hurt, and it has nothing to do with your irenicism.

The Internet is not a bad thing. As a matter of fact it is a very good tool, if used properly.

Posing that question, which I’ve done, about 'what is Anglicanism?", or “What Anglicans believe?”, on the Internet, you will get responses which, I am assuming, were written by live, real Anglicans. But you won’t accept their answers. It is as though these were written by Catholics, according to you.

The answers I found today have been rejected as I don’t know what I am talking about. If I could contact these sites, I would tell them that they don’t know what they are talking about, cause GKC says they are all wet.

We all would like to know what you believe, but do you know what you believe? If you do know, why is so difficult to find out.

This of course has nothing to do with Leo XIII’s final decision on Anglican orders, or, Pius XII letter, Mystici Corporis, or Benedict XVI’s part in Dominus Jesus, and its follow up. These are issues up for discussion, not what I think you believe.

The whole issue of CE and Episcopalianism, and Anglicanism are very tenuous anyway. Hang in there, it may all change again this week.

BTW, my web searches are substantial enough to give me basics. With all the criticism you are making, not once have you recommended a current source for today’s Anglicanism, or is that on mimeo sheets, or purple demons, waiting to be discarded until a new edition can be printed.

I’m sticking to my own religion and what it teaches which I know and understand, and believe. It is a much easier mission. My theology is pretty much the same as it was 40 years ago when I first studied it.

Anyway, the hockey game is on. Philly vs Rangers.

maranatha

 

[GKC]

My teeth do hurt, and it has nothing to do with your irenicism.

The Internet is not a bad thing. As a matter of fact it is a very good tool, if used properly.

Posing that question about 'what is Anglicanism?", or “What Anglicans believe?”, on the Internet, you will get responses which, I am assuming, were written by live, real Anglicans. But you won’t accept their answers. It is as though these were written by Catholics, according to you.

The answers I found today have been rejected as I don’t know what I am talking about. If I could contact these sites, I would tell them that they don’t know what they are talking about, cause GKC says they are all wet.

We all would like to know what you believe, but do you know what you believe? If you do know, why is so difficult to find out.

This of course has nothing to do with Leo XIII’s final decision on Anglican orders, or, Pius XII letter, Mystici Corporis, or Benedict XVI’s part in Dominus Jesus, and its follow up. These are issues up for discussion, not what I think you believe.

The whole issue of CE and Episcopalianism, and Anglicanism are very tenuous anyway. Hang it there, it may all change again this week.

I’m sticking to my own religion and what it teaches which I know and understand, and believe. It is a much easier mission. My theology is pretty much the same as it was 40 years ago when I first studied it.

Anyway, the hockey game is on. Philly vs Rangers.

maranatha

You still miss the point. You cannot generalize about Anglicanism. Never could, much, but it’s far worse these days. You have to know which sort of Anglicans you are talking about. It takes time and effort. I’m sorry, but there it is.

You wander around the internet, and get told that all Anglicans are bound to affirm the Articles, or burn clarified yak butter before images of the British monarch, and assume you’re learning something. Sort of like learning that all RCs worship the BVM, forbid Bible reading, add and subtract books randomly to the Bible no one is allowed to read, and swear allegiance to the famous Catholic Oath (when everyone knows it’s the Jesuits’ Oath). Believe it or not, I’ve engaged gentlepersons on the net on each and every one of these points, to no great end, save the exposition of Catholic truth. Know what the Sign of the Beast is? I engaged in a low key knife fight with an overmatched gentleman who was sure it was the sign of the cross. But you’ll find such stuff by searching. You’ll find well intentioned, but incomplete or overly generalized stuff too. If you find a statment that all Anglicans must affirm the Articles, look for the authority that requires it, and punishes the miscreants. I’d love to read of it.

Point: Anglicans believe and do a lot of things. Some even is Christian. Ask before assuming. Read books. Try J. R. H. Moorman’s HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND. I don’t agree with all of it, but it’s good.

Or, you can follow your penultimate para, and stick to the safe zone. Ok by me.

Sorry about your teeth. Is it because it’s the 5th of November?

GKC

 

[geraldffff]

Warning: off topic! One of my favorite stories is from a Priest who told us that when he was a boy, he thought St. Martin was the patron saint of travel agents: St. Martin of Tours . . .

Please excuse my ignorance. What dos “warning off topic” mean and what is the purpose of its use?

 

[mgrfin]

You still miss the point. You cannot generalize about Anglicanism. Never could, much, but it’s far worse these days. You have to know which sort of Anglicans you are talking about. It takes time and effort. I’m sorry, but there it is.

You wander around the internet, and get told that all Anglicans are bound to affirm the Articles, or burn clarified yak butter before images of the British monarch, and assume you’re learning something. Sort of like learning that all RCs worship the BVM, forbid Bible reading, add and subtract books randomly to the Bible no one is allowed to read, and swear allegiance to the famous Catholic Oath (when everyone knows it’s the Jesuits’ Oath). Believe it or not, I’ve engaged gentlepersons on the net on each and every one of these points, to no great end, save the exposition of Catholic truth. Know what the Sign of the Beast is? I engaged in a low key knife fight with an overmatched gentleman who was sure it was the sign of the cross. But you’ll find such stuff by searching. You’ll find well intentioned, but incomplete or overly generalized stuff too. If you find a statment that all Anglicans must affirm the Articles, look for the authority that requires it, and punishes the miscreants. I’d love to read of it.

Point: Anglicans believe and do a lot of things. Some even is Christian. Ask before assuming. Read books. Try J. R. H. Moorman’s HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND. I don’t agree with all of it, but it’s good.

Or, you can follow your penultimate para, and stick to the safe zone. Ok by me.

Sorry about your teeth. Is it because it’s the 5th of November?

GKC

Sorry, but I’ve understood for a long time that you can’t generalize about Anglicanism/Episcopalianism/Evangelism, etc. Beliefs are very personal. There thousands of different Christian communities out there with their own brand, and I’ve known that is true of CE/Meth/A/ACC/Epis, etc.

You fail me. The Internet is not limited to a few sparse articles written by Anglicans who don’t seem to know what they are talking about, but it is about books, and newspapers, and enclycopedias, and so forth. I read up to date reports as what is happening in Pittsburg, news about plans for the American branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion, about a new possible agreement, etc., etc.

The Internet is a live place, and yet you send me off to a history book. Good as that may be, and I am not surprised that you don’t agree with all of it, it is not what I am looking for when asking the question, “What do Anglicans believe”. You accused me before of putting forth historical Anglicanism which was not au courrant.

Yet, you sent me off in that same direction from which you critized me for coming from.

November 5th is an aliturgical day.

peace

 

[lak611]

November 5th is an aliturgical day.

This is true, even according to the traditional Catholic calendar.

 

[GKC]

Sorry, but I’ve understood for a long time that you can’t generalize about Anglicanism/Episcopalianism/Evangelism, etc. Beliefs are very personal. There thousands of different Christian communities out there with their own brand, and I’ve known that is true of CE/Meth/A/ACC/Epis, etc.

You fail me. The Internet is not limited to a few sparse articles written by Anglicans who don’t seem to know what they are talking about, but it is about books, and newspapers, and enclycopedias, and so forth. I read up to date reports as what is happening in Pittsburg, news about plans for the American branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion, about a new possible agreement, etc., etc.

The Internet is a live place, and yet you send me off to a history book. Good as that may be, and I am not surprised that you don’t agree with all of it, it is not what I am looking for when asking the question, “What do Anglicans believe”. You accused me before of putting forth historical Anglicanism which was not au courrant.

Yet, you sent me off in that same direction from which you critized me for coming from.

November 5th is an aliturgical day.

peace

I certainly do fail you, in explaining Anglicanism. You keep generalizing. My fault, no doubt. Take your data where you find it, make of it what you will, be your standards what they may. I certainly can’t force you to become educated about the history of Anglicanism, any more than I could convince all those who knew RCs worshipped Mary of the truth. When you find what requires Anglicans to affirm the Articles, and who is the authority (hint, hint) behind it, do let me know, please.

5 November is also Guy Fawkes Day. I thought perhaps you had been grinding your teeth.

GKC

 

[mgrfin]

This is true, even according to the traditional Catholic calendar.

Laura,

The Ordo is the only calendar I use (catholic calendar).

Maybe you thought I was an Anglican?

peace

 

[mgrfin]

I certainly do fail you, in explaining Anglicanism. You keep generalizing. My fault, no doubt. Take your data where you find it, make of it what you will, be your standards what they may. I certainly can’t force you to become educated about the history of Anglicanism, any more than I could convince all those who knew RCs worshipped Mary of the truth. When you find what requires Anglicans to affirm the Articles, and who is the authority (hint, hint) behind it, do let me know, please.

5 November is also Guy Fawkes Day. I thought perhaps you had been grinding your teeth.

GKC

Where I come from, Guy Fawkes Day is November 10th.

How could it be on a Monday? You have dances out there on Monday?

I didn’t know there was going to be a pop quizz:
As for the 39 Articles, I assume this is not a trick question, since Halloween is over.

Parliament decreed affirmation of the 39 Articles in 1571. Clergy of the CE are only now required to take an oath that the doctrine of the Articles is “agreeable to the Word of God”.

You say these are disregarded today?

I am interested to know how you justify the Real Presence with the “Manducatio Impiorum” (Article XXIX). If a sinful person doesn’t receive Christ in the Eucharist while consuming the elements, how can Christ be there really, truly and substantially.
It contradicts.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Where I come from, Guy Fawkes Day is November 10th.

How could it be on a Monday? You have dances out there on Monday?

I didn’t know there was going to be a pop quizz:
As for the 39 Articles, I assume this is not a trick question, since Halloween is over.

Parliament decreed affirmation of the 39 Articles in 1571. Clergy of the CE are only now required to take an oath that the doctrine of the Articles is “agreeable to the Word of God”.

You say these are disregarded today?

I am interested to know how you justify the Real Presence with the “Manducatio Impiorum” (Article XXIX). If a sinful person doesn’t receive Christ in the Eucharist while consuming the elements, how can Christ be there really, truly and substantially.
It contradicts.

peace

Sorry, got my dates crossed. November 10th is Sadie Hawkins day. I forgot, just as the ditty foretold:

November 5th is Guy Hawkes Day:

“Remember, remember the fifth of November,
The gunpowder, treason and plot,
I know of no reason
Why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.”

peace

 

[Deconi]

Two problems.
“Anglicans” no longer is applicable to all who hide under that banner. Within Anglicanism are splinters upon splinters that truly examplifies Protestanism! Listening to a number of Anglicans discuss matters about Anglicanism and what is held to be truth is like listening to any other group of Reformers ‘arguing’ with Catholics about The Real Presence.

Your adherence to your views of Anglicans, mrgfin, is understandable, given that you lump them all under the same banner. I was of the same view until recently.

GKC, feel free to correct me but I am now told that I must be specific as to which “Anglican branch” I reference when discussing any issues. Apparently, If I adopt the view that there are ‘Baptist’ Anglicans, ‘Methodist’ Anglicans, 'Evangelical, AoG and even “Mormon” Anglicans, then I would have a better grasp of “which Anglican” I may be debating / discussing with.

Perhaps this is what mrgfin misses, I don’t know.

Predominantly, my own view was that when the Anglican church split from Rome, it still contained ALL of what Rome held to and had taught, since the split was by the country’s monarch rather than dissention to doctrine as the Reformers. Of course, that means that SOME of those ‘things they originally possessed’ must still be in evidence, including adherence to The Real Presence, Marian Adoration etc…

You know of course GKC that the validity of administration is a big issue. Even if the flock BELIEVE in The Real Presence, heart and soul, when partaking in (Anglican) Holy Communion, a biscuit would be more beneficial if the “ordained” is invalid.

I note also that you have worked and continue to work on our differences towards ‘unity.’ In this case, I hold with mrgfin’s ‘methodical approach’ of sticking to facts! However broad or generalised it sounds, it is correct that the subject matter he is addressing, are still under a different umbrella. If you say his views are too broad, get a bigger umbrella, but it would still be different.

I, as he does, see a very easy simple solution! If you hold to all or almost all that The Church holds to, why isn’t the Tiber crowded with excited English folk? Because the real issues are human emotions; not about Truth.

Many Anglicans stand alongside Catholics at anti-abortion rallies; world peace; rights of human individuals, etc… But so too Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, Atheists or just curious!

1. I think there is also a Catholic ‘understanding’ which is obscured somewhat by the “outside The Church, there is no salvation” brigade that is actually reinforced by this same statement. If you remain outside The Church, that is, without submission To His Vicar, even through pain of death or suffer the loss of blood in the name of Christ, you cannot be saved!
   (I think that was either Augustine or Basil)

 

[GKC]

Where I come from, Guy Fawkes Day is November 10th.

How could it be on a Monday? You have dances out there on Monday?

I didn’t know there was going to be a pop quizz:
As for the 39 Articles, I assume this is not a trick question, since Halloween is over.

Parliament decreed affirmation of the 39 Articles in 1571. Clergy of the CE are only now required to take an oath that the doctrine of the Articles is “agreeable to the Word of God”.

You say these are disregarded today?

I am interested to know how you justify the Real Presence with the “Manducatio Impiorum” (Article XXIX). If a sinful person doesn’t receive Christ in the Eucharist while consuming the elements, how can Christ be there really, truly and substantially.
It contradicts.

peace

I’m leaving, will be out of town for a couple of days, will reply more later, to this and next post.

You are getting close. Now, wrap your mind around the concept that the Church of England is only a part of Anglicanism. What is required by act of Parliment (will do more history later) for the ordinands of the CoE is NOT binding on any other Anglican jurisdiction.

Am I getting this idea across?

Anglicanism is split into many self governing jurisdictions, and has been since the about the time the sun set on the Empire.

One African jurisdiction has very recently inserted the affirmation of the Articles into their governing documents. And that’s it. No one else.

So XXIX and the others preceding it, are not a player, for any Anglican who doesn’t afirm them.

Remember when I had a little trouble getting the idea across the the British monarch wasn’t the head of Anglicanism? I was right then, too.

Back later.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Two problems.
“Anglicans” no longer is applicable to all who hide under that banner. Within Anglicanism are splinters upon splinters that truly examplifies Protestanism! Listening to a number of Anglicans discuss matters about Anglicanism and what is held to be truth is like listening to any other group of Reformers ‘arguing’ with Catholics about The Real Presence.

Your adherence to your views of Anglicans, mrgfin, is understandable, given that you lump them all under the same banner. I was of the same view until recently.

GKC, feel free to correct me but I am now told that I must be specific as to which “Anglican branch” I reference when discussing any issues. Apparently, If I adopt the view that there are ‘Baptist’ Anglicans, ‘Methodist’ Anglicans, 'Evangelical, AoG and even “Mormon” Anglicans, then I would have a better grasp of “which Anglican” I may be debating / discussing with.

Perhaps this is what mrgfin misses, I don’t know.

Predominantly, my own view was that when the Anglican church split from Rome, it still contained ALL of what Rome held to and had taught, since the split was by the country’s monarch rather than dissention to doctrine as the Reformers. Of course, that means that SOME of those ‘things they originally possessed’ must still be in evidence, including adherence to The Real Presence, Marian Adoration etc…

You know of course GKC that the validity of administration is a big issue. Even if the flock BELIEVE in The Real Presence, heart and soul, when partaking in (Anglican) Holy Communion, a biscuit would be more beneficial if the “ordained” is invalid.

I note also that you have worked and continue to work on our differences towards ‘unity.’ In this case, I hold with mrgfin’s ‘methodical approach’ of sticking to facts! However broad or generalised it sounds, it is correct that the subject matter he is addressing, are still under a different umbrella. If you say his views are too broad, get a bigger umbrella, but it would still be different.

I, as he does, see a very easy simple solution! If you hold to all or almost all that The Church holds to, why isn’t the Tiber crowded with excited English folk? Because the real issues are human emotions; not about Truth.

Many Anglicans stand alongside Catholics at anti-abortion rallies; world peace; rights of human individuals, etc… But so too Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, Atheists or just curious!

1. I think there is also a Catholic ‘understanding’ which is obscured somewhat by the “outside The Church, there is no salvation” brigade that is actually reinforced by this same statement. If you remain outside The Church, that is, without submission To His Vicar, even through pain of death or suffer the loss of blood in the name of Christ, you cannot be saved!
   (I think that was either Augustine or Basil)

Deconi,

Greetings.

Back later.

I like facts, too. Historical facts. Love 'em.

GKC

 

[mercygate]

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???

MC#18: "Through the waters of Baptism those who are born into this world dead in sin are not only born again and made members of the Church, "

CCC **1271: **

 

[mgrfin]

I apologize for allowing my indignation over the injustice of your accusations to overcome my good breeding. I did not call YOU “malicious and detractive.” I called your accusations “malicious and detractive.”

I love it when people parse their apologies. My words are my actions. Either you apologize or you don’t. I don’t believe in parsing.

As for Mystici Corporis, you took your quote out of context. In your quote, Pius XII was explaining the life of a Catholic/Christian through the sacramental reality.

After you read down thru the sacramental life, you will pick up the essence of the Encyclical:
Quote:
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
Unquote

maranatha

 

[Contarini]

I don’t believe in parsing.

That explains a lot with regard to your posts–both style and content!

You seem to think that clear and accurate communication is a form of heresy.

Edwin

 

[mgrfin]

I’m leaving, will be out of town for a couple of days, will reply more later, to this and next post.

You are getting close. Now, wrap your mind around the concept that the Church of England is only a part of Anglicanism. What is required by act of Parliment (will do more history later) for the ordinands of the CoE is NOT binding on any other Anglican jurisdiction.

Am I getting this idea across?

Anglicanism is split into many self governing jurisdictions, and has been since the about the time the sun set on the Empire.

One African jurisdiction has very recently inserted the affirmation of the Articles into their governing documents. And that’s it. No one else.

So XXIX and the others preceding it, are not a player, for any Anglican who doesn’t afirm them.

Remember when I had a little trouble getting the idea across the the British monarch wasn’t the head of Anglicanism? I was right then, too.

Back later.

GKC

Gilbert,

I knew all that. Tell me something I don’t know. You start off with the supposition that Catholics don’t know anything about historical or contemporary Anglicanism. That’s is totally and completely false.

The BIG truth you now tell me is that the CE is only part of Anglicanism. Is this the big revelation that I am just now suppose to put my arms around? Sir, you do us a disservice.We have been reading of your internal battles, disunions, and separations for years.

I just hate to blow your bubble. I don’t want to suggest this, but I guess it is about time to say it. I find the ‘hard to understand Anglicanism’, just snobbery, plain and simple. We are not dealing with the mystery of the Holy Trinity; we are dealing with historical and current facts, and understanding them, just as you do ours.
We had hoped that there was some system or rationale for your disunities, and we had hoped that you could explain them.

You can’t go on like this saying we are stupid, or thick, or prejudiced, or dense, just don’t understand, or suffering from voluntary or involuntary ignorance. That it is necessary for a real Anglican to take us by hand into the Holy of Holies of knowledge and understanding. Phew!

In two days you didn’t tell me anything I haven’t heard before.
Maybe you can do better when you return.
peace