Why do protestants name their churches after Saints?

[mercygate]

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

What about the quotes on baptism and membership in the Church from the *Catechism? *

Even in the pre-conciliar Church, adult converts from Protestant traditions were baptized conditionally, if at all. The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Trinitarian baptism as the means by which people are “not only born again and made members of the Church.” (MC)

 

[mgrfin]

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

No, heresy is the refusal of baptized persons, retaining the name Christian, to accept one or more of the truths revealed by God and taught by the Catholic Church. If this refusal is voluntary and obstinate, it is formal heresy; if involuntary, it is material heresy.

I’d love to hear clear and accurate communication on the issues.

As for your personal attack on my ‘posts - both style and content’, I refuse to respond.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

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)

Thank you very much for the respect. It is very much appreciated.

When I was a lot younger, and after studying the Great Eastern Schism, I thought that reunion would be very easy. When I got into it, I realized that the issue was not the Primacy of Rome, or the ‘Filoque’, or some other doctrinal matter. It was culture, emotion and a lot more.

I least I’ve met an Anglican who doesn’t tell me that I don’t know what I am talking about. It is not a difficult subject, but Anglicans won’t let it be properly classified. So, there are many branches of Anglicanism that believe many different things, although they say they believe the same things.

I don’t know whether they want re-union. I sometimes think they want equality, so they will do what they have to do to smooth out the edges: “if our Priesthood is invalid, well then we will get OC bishops to ordain us”. “We will have the same liturgy, only nicer”. “We have the Real Presence, and even have Benediction, and Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament”. “We venerate the Saints as you, and name our churches after them, just as you”. “We accept the Seven Sacraments”. “We accept Mariology, and even discuss the Primacy of Peter”. “We reject the 39 Articles, and the BCP insofar as they disagree with Catholic theology.” “So, what are you going to do now, Peter?”

Rather than re-union, we have two ‘equals’ discussing things. The one-upmanship is ‘outside the Church there is no salvation, so you better put your toes in the Tiber”. Too much emotions involved for everyone to do that. So, as I said before, you wind up throwing up your hands in exasperation. A hundred years from now, people will forget the differences and classify Anglicanism with the EO. That is, unless Anglicanism falls into a million parts before then. I hope not.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

What about the quotes on baptism and membership in the Church from the *Catechism? *

Even in the pre-conciliar Church, adult converts from Protestant traditions were baptized conditionally, if at all. The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Trinitarian baptism as the means by which people are “not only born again and made members of the Church.” (MC)

I know you would like to hang your hat on the CCC, but that is reflective of the teaching Magisterium of the Church.

It is an ecumenical catechism, and doesn’t mention anything negative about ‘outside the church there is no salvation’ . The catechism does not thump the teaching of the Church in such things as encyclicals.

The teaching has not changed, maybe softened, but has not changed. “Mystici Corporis” of Pius XII makes reference to Boniface VIII and "Unam Sanctam’ back in the 15th century (I think), and Leo XIII in “Salis Cognitum”.

UR and Unam Sanctam, and Dominus Jesus all say the same thing: the necessity of membership in the Body of Christ, i.e., the Catholic Church, for salvation.

How you resolve ‘membership’ to mean, and ‘church’, and ‘ecclesial community’ is up to the individual.

peace

 

[mercygate]

I know you would like to hang your hat on the CCC, but that is reflective of the teaching Magisterium of the Church.

It is an ecumenical catechism, and doesn’t mention anything negative about ‘outside the church there is no salvation’ . The catechism does not thump the teaching of the Church in such things as encyclicals.

The teaching has not changed, maybe softened, but has not changed. “Mystici Corporis” of Pius XII makes reference to Boniface VIII and "Unam Sanctam’ back in the 15th century (I think), and Leo XIII in “Salis Cognitum”.

UR and Unam Sanctam, and Dominus Jesus all say the same thing: the necessity of membership in the Body of Christ, i.e., the Catholic Church, for salvation.

How you resolve ‘membership’ to mean, and ‘church’, and ‘ecclesial community’ is up to the individual.

peace

You are saying that the “teaching” Magisterium differs from the “real” Magisterium?

What about that pre-conciliar practice of not re-baptizing Converts except *sub conditione? *If Baptism makes you a member of the Church, then either you are or you are not.

Nobody is challenging the point that THE Church “subsists in the Catholic Church.” I challenge your claim that the Mystical Body of Christ is ENTIRELY limited to the Roman Catholic Church, and I challenge your stingy interpretation of *Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302), *which was written before the discovery of places on the planet where that Gospel had not been preached.

Again, nobody here is challenging the necessity of submission to Rome for those who understand Her to be the Church Christ promised to build on the rock of Peter, and who understand the Petrine primacy AS the Church understands it (or at least have no excuse for NOT understanding it).

 

[mgrfin]

You are saying that the “teaching” Magisterium differs from the “real” Magisterium?

What about that pre-conciliar practice of not re-baptizing Converts except *sub conditione? *If Baptism makes you a member of the Church, then either you are or you are not.

Nobody is challenging the point that THE Church “subsists in the Catholic Church.” I challenge your claim that the Mystical Body of Christ is ENTIRELY limited to the Roman Catholic Church, and I challenge your stingy interpretation of *Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302), *which was written before the discovery of places on the planet where that Gospel had not been preached.

Again, nobody here is challenging the necessity of submission to Rome for those who understand Her to be the Church Christ promised to build on the rock of Peter, and who understand the Petrine primacy AS the Church understands it (or at least have no excuse for NOT understanding it).

I’m not sure how you garnered that distinction. The Magisterium is the magisterium, both are ‘teaching’, both are ‘real’. Maybe what you are saying is that the encyclicals are saying something different from the Vatican Council, or the CCC, which is a fruit of Vatican II?

Dominus Jesus and the more recent update make it clear that the Church has not changed its teaching on this issue of 'outside the church, there is no salvation".

Baptising someone conditionally refers to the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation. So if some one was ‘sprinkled’, or the ‘form’ (Trinitarian) was in doubt, the catecumen was alway rebaptised - obviously conditionally, since you can receive that sacrament and the mark of the Christian only once.

Before Vatican 2, conditional baptism always took place since ‘you were never sure’ whether the original baptism was valid. After Vatican 2, conditional baptisms were restricted, as is evident in the new (1983) Code of Canon Law, especially canon 869.
In short, 'those baptised in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be rebaptised conditionally unless… "

Please refer to the Code, and the Commentary for that discussion.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Nobody is challenging the point that THE Church “subsists in the Catholic Church.” I challenge your claim that the Mystical Body of Christ is ENTIRELY limited to the Roman Catholic Church, and I challenge your stingy interpretation of *Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302), *which was written before the discovery of places on the planet where that Gospel had not been preached.

QUOTE]

To this part of your post:

Unam Sanctam was ‘revived’ in Mystici Corporis of Pius XII, in 1943: Paragraph 40: “After His glorious Ascension into Heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter, too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; [61] and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.”

I don’t know if 1943 is late enough for you.

Apparently Dominus Jesus raised some questions which you allude to in your post. The Congregation for the Faith, under Cardinal Levada responsed to these questions. You can look up this important issue in Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Subsistit_in%22_in_Lumen_Gentium.

Or you can find it on the Vatican’s site, if you can stand to read it against that orange background.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

Hopefully this should answer your question.

peace

 

[GKC]

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.

I’m back. As far as I can tell, unless both of us are not communicating, most everything I tell you, you don’t know. I don’t think Catholics generally don’t know much about Anglicanism. I think you don’t. Remember when you stated, in some detail, that Anglicans don’t believe in the RP, don’t believe what RCs believe about the Eucharist, etc? and I explained how you were wrong, that you have to know what sort of Anglican you are speaking of. And that is what I still don’t see you understanding.

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.

No, the big truth is that the official worldwide Anglican Communion, of which the CoE is the “mother” jurisdiction, doesn’t require adherence to the XXXIX Articles.And has no way to do so. Only the CoE (and that one African jurisdiction I mentioned, as of 2 years ago) have any sort official affirmation to the Articles. And that, in the CoE, is pro forma, arising from an act of Parliment and that only because the CoE is an Erastian church. Which is not true of any other Anglican jurisdiction. Which renders your reference to the strictures of the Articles, re: Anglicanism in general, wearying. Anglicans in general may affirm, denounce, ignore, pick and chose (as an RC you would do that) or ignore the XXXIX Articles. Or the 6 Articles. Or the 10 Articles.Or the 42 Articles. Or the 40 Articles. And that for the same reason. They are historical documents that no Anglican jurisdiction (except as noted) requires an affimation of.

All of which has exactly nothing, zero, zip, nada to do with Anglicanism’s internal battles, disunions and separations these days, which has never been my topic here. Current strife refers to basic Christianity, not the issues on which Anglicanism has been a spectrum of opinion for all its existence (that, incidently, is why the Artlcles were written in the first place; Elizabeth’s method of controlling a fractious church. 450 years ago.

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.

I haven’t really tried to. What I have tried to do is get you to understand (for example) is that refering to Article XXXIX and the Real Presence, as you did a few posts back up, asking how an Anglican could adhere to the RP, in light of the Article, suggests I haven’t achieved what I was actually trying to do, either. Let me put it the way I have previously suggested you might put questions. What, in your understanding, is the relationship between the Articles and the Worldwide Anglican Communion, the 38 member jurisdictions thereof, the world of Continuing Anglicanism or the next random Episcopal parish you might pass on the street?

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

I don’t know. It’s a difficult task. I might not have told you anything you hadn’t heard before, but I continue to tell you stuff you don’t know, apparently.

GKC

 

[GKC]

(Cut)

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.

Greetings again, Deconi. I don’t think that is quite the issue with mrgfin.“Branch” would suggest to me a sort of organisational division. In truth, Anglicanism has reflected a wide range of doctrinal opinion, from the first. It was this divergence between Anglicans who were more reformed, and Anglicans who were far less so, that brought about the XXXIX Articles in the first place, to keep things under control. That long ago ceased to work. And Anglicanism (I mean Anglicanism as it was known up until about 30 years ago, when a different sort of split began) has a range of dcotrine, related to such things as the Real Presence. Which is why you can;t merely say Anglicans believe “X”. You have to know which Anglicans. Contarini is an Anglican. I am an Anglican. Ask us both if it is possible to ordain a female as a priest, validly.

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’m pretty well read in the history, theology and personalities involved in the events that led to Apostolicae Curae, and the implications of it, yes. I think you are referrring here to the validity of Orders, not administration…

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.

No, I don’t think so. It will vary. For some, the real issues are doctrinal, relating to Roman Catholic particulars, and will vary with individual Anglicans. For others, maybe emotions. But then adherence to the RCC may be from adherence to doctrine, or from emotion.

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)

That last is certainly an appropriate thing for a RC to affirm.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Thank you very much for the respect. It is very much appreciated.

When I was a lot younger, and after studying the Great Eastern Schism, I thought that reunion would be very easy. When I got into it, I realized that the issue was not the Primacy of Rome, or the ‘Filoque’, or some other doctrinal matter. It was culture, emotion and a lot more.

I least I’ve met an Anglican who doesn’t tell me that I don’t know what I am talking about. It is not a difficult subject, but Anglicans won’t let it be properly classified. So, there are many branches of Anglicanism that believe many different things, although they say they believe the same things.

I don’t know whether they want re-union. I sometimes think they want equality, so they will do what they have to do to smooth out the edges: “if our Priesthood is invalid, well then we will get OC bishops to ordain us”. “We will have the same liturgy, only nicer”. “We have the Real Presence, and even have Benediction, and Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament”. “We venerate the Saints as you, and name our churches after them, just as you”. “We accept the Seven Sacraments”. “We accept Mariology, and even discuss the Primacy of Peter”. “We reject the 39 Articles, and the BCP insofar as they disagree with Catholic theology.” “So, what are you going to do now, Peter?”

Rather than re-union, we have two ‘equals’ discussing things. The one-upmanship is ‘outside the Church there is no salvation, so you better put your toes in the Tiber”. Too much emotions involved for everyone to do that. So, as I said before, you wind up throwing up your hands in exasperation. A hundred years from now, people will forget the differences and classify Anglicanism with the EO. That is, unless Anglicanism falls into a million parts before then. I hope not.

peace

mgrfin,

Your next to the last para suggests, as Contarini points out occasionally, that you think Anglicans are as concerned with your positions, with respect to us, as you are. Not so. Not everyone has a hobby like mine. Probably the last person to have such an obsession as your words suggest was poor Lord Halifax. I note that most of the quasi-quotes you use are mine. I told you that because your knowledge of Anglicanism in these areas was deficient. Not because I’m wondering what Peter will do next. Anglicans who profess those doctrines do so because they are convinced of their validity, not to confound you.

BTW, to ruin your day, I think the last para has some good points in it.

GKC

 

[mgrfin]

I’m back. As far as I can tell, unless both of us are not communicating, most everything I tell you, you don’t know. I don’t think Catholics generally don’t know much about Anglicanism. I think you don’t. Remember when you stated, in some detail, that Anglicans don’t believe in the RP, don’t believe what RCs believe about the Eucharist,

GKC

Looks like you have been itching to get back to your keyboard.

We are still not communicating. At this point, I have to say that we can’t let you go on and on saying we don’t know or understand your faith.

As for the 39 Articles, true, they are not recognized. But they had to be rejected cause they are so far from what you now believe.

As for valid Orders, it is a line of demarcation, so you will argue that Leo XIII was wrong. Unfortunately, that declaration will stand for all time. As for the Real Presence, like everything else, you have come back to our doctrine. How it all happens at your ‘sacrifice’, rejecting Transubstantiation (unless you accept that now too?), you have this ‘reverent agnosticism’ to explain it. Eventually, you will accept that doctrine.

I am sure there must be some Anglicans ministers out there who have not been ordained by the OC’s, and other apostate faiths.

I’ll keep responding, but you have to move away from this position that Catholics don’t know what you are all about. Christ could not make the faith so difficult, or us so stupid. If Catholics don’t understand, how would Anglicans understand?

The Episcopal Church in America cannot resolve the moral issues on human sexuality. Having a woman bishop in charge and allowing the consecration of an avowed homosexual in a committed relationship is unacceptable to us, and only serves to drive us further apart.

maranatha

 

[GKC]

Looks like you have been itching to get back to your keyboard.

It distracts me from the real problems in my life.

We are still not communicating. At this point, I have to say that we can’t let you go on and on saying we don’t know or understand your faith.

We sure aren’t communicating. Whence cometh this “we”? I know RCs who can wrap me around their thurible over Anglicanism. Present company excepted.

As for the 39 Articles, true, they are not recognized. But they had to be rejected cause they are so far from what you now believe.

We make progress. They were never what Anglicanism believed, in general. They were what Elizabeth mandated had to be agreed to, in order to maintain a modicum of order in her flock. They are British law, and applicable to a few of her Majesty’s subjects, (though many of them ignore the stricture) You have no doubt noticed, as Newman did, they are extraordinarily flexible. Frequently reformed flavored, too. And meaningless, to Anglicans generally.

As for valid Orders, it is a line of demarcation, so you will argue that Leo XIII was wrong.

No, I’d make several other arguments, but that Leo was wrong isn’t among them. That the decision was theologically defensible, yes. That it actually turned primarily on the theological issues, no. That it was most probably a very close thing, amongst the 8 commissioners, yes. That it was a subject Leo personally grasped, no. That it was primarily Cardinal Vaughan’s handiwork, in the wording of Merry del Val, assisted by Gasquet, yes. That it was a complicated and sad issue, yes.That it can be applied to contemporary Anglicanism, no. That it means that Anglican orders are not valid and Anglican priests cannot confect a valid Eucharist, no. That the RCC so teachs, yes. That those two sentences mean the same thing, no. That you should affirm it, as a RC, bien entendu.

Unfortunately, that declaration will stand for all time.

Likely so, in your neighborhood. Over here, it’s a non-starter.

As for the Real Presence, like everything else, you have come back to our doctrine. How it all happens at your ‘sacrifice’, rejecting Transubstantiation (unless you accept that now too?), you have this ‘reverent agnosticism’ to explain it. Eventually, you will accept that doctrine.

Oh, dear. It can’t come as a surprise to you that Anglicans often affirm transubstantiation. I’ve told you so. Or that some Anglicans affirm Canon 1, but reserve judgement on Canon 2.

I am sure there must be some Anglicans ministers out there who have not been ordained by the OC’s, and other apostate faiths.

For the purpose of that argument, apostate is not pertinent. Valid is. Likewise, licit is not at issue. Valid is. And I’m betting you are not greatly familar with the history of the interaction between Utrecht and the Anglican Communion, starting in 1932. Just a guess.

I’ll keep responding, but you have to move away from this position that Catholics don’t know what you are all about. Christ could not make the faith so difficult, or us so stupid. If Catholics don’t understand, how would Anglicans understand?

I know RCs who do understand. But I’m wrestling with you.

The Episcopal Church in America cannot resolve the moral issues on human sexuality. Having a woman bishop in charge and allowing the consecration of an avowed homosexual in a committed relationship is unacceptable to us, and only serves to drive us further apart

.

You are doing exceptionally well on final paragraphs. I agree totally, and completely. It’s unacceptable to me too, and to all orthodox Anglicans, of any stripe. Except I puzzle over the concept “woman bishop”. I know not such a thing. Contravenes the apostolic tradition of the Church. Where do you find such a monster?

GKC

 

[mgrfin]

No, I’d make several other arguments, but that Leo was wrong isn’t among them. That the decision was theologically defensible, yes. That it actually turned primarily on the theological issues, no. That it was most probably a very close thing, amongst the 8 commissioners, yes. That it was a subject Leo personally grasped, no.

Likely so, in your neighborhood. Over here, it’s a non-starter.

For the purpose of that argument, apostate is not pertinent. Valid is. Likewise, licit is not at issue. Valid is. And I’m betting you are not greatly familar with the history of the interaction between Utrecht and the Anglican Communion, starting in 1932. Just a guess.

GKC

I fully understand the difference between liceity and validity, and between heretic and apostate. I also am familiar with Utrecht and Anglicanism. What, you want to do another pop quizz?

I don’t buy that rumor that Leo XIII didn’t understand the issues. He appointed people who reported to him. They outlined the story on Anglican Orders, and he went with it. Benedict XVI said it was a ‘definitive’ statement. I am sure Merry DelVal had people going through the racks at the Archives - he wasn’t doing it himself. Neither was Leo.

Vincenzio Pecci was a favorite of mine, and in High School we studied “Rerum Novarum” explaining the rights between capital and labor. He was one of my great heroes.

For you to say that this great intellect, a good and pious man, who was the Pope between two great sainly popes, didn’t understand is just another snobbish accusation about a Catholic who just didn’t understand.

You got to stop doing this, cause I am turned off by it.
What you should do is talk to these very superior Catholics who know so much about your religion who can explain me to you. It is not ignorance that is the problem.

P.S. Who is Katharine Schori?

peace

 

[mgrfin]

They were never what Anglicanism believed, in general. They were what Elizabeth mandated had to be agreed to, in order to maintain a modicum of order in her flock. They are British law, and applicable to a few of her Majesty’s subjects, (though many of them ignore the stricture) You have no doubt noticed, as Newman did, they are extraordinarily flexible. Frequently reformed flavored, too. And meaningless, to Anglicans generally.

No, I’d make several other arguments, but that Leo was wrong isn’t among them. That the decision was theologically defensible, yes. That it actually turned primarily on the theological issues, no. That it was most probably a very close thing, amongst the 8 commissioners, yes. That it was a subject Leo personally grasped, no. That it was primarily Cardinal Vaughan’s handiwork, in the wording of Merry del Val, assisted by Gasquet, yes. That it was a complicated and sad issue, yes.That it can be applied to contemporary Anglicanism, no. That it means that Anglican orders are not valid and Anglican priests cannot confect a valid Eucharist, no. That the RCC so teachs, yes. That those two sentences mean the same thing, no. That you should affirm it, as a RC, bien entendu.

Oh, dear. It can’t come as a surprise to you that Anglicans often affirm transubstantiation. I’ve told you so. Or that some Anglicans affirm Canon 1, but reserve judgement on Canon 2.

Where do you find such a monster?

GKC

Some late night thoughts:
Real presence: some Anglicans accept it; some do not.

Transubstantiation: some Anglicans accept it; some do not.

Anglican Orders: Invalid with Leo’s Letter, yes. Invalid today, probably yes. (Don’t forget, ordaining women bishops is against the nature of the matter and form of the Sacrament, so ordaining such is indicative of deficient matter and form. I believe this is what Benedict would say. Ordaining gays and lesbians as a practice, probably falls into the same failure.

Yes, the decision on Anglican Orders did swing on theological reasons, not political. The Holy Spirit is non-political, and he guided this definitive statement, regardless of what you have to say about it historically. See, this is how Catholics think. You accuse us of not understanding, but it is you who do not understand the Spirit upon us.

Ordination by OC and PNCC: the validity of such Orders would have to be validated in every case, as to matter and form.

. Where do you find such a monster? Certainly not in the Catholic Church. In the Episcopal Church, of course.

39 Articles: Some Episcopalians/Anglicans accept them, despite what you say. Same is true of the CBP.

Just because you are liberal don’t believe for a minute that my knowledge of Anglicanism is limited to your politic. There are plenty of Puritans in your church, and low-church anglicans.

I don’t know if there is any reason to go on with these discussions, since I believe you are confirmed of my ignorance. The kind of ignorance of Leo XIII and Benedict XVI.

peace

 

[GKC]

Some late night thoughts:
Real presence: some Anglicans accept it; some do not.

Yes. That’s what I’ve been telling you. Therefore, one cannot generalize on what “Anglicans” believe.

Transubstantiation: some Anglicans accept it; some do not.

Yes. That’s what I have been telling you. Therefore one cannot generalize on what “Anglicans” believe.

Anglican Orders: Invalid with Leo’s Letter, yes. Invalid today, probably yes. (Don’t forget, ordaining women bishops is against the nature of the matter and form of the Sacrament, so ordaining such is indicative of deficient matter and form. I believe this is what Benedict would say. Ordaining gays and lesbians as a practice, probably falls into the same failure.

The invalidity of Anglican orders is certainly held by the RCC and should be held by all RCs. AC is meaningless for Anglicans, who are not in communion with Rome.

Of course consecrating a female as a bishop in apostolic succession is impossible. Invalid matter. Form depends on what rite is used, but matter stops it in its tracks. There are no female bishops, in the sense you and I mean. And I mean precisely in that regard what you mean. I have to tell you that occasionally.

It follows that ordaining/consecrating a lesbian is impossible on the same grounds. A gay is more problematic. A celibate male gay may or may not be proper matter. But I have no doubt both your chuch and mine has ordained such. It follows the rules, whether I’m comfortable with it or not.

Yes, the decision on Anglican Orders did swing on theological reasons, not political. The Holy Spirit is non-political, and he guided this definitive statement, regardless of what you have to say about it historically. See, this is how Catholics think. You accuse us of not understanding, but it is you who do not understand the Spirit upon us.

Not so. I have often said and will often say again that what you just typed there is precisely what RCs do and should believe. I don’t believe it, but I most certainly believe that you do. Why do you make these odd assumptions about what I believe?

My knowlege of what went on leading up to the Papal commission, and my believe expressed in the para above lead me to conclude what I conclude. I am not an RC, and I need to enquire more deeply into history on such a matter. You can do so, if you chose (the person who knows the most about AC that I have ever met, far more than me, is RC), but you don’t have to. You can merely read it, and affirm it.

Ordination by OC and PNCC: the validity of such Orders would have to be validated in every case, as to matter and form.

Certainly. From the RC position. But that doesn’t alter the basic point. The condition of contemporary Anglican orders is more complicated than your original statements.

Where do you find such a monster? Certainly not in the Catholic Church. In the Episcopal Church, of course.

You mean Katherine? The lovely Kate isn’t a bishop. She’s a female administrator in TEC, who wears a miter. And so are all folk so genetically endowed and situated.

39 Articles: Some Episcopalians/Anglicans accept them, despite what you say. Same is true of the CBP.

What thread have you been reading? Repeatedly I’ve told you that some Anglicans accept the Articles. Some pick and chose, some ignore them, in that form, though certainly adhering to the “mere Christianity” ones (let’s see you argue with Article I). But , except as I have noted, no Anglican is required to affirm them.

The BCP isn’t normative. There are many forms of the BCP in Anglicanism. I might wish it otherwise, but there you are.

Just because you are liberal don’t believe for a minute that my knowledge of Anglicanism is limited to your politic. There are plenty of Puritans in your church, and low-church anglicans.

Yes. But again I can’t imagine what thread you have been following. The range of theological belief varies widely in Anglicanism, and always has. It’s why the Articles were promulgated in the first place. There are puritan flavored Anglicans and low-church (which is more a referent to liturgical style than doctrine, as is high church), broad church, Prayer -book, Anglo-Catholic and Anglo-Papalist Anglicans. It’s not quite “Here comes everybody”, but it’s messy.

However, in one respect you are going to have to teach me. I’ve been called a lot of things but “liberal” is not one. Tell me how I am liberal.

I don’t know if there is any reason to go on with these discussions, since I believe you are confirmed of my ignorance. The kind of ignorance of Leo XIII and Benedict XVI.

peace

Actually, I think you are making progress. Note that you are getting the fact that not all Anglicans believe “X”. This is good. I’ll keep it up if you will.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I fully understand the difference between liceity and validity, and between heretic and apostate. I also am familiar with Utrecht and Anglicanism. What, you want to do another pop quizz?

Ok. Pop quiz. Of the eight commisioners on the AC commission, how many were English? What were their names? How many were appointed by Cardinal Vaughan? As best as can be determined, how did each vote on the main point? And the rest of the commisioners? What were the two main points the commission were directed to address? What was Ordines Anglicani? At what point relative to the setting up of the commission was the work on that document begun? Extra credit: from the available records, what session of the comission first took up the issue of intent in the Edwardine Ordinal?

I don’t buy that rumor that Leo XIII didn’t understand the issues. He appointed people who reported to him. They outlined the story on Anglican Orders, and he went with it. Benedict XVI said it was a ‘definitive’ statement. I am sure Merry DelVal had people going through the racks at the Archives - he wasn’t doing it himself. Neither was Leo.

I don’t traffic in rumors either. But you’d be surprised what Merry del Val was doing.

Vincenzio Pecci was a favorite of mine, and in High School we studied “Rerum Novarum” explaining the rights between capital and labor. He was one of my great heroes.

He was Chesterton’s favorite, too.

For you to say that this great intellect, a good and pious man, who was the Pope between two great sainly popes, didn’t understand is just another snobbish accusation about a Catholic who just didn’t understand.

I don’t think so. And I didn’t say that. I think he certainly understood what was presented to him. Which was a possible interpretation.

You got to stop doing this, cause I am turned off by it.
What you should do is talk to these very superior Catholics who know so much about your religion who can explain me to you. It is not ignorance that is the problem.

P.S. Who is Katharine Schori?

peace

As I just said elsewhere, she is a female functionary in the TEC. Often appears in public in sacerdotal garments and often in a miter. I have no idea why she does these things. Why do you ask?

GKC

 

[flatlanderjenn]

mercygate, gkc, deconi & contarini:
Some anglicans believe this, some anglicans believe that, and still others believe something else? There are Baptist Anglicans, Mormon Anglicans, Muslim Anglicans ? Sounds messy…divided…the opposite of universal. And Catholic means universal. You are trying to make YOU YOURSELVES look Catholic, yet you belong to an un-Catholic church. I’m not a smart person who can quote the Catechism, or Articles from whatever book, or even from the Bible, and I can’t remember significant dates in history but lets look at facts:
-The Roman Catholic Church was founded by Christ, the Anglican church was founded by man (King Henry XIII?)
-During the 8th century in Lanciano, Italy during the concencration during one Mass the Eucharist physically turned into the Body and Blood of Jesus. It remains in a monstrance even today and in the 70’s a team of scientists experimented on and learned the blood is type AB and the flesh is muscular tissue from the wall of a heart. And they both were hundreds of years old, so this was no hoax. Has the Anglican church ever had this happen?
-In 1917 in Fatima, Portugal the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to 3 shephard children multiple times and asked them to pray and fast. Fourty-thousand people eventually heard of the sightings and doubted the kids. That is until one rainy/stormy day they all gathered in the field to mock the kids and the sun spun in the sky then zoomed towards earth. They all feared for their lives and prayed for mercy and the sun returned and everyone was dry. The miracle was even reported in the secular newspaper and thousands were converted. Has the Blessed Virgin Mary ever appeared to an Anglican (of any demonination)?
-Do you remember when the Apostles ran up to Jesus and said another man was casting out demons in Jesus’s name even though he didn’t run in their crowd? The Apostles reassured Jesus that the man wouldn’t do that anymore since they told him to stop. Jesus reprimanded them saying no harm could come from someone casting out demons in their name. When was the last time an Anglican performed an exorcism?

These facts and miracles tell us that the Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. If you believe Catholic Dogma, then great! Come home! Just as it hurts a child the more he pulls away from his mothers hug, the more it will hurt you to pull away from the Church. Stop trying to make yourselves look good and look Catholic. Stop trying to sound so highly intelligent and nit-picking details…“well, I don’t believe this even if my church teaches this” and “this anglican church teaches this but not my anglican church”. You sound like my whiney kids. The only truly intelligent one on this thread is MGRFIN. You are only fooling yourselves.

Sure, it’s easy for me to say all this on-line and I know you will still resist. I have asked multiple non-Catholics to come home. I have offered to attend RCIA with them. I have tried to educate fallen away Catholics, and even a certain fallen-away Mormon at work, about the Church. But they all turn away. But didn’t Jesus say that even if someone was to rise from the dead there still will be those who refuse conversion? I know you will resist. But prove me wrong. You all try so hard to prove MGRFIN wrong. So far you are unsuccessful.

Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, and save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy. Amen. (I once dreamed I wrote this prayer in permanent black marker on some empty demonic cauldren and the cauldron changed before my eyes to a baptismal font full of holy water. Wierd, huh?)

 

[lak611]

mercygate, gkc, deconi & contarini:
Some anglicans believe this, some anglicans believe that, and still others believe something else? There are Baptist Anglicans, Mormon Anglicans, Muslim Anglicans ? Sounds messy…divided…the opposite of universal. And Catholic means universal. You are trying to make YOU YOURSELVES look Catholic, yet you belong to an un-Catholic church. I’m not a smart person who can quote the Catechism, or Articles from whatever book, or even from the Bible, and I can’t remember significant dates in history but lets look at facts:
-The Roman Catholic Church was founded by Christ, the Anglican church was founded by man (King Henry XIII?)
-During the 8th century in Lanciano, Italy during the concencration during one Mass the Eucharist physically turned into the Body and Blood of Jesus. It remains in a monstrance even today and in the 70’s a team of scientists experimented on and learned the blood is type AB and the flesh is muscular tissue from the wall of a heart. And they both were hundreds of years old, so this was no hoax. Has the Anglican church ever had this happen?
-In 1917 in Fatima, Portugal the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to 3 shephard children multiple times and asked them to pray and fast. Fourty-thousand people eventually heard of the sightings and doubted the kids. That is until one rainy/stormy day they all gathered in the field to mock the kids and the sun spun in the sky then zoomed towards earth. They all feared for their lives and prayed for mercy and the sun returned and everyone was dry. The miracle was even reported in the secular newspaper and thousands were converted. Has the Blessed Virgin Mary ever appeared to an Anglican (of any demonination)?
-Do you remember when the Apostles ran up to Jesus and said another man was casting out demons in Jesus’s name even though he didn’t run in their crowd? The Apostles reassured Jesus that the man wouldn’t do that anymore since they told him to stop. Jesus reprimanded them saying no harm could come from someone casting out demons in their name. When was the last time an Anglican performed an exorcism?

These facts and miracles tell us that the Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. If you believe Catholic Dogma, then great! Come home! Just as it hurts a child the more he pulls away from his mothers hug, the more it will hurt you to pull away from the Church. Stop trying to make yourselves look good and look Catholic. Stop trying to sound so highly intelligent and nit-picking details…“well, I don’t believe this even if my church teaches this” and “this anglican church teaches this but not my anglican church”. You sound like my whiney kids. The only truly intelligent one on this thread is MGRFIN. You are only fooling yourselves.

Sure, it’s easy for me to say all this on-line and I know you will still resist. I have asked multiple non-Catholics to come home. I have offered to attend RCIA with them. I have tried to educate fallen away Catholics, and even a certain fallen-away Mormon at work, about the Church. But they all turn away. But didn’t Jesus say that even if someone was to rise from the dead there still will be those who refuse conversion? I know you will resist. But prove me wrong. You all try so hard to prove MGRFIN wrong. So far you are unsuccessful.

Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, and save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy. Amen. (I once dreamed I wrote this prayer in permanent black marker on some empty demonic cauldren and the cauldron changed before my eyes to a baptismal font full of holy water. Wierd, huh?)

mercygate and deconi are Catholic.

 

[GKC]

mercygate and deconi are Catholic.

Me too. But I’m not a RC.

Yes, I know.

GKC

 

[GKC]

mercygate, gkc, deconi & contarini:
Some anglicans believe this, some anglicans believe that, and still others believe something else? There are Baptist Anglicans, Mormon Anglicans, Muslim Anglicans ? Sounds messy…divided…the opposite of universal. And Catholic means universal. You are trying to make YOU YOURSELVES look Catholic, yet you belong to an un-Catholic church. I’m not a smart person who can quote the Catechism, or Articles from whatever book, or even from the Bible, and I can’t remember significant dates in history but lets look at facts:
-The Roman Catholic Church was founded by Christ, the Anglican church was founded by man (King Henry XIII?)
-During the 8th century in Lanciano, Italy during the concencration during one Mass the Eucharist physically turned into the Body and Blood of Jesus. It remains in a monstrance even today and in the 70’s a team of scientists experimented on and learned the blood is type AB and the flesh is muscular tissue from the wall of a heart. And they both were hundreds of years old, so this was no hoax. Has the Anglican church ever had this happen?
-In 1917 in Fatima, Portugal the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to 3 shephard children multiple times and asked them to pray and fast. Fourty-thousand people eventually heard of the sightings and doubted the kids. That is until one rainy/stormy day they all gathered in the field to mock the kids and the sun spun in the sky then zoomed towards earth. They all feared for their lives and prayed for mercy and the sun returned and everyone was dry. The miracle was even reported in the secular newspaper and thousands were converted. Has the Blessed Virgin Mary ever appeared to an Anglican (of any demonination)?
-Do you remember when the Apostles ran up to Jesus and said another man was casting out demons in Jesus’s name even though he didn’t run in their crowd? The Apostles reassured Jesus that the man wouldn’t do that anymore since they told him to stop. Jesus reprimanded them saying no harm could come from someone casting out demons in their name. When was the last time an Anglican performed an exorcism?

These facts and miracles tell us that the Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. If you believe Catholic Dogma, then great! Come home! Just as it hurts a child the more he pulls away from his mothers hug, the more it will hurt you to pull away from the Church. Stop trying to make yourselves look good and look Catholic. Stop trying to sound so highly intelligent and nit-picking details…“well, I don’t believe this even if my church teaches this” and “this anglican church teaches this but not my anglican church”. You sound like my whiney kids. The only truly intelligent one on this thread is MGRFIN. You are only fooling yourselves.

Sure, it’s easy for me to say all this on-line and I know you will still resist. I have asked multiple non-Catholics to come home. I have offered to attend RCIA with them. I have tried to educate fallen away Catholics, and even a certain fallen-away Mormon at work, about the Church. But they all turn away. But didn’t Jesus say that even if someone was to rise from the dead there still will be those who refuse conversion? I know you will resist. But prove me wrong. You all try so hard to prove MGRFIN wrong. So far you are unsuccessful.

Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, and save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy. Amen. (I once dreamed I wrote this prayer in permanent black marker on some empty demonic cauldren and the cauldron changed before my eyes to a baptismal font full of holy water. Wierd, huh?)

Sure sounds like it.

Parts of your post are certainly accurate.

Thank you.

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus. *