1
1holycatholic
Guest
Why use a term like communion (i.e. common union) when that’s not the case?
- Status
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
My point was about the acceptability of the translation to the Catholic Church.I never said the CC is moving in the direction of Protestantism.
Actually, I may be in error to claim the RSV and NRSV are “Protestant” Bibles. Though used by Protestants, these translations are really more “ecumenical,” and that is probably one of the reasons they were so readily adopted by the Catholic Church. The point is I think we are making progress.
I know. England wasn’t pleased with Wycliffe, nor was Pope Martin V, who, more than 40 years after Wycliffe’s death, ordered Wycliffe’s bones to be dug up, burned, and scatter in the river. (And people say the Catholic Church hasn’t changed.) Not that England’s kings were any more merciful to dissenters in conflict with their beliefs-Protestant or Catholic in nature.
I am well aware of the Catholic stance on the “primacy of Peter,” which is a different belief from that of Protestants, Anglicans, and Orthodox Christians.
Peace,
Anna
I an well aware of Pope Martin V and Wyclif’s bones.
Peace, Jim Dandy
C
copperblade
Guest
I think the more important question is whether the differences in the various Bible books included for different styles of Christianity has any real important theological bearing. I never hear of anything that gets brought up, and then the Protestant says, “oh we don’t buy that because that’s not in OUR Bible.”
Do the inclusion or exclusion of those particular books have any theological meaning?
Do the inclusion or exclusion of those particular books have any theological meaning?
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Do groups in communion need to have precisly the same way of expressing things, or even the same beliefs on all issues? One might just as well ask how all parts of the CC can be one Church when some allow married priests and others don’t, or how one individual can accept say, the Fatima revelations while another doesn’t.
Some things are essential, others are not. Even by a fairly conservative view, I think the articles fall under “not”.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
The beliefs about married priests (i.e. doctrine about Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders) are the same throughout the Catholic Church.
The doctrine regarding private revelation is the same throughout the Catholic Church.
With no authority who is to say what is essential and what is not?
B
Bluegoat
Guest
You are rather missing the point. Why don’t I use a different example - the articles are like an old Vatican document that has been superseded, but was true in it’s particular time and place. Or in some ways, like the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, or even an out of date catechism.
Some documents are not meant to be binding over all time and space.
As to your last question, I guess you will have to ask the people in the early centuries of the Christian era, or in the Orthodox world.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
The sensus fidelium is binding over time and space.
The writings of the Early Church Fathers speak for themselves.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
“over time and space” being the key phrase there. I am not sure how you can use the phrase sensus fidelium without realizing that it doesn’t support your point at all.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
The sensus fidelium is not bound geographically or temporally. That you don’t have the sensus fidelium does not diminish it. Doctrines are not superseded.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Do you really believe that doctrinal expressions are not superceded in Catholicism? There are threads on here all the time where people want to understand how to reconcile, say, what the CC used to say about other religions with what they say now in the CCC. That is just one example.
You are trying to act as if the Articles are meant to set out what Anglicans believe doctrinally for all space and time. That is not the case. It is a mixed document, some of it touches on doctrinal issues, some on political issues. Some of it is very much a reaction against certain theological expressions that were current at the time. Many things don’t apply outside a particular context, and some everybody agrees on.
Just like many Catholic documents, which are also created in a particular place and time. An idea or doctrine can be eternal, but a document can’t.
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
Didn’t you mean that Protestants are moving closer to the CC and the CC is moving closer to Protestants by the following statement?
If not, then what is the “CC is moving closer to,” in your opinion?
Referring to the red highlight above, It is the Church’s doctrines, once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3), that have never changed and never will. Popes have changed 265 times.I know. England wasn’t pleased with Wycliffe, nor was Pope Martin V, who, more than 40 years after Wycliffe’s death, ordered Wycliffe’s bones to be dug up, burned, and scatter in the river. (And people say the Catholic Church hasn’t changed.
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end, Amen.
Peace,
Jim Dandy
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Yeah. Remember the great maxim of our fellow, venerable poster GKC: “depends on which Anglicans you ask!” 
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
1holycatholic,
You are applying the view of those in Communion with Rome to the Anglican Communion; and it is not the same.
Anglicans recite the Nicene Creed, which includes the statements: “We believe in one holy catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.”
The word “Catholic” is understood as universal, meaning Christians in all times and in all places. This belief in the Church as universal, makes it easier for Anglicans to be in communion with other Christians who do not hold the exact same beliefs.
St. Paul addressed the Church in Corinth, as “the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.” (1 Corinthians 1:2)
The Anglican Communion shares in an interdependence among ourselves and the wider Church, serving Christ and others with a shared responsibility.
Peace,
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Very good gurney.Yeah. Remember the great maxim of our fellow, venerable poster GKC: “depends on which Anglicans you ask!”
Am I starting to sound like GKC? Well, there’s nothing wrong with that. The only problem is that he has probably read a couple thousand more books than I have.
GKC did say, awhile back, he was going to give you his “motley crew” expression.
Peace to you gurney. I hope your family is well this weekend.
Still sending up prayers,
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Jim Dandy,
If memory serves me correctly, the first English versions of the Bible were translated from the Vulgate, rather than from the Greek or Hebrew. Of course, the first English translations of the Bible were oral, and then written later.
I think it was John Wycliffe who first translated a complete Bible into English primarily using the Vulgate. Of course Wycliffe was declared a heretic by the Catholic Church.
I wasn’t defending either translation.
I know. England wasn’t pleased with Wycliffe, nor was Pope Martin V, who, more than 40 years after Wycliffe’s death, ordered Wycliffe’s bones to be dug up, burned, and scatter in the river. (And people say the Catholic Church hasn’t changed.)
Lighten up a bit, Jim. My comment, “And people say the Catholic Church hasn’t changed,” was written with a
(wink.)Anna
1
1holycatholic
Guest
I know it is not the same, one is a communion the other is not.
You’ve simply redefined the Church to accommodate heresy. If, as St. Paul says, the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) then there can only be one Church due to the law of non-contradiction. The Nicene Creed in no way accommodates the Protestant rebellion. In any case Anglican orders are invalid and therefore do not constitute apostolic succession.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
That is according to Pope Leo XIII. Many things have happened since Apostolicae Curae that mitigate the legitimacy of what he taught in that bull. Also the logic behind the bull was not very well-thought-out. The Dutch Touch and Polish Pat have influenced the field.
When you tell an Anglican, in this case, Anna, that Anglican orders are invalid from a Catholic point of view, she’s not Catholic so it’s a bit of a non sequitor.
When you tell an Anglican, in this case, Anna, that Anglican orders are invalid from a Catholic point of view, she’s not Catholic so it’s a bit of a non sequitor.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
1holycatholic,I know it is not the same, one is a communion the other is not.
You’ve simply redefined the Church to accommodate heresy. If, as St. Paul says, the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) then there can only be one Church due to the law of non-contradiction. The Nicene Creed in no way accommodates the Protestant rebellion. In any case Anglican orders are invalid and therefore do not constitute apostolic succession.
The discussion of the Biblical Canon in the first 1500 years lead to a discussion of the Anglican Canon, which lead to the differences of beliefs in the Anglican Communion about the Anglican Canon, which lead to your question, “Why use a term like communion (i.e. common union) when that’s not the case?” I answered that question and now we are into the “Anglican orders are invalid” argument and the claim that I have redefined the Church to accommodate heresy. We are way off topic here.
I’ve heard the “Anglican orders are invalid” argument repeatedly on this forum. There have been a number of threads dedicated to the subject. Obviously, I disagree with you on this issue; but this is not a thread dedicated to this subject. So, let’s get back to the topic of the Biblical Canon.
Peace,
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
gurney,
You are so right. A Catholic proclaiming Anglican orders are invalid carries about as much weight with Anglicans, as Anglicans proclaiming Catholic orders are invalid would carry with Catholics (though Anglicans don’t actually make such a claim against Catholics orders.)
Hopefully, we can get back to the topic of the Bible.
Thanks for your comments, gurney.
Anna
- Status