Thread: The Catholic Church in Engand Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025490
Posted by ncnative (# 17721) on
:
Hello and thanks for allowing me to join the Ship! I recently read an article in the Catholic Herald which explained that the CoE considers itself to be the Catholic Church "in England," the exact same Church that had existed prior to the reformation, and exists still as that same Church - or I think that's what the article was saying.
Assuming that is the claim that the Church of England makes, what then do they consider the Roman Catholic Church in Engand? an unnecessary duplicate of what is currently available? a "pretender" of the Catholic faith in England? or something else entirely?
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Some of the more Anglo-Catholic end of the CofE have been known to identify it as "The Italian Mission".
Most of the CofE is more likely to accept it as one of a number of expressions of the cathollic church in England, and not to worry about which is more "authentic" or in line with the pre-reformation church than the other. Many in the CofE, I suspect, would regard continuity with the pre-reformation church as a doubtful virtue in any case, and something that polite christians just don't talk about.
John
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
The Italian Mission to the Irish, naturally.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
Welcome to the ship ncnative!
catholic means universal. The CofE is part of the one church of Christ and is therefore a Catholic Church. Not to be confused with the big c Catholic or Roman Church as the spell checker on this borrowed iPad is. Grrr.
The continuity of the Bishops is the bit about being Episcopal.
I suppose it's been a bit of a muddle since Henrey VIII.
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
I'm sure there are many opinions in practice, and I doubt there's only 1 official answer.
I would argue that since the CofE claims to be part of the universal church, and also recognizes that 'the Church of Rome' is part of it, then there is no duplication, unnecessary or otherwise. They are the same thing.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
The Preface to the Declaration of Assent (made by all priests, deacons and lay ministers when they are licensed to a particular sphere of ministry) states the official position of the Church of England: quote:
The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. etc...
The fact that most parish churches and cathedrals have maintained the worship of the Church (albeit with some radical and less radical changes at times) since long before the Reformation, and usually display lists of Rectors and Deans, as well as Bishops, which span that period, implies that the C of E does not see the changes of the Reformation, and the breach with Rome, as breaking the continuity. It has never denied the catholicity of the Roman Catholic Church but the 39 articles do say that 'the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England' (quotation from memory). This is of course a political and not a theological statement.
The C of E is represented in mainland Europe - there is a 'Diocese in Europe' - but only by chaplains and chaplaincies (theoretically for expatriates). It does not have territorial parishes there because it assumes that the local church (which except in northern Europe is usually the RCC or the Orthodox) has that responsibility. So yes, it does see itself as the default 'Catholic Church' in England but, at least nowadays, accepts the right and the validity of other churches to share that role.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ncnative:
Hello and thanks for allowing me to join the Ship! I recently read an article in the Catholic Herald which explained that the CoE considers itself to be the Catholic Church "in England," the exact same Church that had existed prior to the reformation, and exists still as that same Church - or I think that's what the article was saying.
Assuming that is the claim that the Church of England makes, what then do they consider the Roman Catholic Church in Engand? an unnecessary duplicate of what is currently available? a "pretender" of the Catholic faith in England? or something else entirely?
Being cynical I suspect this may be not unconnected with Property. If the Church of England thought it wasn't the legitimate heir to the pre-Reformation Catholic Church in England, then it would have to give all the pre-Reformation church buildings and associated land back to Rome ...
Posted by argona (# 14037) on
:
ncnative, can you give a link to the Catholic Herald article?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by ncnative:
Hello and thanks for allowing me to join the Ship! I recently read an article in the Catholic Herald which explained that the CoE considers itself to be the Catholic Church "in England," the exact same Church that had existed prior to the reformation, and exists still as that same Church - or I think that's what the article was saying.
Assuming that is the claim that the Church of England makes, what then do they consider the Roman Catholic Church in Engand? an unnecessary duplicate of what is currently available? a "pretender" of the Catholic faith in England? or something else entirely?
Being cynical I suspect this may be not unconnected with Property. If the Church of England thought it wasn't the legitimate heir to the pre-Reformation Catholic Church in England, then it would have to give all the pre-Reformation church buildings and associated land back to Rome ...
Neh, the pope signed it all over in exchange for English support in some war or other.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
The Roman Church is a 19th century mission church which serves immigrants, recusants and effemirate homosexuals.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
The English Reformation under Elizabeth I . purged our church of heresy, but did not create a new church. It is about time we had another reformation because the C of E hath erred, much like Rome, Antioch and the rest.
[ 20. June 2013, 01:34: Message edited by: Indifferently ]
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
If you want to find which various innovations and superstitions the English Church found her self correcting at the Reformation, please read the Thirty Nine Articles, which are now all but banned from study for those allegealy taking orders these days.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
The Roman Church is a 19th century mission church which serves immigrants, recusants and effemirate homosexuals.
The Church of Christ is a mission to loads of groups you hate, it seems.
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by ncnative:
Hello and thanks for allowing me to join the Ship! I recently read an article in the Catholic Herald which explained that the CoE considers itself to be the Catholic Church "in England," the exact same Church that had existed prior to the reformation, and exists still as that same Church - or I think that's what the article was saying.
Assuming that is the claim that the Church of England makes, what then do they consider the Roman Catholic Church in Engand? an unnecessary duplicate of what is currently available? a "pretender" of the Catholic faith in England? or something else entirely?
Being cynical I suspect this may be not unconnected with Property. If the Church of England thought it wasn't the legitimate heir to the pre-Reformation Catholic Church in England, then it would have to give all the pre-Reformation church buildings and associated land back to Rome ...
As well they should ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
The English Reformation under Elizabeth I . purged our church of heresy, but did not create a new church. It is about time we had another reformation because the C of E hath erred, much like Rome, Antioch and the rest.
Why do you go to church when everything they do is alienating you?
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
The Roman Church is a 19th century mission church which serves immigrants, recusants and effemirate homosexuals.
No. The effeminate homosexuals are with the Anglo Catholics as Evelyn Waugh pointed out in his famous epigram
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
Recusants being those who remained Catholic during the long years of persecution. How meaningful is it to say that the Catholic Church serves Catholics?
Posted by Clavus (# 9427) on
:
quote:
effemirate homosexuals
I understand that homosexuals generally try to avoid attracting attention in emirates.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
If you want to find which various innovations and superstitions the English Church found her self correcting at the Reformation, please read the Thirty Nine Articles, which are now all but banned from study for those allegealy taking orders these days.
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently (here):
I either attend a Prayer Book parish where there is no Peace or conservative Anglo-Catholic circles
How very odd.
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ncnative:
. . .
Assuming that is the claim that the Church of England makes, what then do they consider the Roman Catholic Church in Engand? an unnecessary duplicate of what is currently available? a "pretender" of the Catholic faith in England? or something else entirely?
Both are 'successor' churches to the pre-Refomation church serving communities with different post-Reformation trajectories.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
The Roman Church is a 19th century mission church which serves immigrants, recusants and effemirate homosexuals.
Immigrants? Like the Lord and His Earthly family?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
If you want to find which various innovations and superstitions the English Church found her self correcting at the Reformation, please read the Thirty Nine Articles, which are now all but banned from study for those allegealy taking orders these days.
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently (here):
I either attend a Prayer Book parish where there is no Peace or conservative Anglo-Catholic circles
How very odd.
It's because conservative Anglo-Catholic churches are likely to be ABC (in terms of Resolutions)...
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
If you want to find which various innovations and superstitions the English Church found her self correcting at the Reformation, please read the Thirty Nine Articles, which are now all but banned from study for those allegealy taking orders these days.
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently (here):
I either attend a Prayer Book parish where there is no Peace or conservative Anglo-Catholic circles
How very odd.
It's because conservative Anglo-Catholic churches are likely to be ABC (in terms of Resolutions)...
Also many ACs do subscribe to the Article. Our previous PP did. They are perfectly Catholic and patristic, only correcting errors which had crept in mostly after the great schism.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
posted by indifferently:
quote:
The Roman Church is a 19th century mission church which serves immigrants, recusants and effemirate homosexuals.
You make your brand of church sound like the BNP at prayer. At least you will only have to change one letter for your new book. I wonder what the 'n' could stand for?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Also many ACs do subscribe to the Article. Our previous PP did. They are perfectly Catholic and patristic, only correcting errors which had crept in mostly after the great schism.
I have never known any conservative Anglo-Catholic parish that shows any reverence for Articles XXII, XXV or XXVIII. Not without performing Newman-esque contortions, anyway.
Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on
:
Returning to the OP, what we appear to have is one church which asserts to be part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the other which asserts to BE the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I have frankly no idea how you square that circle.
What do I, safe in my little corner of the CofE, call Roman Catholics? I call them Roman Catholics. Not Catholics, because that general, wider term includes me.
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
Returning to the OP, what we appear to have is one church which asserts to be part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the other which asserts to BE the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
. . .
The Roman Catholic Church does not claim to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, but that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church subsists in the Roman Catholic Church.
Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on
:
That's an interesting point; is it also asserted that the whole of such a church is contained within the RC Church or that other churches may also be part of that One Holy etc?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
So you could be in the RCC but not the OHCaAC, whereas the reverse is not the case; one cannot be in the OHCaAC without also being in the RCC. Is that what you're saying is the RCC position?
There was a discussion here about this a few weeks ago, wasn't there? I seem to remember IngoB (and maybe others, sorry!) noting that the official RCC position had changed at Vatican II in the early 1960s, so other churches were now regarded as valid in some sense and folks in those other churches could be within God's salvation (and also therefore presumably within the OHCaAC. Or not?).
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
That's an interesting point; is it also asserted that the whole of such a church is contained within the RC Church or that other churches may also be part of that One Holy etc?
The RC Church is the 'smallest' body in which the fullness of the Church is 'contained'. Other 'churches' may be 'ecclesial communities' containing, as it were, elements of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The CofE, for example, might be said to be a church in an adjectival sense.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
If the Roman Catholic Church in England is an anomaly - because there can be only one manifestation of the Catholic Church in one locality at one time - then so, logically, is the Church of England abroad (or at least in Catholic countries).
The architects and stained glass artists of the Middle Ages were more than a little prophetic in contriving to make Christians live - or at least worship - in glass houses. Prophecy became irony when the Reformers started throwing stones.
Posted by argona (# 14037) on
:
I think the CH article mentioned in the OP may be here. It's a sequel to this one.
Comments which follow both articles are mostly the usual polemic. Some of those posters might consider Pope Francis' comments on Christian unity at his most recent general audience. To quote briefly:
"Unity is a grace we must ask from the Lord so that he would free us from the temptation of division, fights among us, selfishness and complaining about each other – how much damage, how much evil that chatter creates.”
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
The Roman Church is a 19th century mission church which serves immigrants, recusants and effemirate homosexuals.
No. The effeminate homosexuals are with the Anglo Catholics as Evelyn Waugh pointed out in his famous epigram
I'm not sure they have a monopoly with regard to that one!
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Dr William Oddie is the sort of Roman Catholic who makes me think the Rev Ian Paisley and the monks of Esphigmenou aren't quite as batty as they look! I doubt Pope Francis has ever heard of him, but with friends like that to defend one, who needs enemies.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
The Roman Church is a 19th century mission church which serves immigrants, recusants and effemirate homosexuals.
No. The effeminate homosexuals are with the Anglo Catholics as Evelyn Waugh pointed out in his famous epigram
To which I reply, Axios!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Indifferently
I have no idea how many homosexuals (effeminate or otherwise) there are in the British RCC compared with other denominations, but as for your other comments, they have the ring of truth. Catholicism obviously became a missionary church in the UK once its presence and safety were acknowledged and accepted in the 19th c. But its growth in the UK is mostly driven by immigration, and that seems as true today as it was in the 20th c., if not more so. Mind you, the RCC has always seemed comfortable with the idea of exporting priests around the world. Catholics are often stereotyped as right wing, but it makes little sense for them to be presented as anti-immigration. Migration is part of their modus operandi.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
The Roman Church is a 19th century mission church which serves immigrants, recusants and effemirate homosexuals.
Immigrants? Like the Lord and His Earthly family?
Well, much as I hesitate to agree with Indifferently, in England the RCC for much of the last couple of hundred years was largely composed of recusants- that is, English people from families (quite a lot, in a few areas of the country) which did not (lastingly) accept the Reformation- greatly augmented with immigrants from other parts of the British Isles (mainly Ireland) and elsewhere (notably Italy, then Poland), and their families/ descendants, and then people who had converted to the RCC for one reason or another.
So I don't think there's anything inaccurate or derogatory in saying that recusants and immigrants have been the historic core of English Roman Catholicism. But to identify the RCC in England now as being solely a church for recusants, immigrants, and converts is to ignore the extent to which it has developed from those roots. (And indeed, as ken and others would tell you, the influence of more recent immigration on the CofE in some areas.)
[ 20. June 2013, 13:34: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Dr William Oddie is the sort of Roman Catholic who makes me think the Rev Ian Paisley and the monks of Esphigmenou aren't quite as batty as they look! I doubt Pope Francis has ever heard of him, but with friends like that to defend one, who needs enemies.
And Oddie was a former Anglican priest!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by ncnative:
Hello and thanks for allowing me to join the Ship! I recently read an article in the Catholic Herald which explained that the CoE considers itself to be the Catholic Church "in England," the exact same Church that had existed prior to the reformation, and exists still as that same Church - or I think that's what the article was saying.
Assuming that is the claim that the Church of England makes, what then do they consider the Roman Catholic Church in Engand? an unnecessary duplicate of what is currently available? a "pretender" of the Catholic faith in England? or something else entirely?
Being cynical I suspect this may be not unconnected with Property. If the Church of England thought it wasn't the legitimate heir to the pre-Reformation Catholic Church in England, then it would have to give all the pre-Reformation church buildings and associated land back to Rome ...
And the RCC couldn't afford the upkeep of all these church buildings.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ncnative:
Hello and thanks for allowing me to join the Ship! I recently read an article in the Catholic Herald which explained that the CoE considers itself to be the Catholic Church "in England," the exact same Church that had existed prior to the reformation, and exists still as that same Church - or I think that's what the article was saying.
Assuming that is the claim that the Church of England makes, what then do they consider the Roman Catholic Church in Engand? an unnecessary duplicate of what is currently available? a "pretender" of the Catholic faith in England? or something else entirely?
AFAIU I think the difference in self-identity lies in that the CoE considers itself a viable expression of the Universal Church, whereas for Rome, communion with the Roman see, under the papal authority, is the definiton of the Universal Church. For Rome, the CoE is a heretical church because it does not place itself under the jurisdiction of Rome. For Rome, there is only one Catholic Church, and that is itself. For the CoE, there is the Catholic Church, and within it, there is itself.
It's a different definition of Catholic in that the CoE defines it as all those following Christ, whereas Rome defines it as all those following Rome.
When the Church of England was created the Roman adherents were considered traitors, rather than heretics. Christians who adhered to the authority of Rome would have been considered part of the universal church, but an enemy of England, after Pope Pius V issued his Bull in 1570 declaring the Roman Church the enemy of Elizabeth I, dedicated to her overthrowing.
After that situation resolved itself after 1766 with the Pope choosing to end his Papal 'war' against the English Crown, the issue of treason died down. Though Britain still continued to see adherence to the CoE as being more loyal to the Crown than adherence to Rome. But after centuries of peace, even this suspicion has faded. I think the CoE would not see the RCC as a pretender or duplicate to the title of 'One True Church', since the CoE doesn't recognise such a concept, even if that's how Rome views things themselves.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
I liked this from the Oddie article:
quote:
throughout the Anglican communion, openly gay bishops are now seen as quite normal
Presumably Fr. Oddie has fallen through a wormhole from a parallel space-time continuum?
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
Returning to the OP, what we appear to have is one church which asserts to be part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the other which asserts to BE the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
. . .
The Roman Catholic Church does not claim to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, but that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church subsists in the Roman Catholic Church.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Educate us all, then, CL...
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
oh please don't.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Educate us all, then, CL...
The word "subsist" refers to the visible bounds of the Church. It was a technical point - Rome and all the Churches in communion with her are The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The exact boundaries of the OHCAC are however open to question (we know where the Church is, we don't know where it isn't) as certain bodies possess characteristics that suggest they are valid, if schismatic, local Churches, i.e. valid Holy Orders and sacraments, hierarchical structures, etc, such as the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. There has been absolutely no change in Rome's assertion that she is The Catholic Church.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The exact boundaries of the OHCAC are however open to question (we know where the Church is, we don't know where it isn't) as certain bodies possess characteristics that suggest they are valid, if schismatic, local Churches, i.e. valid Holy Orders and sacraments, hierarchical structures, etc, such as the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox.
Okay, thanks for that. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Seems us charismatic free church folks aren't about to be considered 'valid' by the RCC. Ah well....
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
The Roman Church is a 19th century mission church which serves immigrants, recusants and effemirate homosexuals.
I am referring this to the admins.
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
...Though Britain still continued to see adherence to the CoE as being more loyal to the Crown than adherence to Rome. But after centuries of peace, even this suspicion has faded...
But - possible tangent- the association of the RCC with foreign influence lingered for a long time (and possibly does still in places). You can see it in some of the reservations about the ECSC/EEC in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s- I believe that at some point the UK government felt it necessary to explain that the Treaty of Rome had nothing to do with the Pope. (Actually, the EU owes quite a lot to Roman Catholicism- it was heavily influenced by postwar Christian Democracy and you can see the influence of Catholic Social Teaching in some of its social policy, as well as in the concept of subsidiarity.)
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Educate us all, then, CL...
The word "subsist" refers to the visible bounds of the Church. It was a technical point - Rome and all the Churches in communion with her are The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The exact boundaries of the OHCAC are however open to question (we know where the Church is, we don't know where it isn't) as certain bodies possess characteristics that suggest they are valid, if schismatic, local Churches, i.e. valid Holy Orders and sacraments, hierarchical structures, etc, such as the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. There has been absolutely no change in Rome's assertion that she is The Catholic Church.
So would it be fair to say: The RC Church is the 'smallest' body in which the fullness of the Church is 'contained'. Other 'churches' may be 'ecclesial communities' containing, as it were, elements of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
The Roman Church is a 19th century mission church which serves immigrants, recusants and effemirate homosexuals.
I am referring this to the admins.
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
Quite right too: he completely missed out apostates from protestant reformed religion, like myself. I do so hate being left out.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
Interesting that I can get banned for stating mainstream Protest opinion on this forum but other members are allowed to call me any name under the sun and get away with it.
As for CL, how exactly can Rome be the OHCAC when she has so clearly erred from the doctrines of the Church of the first millennium? I don't remember St Paul teaching the Treasury of Merit.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Well, it was a long time ago, Indifferently. Perhaps you fell asleep like Eutychus (the biblical character, not the shipmate)? But respect: I had no idea you were so old.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
The Roman Church is a 19th century mission church which serves immigrants, recusants and effemirate homosexuals.
You say that like that´s a bad thing.
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Interesting that I can get banned for stating mainstream Protest opinion on this forum but other members are allowed to call me any name under the sun and get away with it.
In what sense is it mainstream Protestant opinion that the Catholic Church is 'for' effeminate homosexuals?
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Interesting that I can get banned for stating mainstream Protest opinion on this forum but other members are allowed to call me any name under the sun and get away with it.
In what sense is it mainstream Protestant opinion that the Catholic Church is 'for' effeminate homosexuals?
It certainly was when Newman went over.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
The Roman Church is a 19th century mission church which serves immigrants, recusants and effemirate homosexuals.
Immigrants? Like the Lord and His Earthly family?
Well, much as I hesitate to agree with Indifferently, in England the RCC for much of the last couple of hundred years was largely composed of recusants- that is, English people from families (quite a lot, in a few areas of the country) which did not (lastingly) accept the Reformation- greatly augmented with immigrants from other parts of the British Isles (mainly Ireland) and elsewhere (notably Italy, then Poland), and their families/ descendants, and then people who had converted to the RCC for one reason or another.
So I don't think there's anything inaccurate or derogatory in saying that recusants and immigrants have been the historic core of English Roman Catholicism. But to identify the RCC in England now as being solely a church for recusants, immigrants, and converts is to ignore the extent to which it has developed from those roots. (And indeed, as ken and others would tell you, the influence of more recent immigration on the CofE in some areas.)
I wasn't denying that the RCC is often the church of choice for immigrants to the UK, I was questioning the idea that this is somehow a bad thing. IMO it's one of the RCC's strengths.
Indifferently, of all your issues with the RCC, why pick on immigration? Is it sinful to be an immigrant? Because as I said, our Lord and His family were immigrants.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Educate us all, then, CL...
The word "subsist" refers to the visible bounds of the Church. It was a technical point - Rome and all the Churches in communion with her are The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The exact boundaries of the OHCAC are however open to question (we know where the Church is, we don't know where it isn't) as certain bodies possess characteristics that suggest they are valid, if schismatic, local Churches, i.e. valid Holy Orders and sacraments, hierarchical structures, etc, such as the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. There has been absolutely no change in Rome's assertion that she is The Catholic Church.
I've never really understood this position of Rome and I would even dare to suggest that it betrays a certain disbelief in in it's own ecclesiology. To say that there are Holy Mysteries outside the Church borders on the blaphemous.
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Interesting that I can get banned for stating mainstream Protest opinion on this forum but other members are allowed to call me any name under the sun and get away with it.
In what sense is it mainstream Protestant opinion that the Catholic Church is 'for' effeminate homosexuals?
It certainly was when Newman went over.
As I recall, the remarks you have in mind were directed towards Anglo-Catholicism rather than the Catholic Church. By your own account, you attend Mass at Anglo-Catholic churches semi-regularly. Adapting bigoted innuendos of the nineteenth century to stereotype Catholics in 2013 is a poor joke.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
To say that there are Holy Mysteries outside the Church borders on the blaphemous.
Whereas to say that Holy Mysteries are only to be found within the Church is definitely blasphemous.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
To say that there are Holy Mysteries outside the Church borders on the blaphemous.
Whereas to say that Holy Mysteries are only to be found within the Church is definitely blasphemous.
How can the Holy Mysteries exist outside the Church? Remember, I'm not saying that the Holy Spirit doesn't act outside the Church, only that there are no Holy Mysteries outside it.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Depends how you define Holy Mysteries and how you define Church I suppose.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Interesting that I can get banned for stating mainstream Protest opinion on this forum
If by mainstream you mean "Mainstream" then I have to doubt it is really mainstream at all. That is like Christian Voice being regarded as the authoritative voice of Christians in the UK.
quote:
but other members are allowed to call me any name under the sun and get away with it.
While the name-calling is confined to Hell, you'll have to live with that.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I am a loyal Roman Catholic,though not English.(Well,I did have a grandfather from Yorkshire)
As a loyal Catholic I see the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as 'subsisting' within the visible framework of the Roman Catholic church,wherever in the world it may be found.
I recognise at the same time all my human brothers and sisters as children of God,just like myself and as those for whom Jesus Christ died on the cross.This includes those who share my faith in Jesus Christ as much as those who do not share it.They are all part of the Mystical Body of Christ(all part of Christ's one Holy Catholic and Apostolic church) - and that includes all those like Ken who is an evangelical Anglican,I think.
Yes there is a difference between those clergy who have been appointed by Catholic bishops- those who exercise their ministry licitly or indeed illicitly like the society of St Pius X schismatically like Orthodox (in the generally accepted meaning of the word) or heretically for those who do not share the fullness of the Catholic faith and order.I use these words 'licitly,illicitly,schismatically and heretically' but they are technical terms and should not be used as terms of abuse.
Catholics should recognise a child of God, a brother or sister,in every human being,a fellow Chri stian in everyone who confesses Christ and respect the ministry of all those who seek to serve their fellow Christians in whatever community they belong to.I would honour and respect a Presbyterian minister as a Presbyterian minister,an Anglican vicar or bishop as an Anglican vicar or bishop,a Lutheran pastor as a Lutheran pastor and a Catholic priest,bishop or even pope as a Catholic priest,bishop or pope.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I use these words 'licitly,illicitly,schismatically and heretically' but they are technical terms and should not be used as terms of abuse.
I hesitate to type this, as you're clearly trying to be generous and inclusive, but IMO words like 'heretically' will never be received in a purely technical sense. Sorry. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
The original post asked what those of us who are Church of England consider the Roman Catholic Church to be so here's my two-pennorth:
A sect.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
Presumably because they are like bees, who are of course in sects.
Sorry.
Anyway, as an Anglican, I believe the great majority of Anglicans to believe RCs to be fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. The word ´sect´ is applied to those who split away from a main body, like Christians from Judaism, us Anglicans from the RCs, various non-conformists from us. The word is however very loaded and seeks only to justify the ones who use the term.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
According to the OED dictionary 'heretical'means 'doctrinal error,heterodoxy.Those who diverge from the teachings of the Roman church are WITH REGARD TO THESE TEACHINGS in a state of doctrinal error.,that is,if one is to believe the teachings of the Roman church.
Those who do not believe for various reasons the teachings of the Roman church are not bound to think that they are in a state of doctrinal error.
I'm almost certain that the church of England does not believe itself to be in doctrinal error but rather to believe in certain respects the Roman church to be guilty of doctrinal error(heresy)
I would never personally refer to a fellow Christian or even a fellow human being as a heretic since I know that it is a loaded word.
However if the CofE is the Catholic church in England,is the National church of Scotland in Scotland the Catholic Church in Scotland ? If not why not ? is it in doctrinal error ? are its clergy impostors ? schismatics ? sectarians ?
If the National (Presbyterian)church of Scotland is the Catholic Church in Scotland what then is the Episcopal church in Scotland and what indeed is the 'sect' known as the Catholic Church in Scotland ?
If the Catholic church in England is as l'organist asserts a sect is it also a sect in France? If not why not ?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Interesting that I can get banned for stating mainstream Protest opinion on this forum but other members are allowed to call me any name under the sun and get away with it.
In what sense is it mainstream Protestant opinion that the Catholic Church is 'for' effeminate homosexuals?
It certainly was when Newman went over.
Rearrange the following words into a well-known phrase or saying, Indifferently:
When a hole you are in, digging stop
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Dr William Oddie is the sort of Roman Catholic who makes me think the Rev Ian Paisley and the monks of Esphigmenou aren't quite as batty as they look! I doubt Pope Francis has ever heard of him, but with friends like that to defend one, who needs enemies.
And Oddie was a former Anglican priest!
There's no anti- like an ex-
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I would honour and respect a Presbyterian minister as a Presbyterian minister,an Anglican vicar or bishop as an Anglican vicar or bishop,a Lutheran pastor as a Lutheran pastor and a Catholic priest,bishop or even pope as a Catholic priest,bishop or pope.
I respect your ecumenism and tolerance shown in so many of your posts, Forthview. So I assume it was simply a slip to refer to an Anglican 'vicar', above. As far as I know, the Anglicans (Scottish Episcopalians) in your part of the world don't have 'vicars' (or at least not many of them); many or most of those popularly called such in the C of E are not vicars but rectors, curates, chaplains etc. I know that from a strict Catholic point of view we aren't priests either, but nor are our bishops bishops.
Courtesy (and I'm not accusing you of discourtesy, just of carelessness) usually means these days that we refer to one another's ministers as they prefer to be called. Most Catholics have no problem referring to Anglican priests as priests, and addressing them as Father if that is their preference (and gender!), without implying that they are the same thing as Catholic priests.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Sorry,Angloid,I meant no disrespect.Being an international sort of person,when referring to an 'Anglican vicar' I was referring to a Church of England parson in England,not to a Scottish Episcopalian incumbent in an Episcopalian
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
cut off - I was referring to a Church of England 'vicar' not to an incumbent of a charge in the Episcopal church in Scotland.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
cut off - I was referring to a Church of England 'vicar' not to an incumbent of a charge in the Episcopal church in Scotland.
In practice, Anglican priests in England are often called "vicar" by the general public, even if they are actually rectors. Titles like "vicar" and "rector" are the equivalent of "pastor" in the RCC--that is, they're not the name of an order, but a job description.
The BCP quite plainly calls presbyters of the Church of England priests, so that's what they are.
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on
:
Nope.
As our Lord Jesus taught, there are Sheep (who follow) and there are Goats (who make their own way). Unfortunately, our Lord has a problem with the Goats, but His Father handles goats pretty well. So--
There's a Church for the obedient, and there's a Church (as Paul taught) for Free Minds; and both Churches do the will of God.
EEWC
quote:
Originally posted by ncnative:
Hello and thanks for allowing me to join the Ship! I recently read an article in the Catholic Herald which explained that the CoE considers itself to be the Catholic Church "in England," the exact same Church that had existed prior to the reformation, and exists still as that same Church - or I think that's what the article was saying.
Assuming that is the claim that the Church of England makes, what then do they consider the Roman Catholic Church in Engand? an unnecessary duplicate of what is currently available? a "pretender" of the Catholic faith in England? or something else entirely?
[ 20. June 2013, 22:50: Message edited by: Emily Windsor-Cragg ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Surely mainstream Protestant opinion is that particular churches are the local instantiation of the Holy Catholic Church, the Bride of Christ. Neither the RCC nor the CofE are churches in that sense. They are connexions of churches, federations or alliances whose members are churches.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Surely mainstream Protestant opinion is that particular churches are the local instantiation of the Holy Catholic Church, the Bride of Christ. Neither the RCC nor the CofE are churches in that sense. They are connexions of churches, federations or alliances whose members are churches.
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on
:
Mainstream Protestant opinion doesn't matter in the cosmic schema of things.
Neither, for that matter, does mainstream CATHOLIC opinion matter.
The consitituencies are not material to the function of leadership in any way.
They can believe whatever they want, who cares?
It's Leadership that heads this ship this way or that way, toward Thriving or toward Oblivion and Extinction.
Earth is troubled by a Leadership obsessed with Extinction of this cultures, that culture, this individual, that individual.
Can you see where this obsession is leading?
EEWC
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
[QUOTE]The BCP quite plainly calls presbyters of the Church of England priests, so that's what they are.
What a curious piece of BCP positivism...that or a thoroughgoing non sequitur.
Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on
:
I don't think Dr Oddie is a friend of Pope Francis, or if he is currently it won't be for long. In one of his columns, just after Pope Francis was elected, he said that he really thought of Pope Benedict as being the real Pope....or words to that effect.
I'm sure Pope Francis makes him feel uncomfortable as he does all of us who read what he has to say. Isn't that a good thing?
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
[QUOTE]The BCP quite plainly calls presbyters of the Church of England priests, so that's what they are.
What a curious piece of BCP positivism...that or a thoroughgoing non sequitur.
The more signficant thing, of course, is the commentary to be found in the Preface to the Ordinal, bound together as part of the BCP, which stipulates that there have ever been three chief orders of ministers in the Church, and that it is the intent of the Church of England that these be continued.
Yes, I know that doesn't obviate arguments based on a putative defect of intention. Not sure if that's a DH; if not, it probably ought to be.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
[QUOTE]The BCP quite plainly calls presbyters of the Church of England priests, so that's what they are.
What a curious piece of BCP positivism...that or a thoroughgoing non sequitur.
The Prayer Book saith it, I believeth it and that settleth it! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
[QUOTE]The BCP quite plainly calls presbyters of the Church of England priests, so that's what they are.
What a curious piece of BCP positivism...that or a thoroughgoing non sequitur.
I may have misread him, but Forthview seemed to be implying that the Church of England shies from calling its presbyters "priests". As the language of the BCP shows, that is not the case.
Whether other churches consider those presbyters to be priests or not is not an issue I intended to address, nor an argument I'm interested in having.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
I was about to comment on a book by William Oddie, which I thought reasonable, and then found he seems to be regarded as some sort of loonie.
His basic thesis was that England would be better off with a strong church in the reformed tradition, formed by a merger of the CofE, Methodit and URC, and a strong Catholic Church, Roman of course. I didn't get the I pression he was holding his breath, nor that he was some sort of extreme catholic.
Must've missed something.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Dear Fr Weber I can assure you that I was not implying anything when I used the term'Vicar' for certain Anglican priests .I personally have no objection to calling Anglican priests,priests,nor do I have any objection to calling Anglican bishops bishops nor indeed to calling Mormon bishops bishops,if that is the way they wish to be addressed.
My knowledge of the Church of England is somewhat limited but I thought that Anglican parish priests often had the title of 'Vicar' and to give my sentence an Anglican flavour I used the fairly common word in Anglican circles 'vicar' This was not to imply that Anglican priests are or are not in Roman Catholic terms 'priests.
However the Church of England designates its clergy is a matter for the Church of England,not for me.I,for one,was in no way seeking to imply that the Church of England had no right to call its presbyters 'priests' and I don't know what gave you that impression.
Further to the term 'vicar' not being generally used by the Scottish Episcopal church,since there are no incumbents who receive the 'Great tithes' of an English clerical rector,nor vicars who receive the lesser Tithes as was until 1936 the case in England,Scottish Episcopal clergy are known generally by the population and often by the members of the Scottish Episcopal church as 'ministers' This is generally the term used by most people in Scotland for clergy unless they happen to be Roman Catholic 'priests'.
'Rectors' in Scotland are generally understood to be the head teachers of certain secondary schools and 'provosts' are generally reckoned to be the head of a town Council rather than the head of a cathedral chapter of canons.This is however NOT to imply that certain Scottish Episcopalian clergy DO NOT use the word 'priest' to designate themselves or other clerical members of the Scottish Episcopal church.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Priest seems to be the most widely used term in my (albeit limited) experience of the SEC.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Is there a difference between a presbyter and a priest? I thought the one was a shorter version of the other (in words, not stature).
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
I don't think Dr Oddie is a friend of Pope Francis, or if he is currently it won't be for long. In one of his columns, just after Pope Francis was elected, he said that he really thought of Pope Benedict as being the real Pope....or words to that effect. ...
Of course, I don't actually know, but I did say earlier that I would be surprised if Pope Francis has ever heard of Dr Oddie.
Being a Catholic and saying that even though the full College of Cardinals has elected a new Pope, you think the previous Pope is still the real one, strikes me as directly comparable to being CofE and saying that although the BCP refers to priests, you don't think CofE clergy are priests.
[ 21. June 2013, 20:21: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
priest is indeed a shorter form of the word 'presbyter'
Few people amongst the generality of the population here in Scotland will ever have heard of the word 'presbyter'.Most people will have heard somewhere of 'presbyterian' though they may not connect the two words.
Equally few people will know that 'presbyter; means 'elder' although the word 'elder' will be known by a good number of people as something to do with the Kirk.
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on
:
I don't think combining hierarchies is ~NOT~ the answer to any problem we have in the Christian religion.
Jesus taught, taking individual initiatives [grassroots] action and hierarchies are very passive, ornate, given to dogma and full of reluctance and resistance.
I'd rather all the churches simply break apart entirely, and free us to simply deal with the Truth, in Christian problem-solving, as in Matthew chapter 18.
Fix problems yourself.
Of course, some communities have more or less effective methods for problem-solving.
I like the Benedictines.
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I was about to comment on a book by William Oddie, which I thought reasonable, and then found he seems to be regarded as some sort of loonie.
His basic thesis was that England would be better off with a strong church in the reformed tradition, formed by a merger of the CofE, Methodit and URC, and a strong Catholic Church, Roman of course. I didn't get the I pression he was holding his breath, nor that he was some sort of extreme catholic.
Must've missed something.
[ 21. June 2013, 21:11: Message edited by: Emily Windsor-Cragg ]
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
I don't think combining hierarchies is ~NOT~ the answer to any problem we have in the Christian religion.
Jesus taught, taking individual initiatives [grassroots] action and hierarchies are very passive, ornate, given to dogma and full of reluctance and resistance.
I'd rather all the churches simply break apart entirely, and free us to simply deal with the Truth, in Christian problem-solving, as in Matthew chapter 18.
Fix problems yourself.
Of course, some communities have more or less effective methods for problem-solving.
I like the Benedictines.
...who have no hierarchy?
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on
:
All communities have hierarchies and articulated functions--even secular and corporate communities--with Condo documents, Cooperative Agreements and local norms.
It's just when one over-arching l-a-r-g-e hierarchy presumes to take over and dominate local business that hierarchy becomes a problem in and of itself.
The Benedictine Order enjoys autonomy, in and of itself. It's a self-governing community, and its members are quite free-thinking in their individual habits. So are the Trappists.
But I would not say that of the Poor Claires or Dominican Order of Nuns. They are closed TIGHT--at least, here in California. They're like stepping back into the Middle Ages. I've met them. Mind CAGES in drag!
EEWC
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
[QUOTE]The BCP quite plainly calls presbyters of the Church of England priests, so that's what they are.
What a curious piece of BCP positivism...that or a thoroughgoing non sequitur.
If the BCP isn't the primary and normative source of Christian revelation, then why does the Bible quote it so much?
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on
:
The BCP can print what it wants, but God is not to be contained in a material Book--especially one that's 4000-2000 years old.
The Holy Spirit has to do double-duty until a new Scripture is written for our time.
eewc
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
The Church of England obviously has and always has had priests. That is clearly the teaching of the BCP. Why do you think foreign Reformed ministers have always had to submit to episcopal ordination? The liturgy in the ordinal is clear, and even when the Edwardine ordinal was in use, the intention was clearly to do what the Church does. End of.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
[QUOTE]The BCP quite plainly calls presbyters of the Church of England priests, so that's what they are.
What a curious piece of BCP positivism...that or a thoroughgoing non sequitur.
If the BCP isn't the primary and normative source of Christian revelation, then why does the Bible quote it so much?
The BCP derives its authority from Scripture, which the vast majority of it is directly taken from. Therefore it is true to say that the BCP is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Presumably because they are like bees, who are of course in sects.
Sorry.
Anyway, as an Anglican, I believe the great majority of Anglicans to believe RCs to be fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. The word ´sect´ is applied to those who split away from a main body, like Christians from Judaism, us Anglicans from the RCs, various non-conformists from us. The word is however very loaded and seeks only to justify the ones who use the term.
We did not split from Judaism, WE ARE the continuation of Israel. If anyone split, it was the Jews, who split from God when they rejected the Incarnate Word. As Wesley puts it:
Every eye shall now behold Him
Robed in dreadful majesty;
Those who set at naught and sold Him,
Pierced and nailed Him to the tree,
Deeply wailing, deeply wailing, deeply wailing,
Shall the true Messiah see.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
[QUOTE]The BCP quite plainly calls presbyters of the Church of England priests, so that's what they are.
What a curious piece of BCP positivism...that or a thoroughgoing non sequitur.
If the BCP isn't the primary and normative source of Christian revelation, then why does the Bible quote it so much?
The BCP derives its authority from Scripture, which the vast majority of it is directly taken from. Therefore it is true to say that the BCP is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
If the BCP is good enough for St. Paul, it's good enough for me!
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Presumably because they are like bees, who are of course in sects.
Sorry.
Anyway, as an Anglican, I believe the great majority of Anglicans to believe RCs to be fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. The word ´sect´ is applied to those who split away from a main body, like Christians from Judaism, us Anglicans from the RCs, various non-conformists from us. The word is however very loaded and seeks only to justify the ones who use the term.
We did not split from Judaism, WE ARE the continuation of Israel. If anyone split, it was the Jews, who split from God when they rejected the Incarnate Word. As Wesley puts it:
Every eye shall now behold Him
Robed in dreadful majesty;
Those who set at naught and sold Him,
Pierced and nailed Him to the tree,
Deeply wailing, deeply wailing, deeply wailing,
Shall the true Messiah see.
Oh, Lord. Are you really whipping out the blood libel?
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Presumably because they are like bees, who are of course in sects.
Sorry.
Anyway, as an Anglican, I believe the great majority of Anglicans to believe RCs to be fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. The word ´sect´ is applied to those who split away from a main body, like Christians from Judaism, us Anglicans from the RCs, various non-conformists from us. The word is however very loaded and seeks only to justify the ones who use the term.
We did not split from Judaism, WE ARE the continuation of Israel. If anyone split, it was the Jews, who split from God when they rejected the Incarnate Word. As Wesley puts it:
Every eye shall now behold Him
Robed in dreadful majesty;
Those who set at naught and sold Him,
Pierced and nailed Him to the tree,
Deeply wailing, deeply wailing, deeply wailing,
Shall the true Messiah see.
Oh, Lord. Are you really whipping out the blood libel?
Not at all.
I blame myself for the Lords cross and passion. I'm merely saying it is wrong to say that Christianity is a sect which broke off from Israel. It is not.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Y'see, I got confused because you said "The Jews aren't Israel" and then justified it with a Wesley hymn about the people that crucified Jesus going (presumably) to hell.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
Would it not be fairer to say that Second Temple Judaism is the common ancestor of both Christianity and rabbinical Judaism.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Presumably because they are like bees, who are of course in sects.
Sorry.
Anyway, as an Anglican, I believe the great majority of Anglicans to believe RCs to be fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. The word ´sect´ is applied to those who split away from a main body, like Christians from Judaism, us Anglicans from the RCs, various non-conformists from us. The word is however very loaded and seeks only to justify the ones who use the term.
We did not split from Judaism, WE ARE the continuation of Israel. If anyone split, it was the Jews, who split from God when they rejected the Incarnate Word. As Wesley puts it:
Every eye shall now behold Him
Robed in dreadful majesty;
Those who set at naught and sold Him,
Pierced and nailed Him to the tree,
Deeply wailing, deeply wailing, deeply wailing,
Shall the true Messiah see.
Well said.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
We did not split from Judaism, WE ARE the continuation of Israel.
After the destruction of the Temple, I think squabbling sisters was the better analogy.
At least until Constantine, the ghettos, pogroms, and the Holocaust, anyway.
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I would honour and respect a Presbyterian minister as a Presbyterian minister,an Anglican vicar or bishop as an Anglican vicar or bishop,a Lutheran pastor as a Lutheran pastor and a Catholic priest,bishop or even pope as a Catholic priest,bishop or pope.
I respect your ecumenism and tolerance shown in so many of your posts, Forthview. So I assume it was simply a slip to refer to an Anglican 'vicar', above. As far as I know, the Anglicans (Scottish Episcopalians) in your part of the world don't have 'vicars' (or at least not many of them); many or most of those popularly called such in the C of E are not vicars but rectors, curates, chaplains etc. I know that from a strict Catholic point of view we aren't priests either, but nor are our bishops bishops.
Courtesy (and I'm not accusing you of discourtesy, just of carelessness) usually means these days that we refer to one another's ministers as they prefer to be called. Most Catholics have no problem referring to Anglican priests as priests, and addressing them as Father if that is their preference (and gender!), without implying that they are the same thing as Catholic priests.
My copy of the Church of Ireland Book of Common Prayer refers to Deacons, Priests and Bishops so on the basis of what they are called, I call them that.
Any (Roman) Catholic slipping into weasel terms like "Vicar", "Rector" or "Minister" outside of the technical meaning of those terms should be reminded of how just how much it grinds the gears of Irish people to be told that they come from "Eire" and are taught "Erse" in school.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Effemirate? Qatari tents?
This catholic fully embraces his Catholic heritage and his Catholic siblings despite - and because of - their necessary formal hostility.
God bless them in that. God bless them period. God bless us.
And he embraces our enemy and Christ's Indifferently. In Christ.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I had no idea that a word like 'vicar' would cause me so much aggro.
This morning on BBC radio there was a religious service from St Martin in the Fields (Anglican) church in London.The announcer said that it would be introduced by the vicar,but he omitted to tell us whether the vicar was a priest (in any sense of the word) or not.I think that was probably because he assumed that we would know what was meant by the word 'vicar'.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I notice that Angloid reminds me that 'courtesy tells us that we refer to one another's ministers as they prefer to be called.
I wonder what Ronald Binge thinks about the use of the word 'minister' in this context ?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I don't know what Ronald Binge thinks, but 'minister' is surely an all-encompassing word. All priests are ministers but not all ministers are priests.
As for the St Martin in the Fields service, presumably the Vicar was introduced as the Vicar because he was the Vicar. If the service had come from a cathedral they might have introduced the Dean. Or, with an increasing number of Anglican parishes these days, it might have been a Priest-in-charge.
I suspect that the popular use of the term 'Vicar' to describe any Anglican cleric originated because of protestant prejudice against the word 'priest.' But as many people have pointed out, the Prayer Book (even in its most 'protestant' versions) has always maintained the three orders of ministry, bishops, priests and deacons. That doesn't mean that Anglican and Catholic views of priesthood are identical; nor does it mean that the ministers/presbyters of other churches are not essentially the same as our priests, whatever the preferred terminology. As Fr Jack said, 'that would be an ecumenical matter', or at least a Purgatorial one.
It's not a big deal – I'm certainly not accusing Forthview of insensitivity or anti-anglican prejudice - but This is a Christian Website and we should try and get things right. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Not all Lutheran clergy for that matter are pastors,some indeed are called 'Vikar'
I'm not sure how many Lutheran clergy there are in Scotland .I know only one parish area which covers Scotland and the North of England.
When I speak to the pastor I call him Herr Pfarrer or Herr Pastor.His wife is also ordained and I would address her formally as Frau Pastorin or Frau Pfarrerin. Were I to speak to a German Lutheran bishop I would most certainly not ask about the validity or otherwise of their episcopal titles or orders but simply address them as 'Herr Landesbischof' or Frau Landesbischoefin.
Herr Pastor or Herr Pfarrer is used equally for Catholic clergy ( though not Frau Pastorin !!)
I think that Lutheran helping clergy are referred to as Herr Vikar(Frau Vikarin) and Catholic helping clergy as Herr Kaplan.
When in Rome one does as the Romans do or as one says in translated German 'amongst the wolves you have to howl'
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Tangential question: I gather that German Lutherans avoid the title/description 'priest'. Is that also the case with Scandinavian (especially Swedish) Lutherans? In other respects they seem like MOTR+ Anglicans.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I suspect that the popular use of the term 'Vicar' to describe any Anglican cleric originated because of protestant prejudice against the word 'priest.'
To the vast majority of the population, anyone in a dog collar is referred to as a vicar regardless of denomination. A lot of Readers get it too.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Tangential question: I gather that German Lutherans avoid the title/description 'priest'. Is that also the case with Scandinavian (especially Swedish) Lutherans? In other respects they seem like MOTR+ Anglicans.
In Finland, at least, they are referred to as "pappi" which is "priest".
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Would it not be fairer to say that Second Temple Judaism is the common ancestor of both Christianity and rabbinical Judaism.
Much. It would have the added advantage of being true as well.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The announcer said that it would be introduced by the vicar,but he omitted to tell us whether the vicar was a priest (in any sense of the word) or not.I think that was probably because he assumed that we would know what was meant by the word 'vicar'.
All vicars are priests, but not all priests are vicars. The Revd Dr Sam Wells, the gentleman in question, is indeed vicar of St. Martin in the Fields. It's pretty common for the man in the street to refer to a rector, priest-in-charge, or anyone who happens to be wearing a dog collar and looks as though they might be in charge, as "vicar" though.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Tangential question: I gather that German Lutherans avoid the title/description 'priest'. Is that also the case with Scandinavian (especially Swedish) Lutherans? In other respects they seem like MOTR+ Anglicans.
In Finland, at least, they are referred to as "pappi" which is "priest".
In Iceland, they are known as "prestur."
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
All vicars are priests, but not all priests are vicars. The Revd Dr Sam Wells, the gentleman in question, is indeed vicar of St. Martin in the Fields. It's pretty common for the man in the street to refer to a rector, priest-in-charge, or anyone who happens to be wearing a dog collar and looks as though they might be in charge, as "vicar" though.
That's true. Some clergy, sadly, encourage this, too. I've worked with assistant curates and NSMs who permitted congregations to refer regularly to them - even in meetings, and in official writing etc - as 'vicar'. This inevitably caused a lot of confusion when there was, in fact, a properly licensed vicar coming into post; or the formal ministry was headed not by any vicar at all but by a rector. There would be a conversation with someone who had been 'talking with the vicar' or claiming that 'the vicar said we could do this' - and the real vicar or rector is scratching their head thinking 'wtf?'
In Church of Ireland circles, the Anglican priest is nearly always referred to as 'the Minister' or the Rector, if they are a Rector. There are a few actual vicar-posts, but not generally. But there are references in various services to 'The priest....', so it's there. But just not obvious.
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
Many years ago I was visiting Fr John Milburn (of blessed memory) in his clergy house in Brighton. Being an ignorant Yank I referred to him as the vicar of Brighton to which he hastily replied "I am NOT the vicar of Brighton !" (who was in the next parish over). I appreciated being set straight on this and am always careful to use the proper terminology where ever I am.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I suspect that the popular use of the term 'Vicar' to describe any Anglican cleric originated because of protestant prejudice against the word 'priest.'
The term "Vicar" is uncommon on these shores, so it doesn't lend itself to the same kind of synecdoche. I've only encountered it at cathedrals (where the Dean is rector), and in the American context I know it is used for mission congregations who have a vicar answerable to the bishop rather than an parish rector in their own right.
I do recall an episode of Waiting for God when the old Irishman exclaims that "vicars and nuns are from different churches!" which might have sounded sophisticated to the writers but leaves an awful lot of CoE religious in the lurch. (I was pleased by the attention the royal wedding brought to the phenomemon of Anglican religious in the persons of the Abbey chaplains).
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Not all Lutheran clergy for that matter are pastors,some indeed are called 'Vikar'
Here, at least, Lutherans (particularly of the Missourian flavour) tend to use "vicar" to refer to seminarians on internship. (Lutheran seminaries generally devote the third of a four-year programme to this parish placement).
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0