|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: Getting to grips with Anglo-Catholicism
|
shareman
Shipmate
# 2871
|
Posted
Even less in this realm of Canada. And who gave him such jurisdiction as he does over his own flock? Why, his predecessors who grabbed power they weren't entitled to. Our Orthodox bretheren couldn't tolerate that 1000 years ago, it took us another 500 years to get fed up. I'd suggest that a monarchical Papacy is decidedly NOT Catholic. I'll stop now, since this is Dead Horse territory.
--------------------
Israel also came into Egypt, and Jacob was a stranger in the land of Ham.
Posts: 516 | From: on a rock AND a hard place | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
If it wasn't for the Reformation - the Catholic Church wouldn't have seen the need for Vatican II as it wouldn't have had any other churches to compete with.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
If it was the Reformation that led to Vatican II, how come it took them so long?!
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
Because the reformation led to other churches being setup! Those churches started to get more people into them because they had english spoken services that people could understand. Those people started to leave and the RC Church felt threatened. They also were a little "old fashioned" as they were still speaking Latin whilst other churches spoke in native tongues (and in plain old tongues) so they did Vatican II!
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
For example on the issues of Orders, "Ecclesial Communities" and such like?
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Apols. That was in response to 103's in my eyes he does post.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Geneva Gown ON
The Anglo-catholicism for beginners thread may be of interest to those reading this current thread.
Geneva Gown OFF
Jolly interesting, as is the current conversation. Thanks.
Also decidedly odd when I realised I knew the OPer fairly well IRL...
I am getting the strong impression then that ACism is pretty independent of theological evangelicalism / liberalism.
So in other words, it would be possible to have someone who was both an evangelical and an AC, or a liberal and an AC, or for that matter a charismatic and an AC (as I suspect 103 might be - apologies if not).
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
How do you find the balance between the emphasis on tradition and developing and improving that tradition?
As has been covered above, you simply mean ‘developing’ the Tradition. (I do assume you mean ‘Tradition’ rather than ‘traditions’? The former is the Faith once and for all delivered to the saints of old; the latter is what man has made up in his quest to worship.) How do I personally balance fidelity to Holy Tradition and the need to develop it? Firstly, I’d say that it isn’t necessarily necessary to develop it. However, sometimes the Church has understood that the Spirit is guiding Her into a new understanding. That in itself is fine, but “Developed Tradition” must never be contrary to the prior understanding of Tradition. The Ordination of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood could be drawn in here as an example of how the Church of England, as one branch of The Church, must seek to balance Tradition and the development of that Tradition. Is the OoWttMP contrary to Tradition, or a valid development of it? I wish I knew is all I can say.
What is the emphasis of the life of the church?(obviously sharing the bread and the wine is a huge part)
The Mass/Eucharist/Holy Communion/Lord’s Supper/Breaking of Bread (can’t think of anymore alternatives at the moment, but I’m sure that there are some) is an absolutely enormously huge part of the life of the Church. Our Lord instituted the Mass (obviously not in its liturgical entirety) that we, the People of God, might be fed by His Living Word so as to be the People of God. It is at the Mass that we offer ourselves, with Christ on Calvary, to the Father - and He responds with an outpouring of Love.
The Incarnation is also an incredibly important emphasis. The fact that God Himself joined the quest of humanity to live our lives for God sanctifies our very existence. God understands our pain, and our joy. He too has experienced it. It is that which enables us to strive towards living our lives as God’s people.
I suppose, in short, though, the emphasis of the life of the Church is that quest to be built into the People of God.
Why Canterbury rather than Rome?
I came to Faith as an Anglican. I was walking past my parish church one day and saw a sign outside declaring “This church seeks to uphold the Catholic Faith within the Church of England”. Coming from a family of ‘political’ (if not theological) Protestants, I was very confused as they’d always told me the Church of England was Protestant. I went in, felt entirely at home, and came to realise, gradually, that I believed what they were saying.
Why haven’t I left, though? a) (and most importantly) I don’t see the need to, certainly not at present. I believe the Church of England to be a valid branch of the Catholic Church, with a valid three-fold order and seven, valid, sacraments. b) I don’t believe in Papal Infallibility. c) I don’t believe in transubstantiation, as such. (And 103, are you sure that you definitely believe in transubstantiation, rather than the Real Presence? I’m far, far more comfortable saying that I believe in the Real Presence, but will leave the technicalities of what that means to the Lord, thank you very much. One of the priests at one of the churches I worship at declares (at the “Ecce Agnus Dei”) “This is Jesus, born of Mary.” (Well, he did on Mothering Sunday, and does on Marian feasts) or “This is Jesus, who sends forth the Spirit” (Pentecost.). How it is, I’ve no idea. That it is, I’m sure. d) I don’t believe in the need for mandatory priestly celibacy - even when there are dispensations from this discipline.
How do you see the role of the ordained person? Why do you call them "Father"?
Good question - sure you’re not my DDO? I assume that, by ‘ordained person’, you mean priest, rather than deacon? I see him, basically, as someone who works with, and definitely for, the People of God, enabling them to work to become God’s People.
Why do we call them Father? Well, because that's what they are. They are our spiritual fathers, the heads of our parish families.
Are there typical doctrinal stances on e.g. women's ordination, homosexuality? I'd thought that ACs were pretty conservative on those things, but I've got the impression that's not always the case here.…
In the sort of AC circles in which I personally mix, we’re likely to be conservative, or at least hesitant, about both the OoWttMP and about the ‘practice’ of homosexuality. AC-ism is, though, very broad (we are Anglicans, after all) and so people do tend to disagree. However, what I think we’d all want to do was not jeopardise the unity of AC-ism, as much as is possible. We can, even if we profoundly disagree, work and pray together. And that is, after all, what counts!
Thurible
(Apologies if that’s a little long, but they weren’t exactly questions that could be answered in one word. )
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
If one is uncomfortable with Marian Activities then they are not Catholic - Catholic's say the Rosary and say daily Hail Mary's - that's what Catholics do and that can't be changed. I think that the first lot of ACs that you have described are more "High Church" not Anglo Catholic (That's my opinion, please don't kill me)
Fair point, but I'm not trying to be (Roman) Catholic. I'm trying to be an Anglican.
I don't see Anglo-Catholicism as some kind of "halfway house" between the two churches, but as a movement within Anglicanism which happens to use aspects of traditonal Catholic practice.
Since Marianism isn't very Anglican I sometimes feel uncomfortable with parts of it, like the rosary.
I don't think the Oxford movement saw themselves as becoming more Roman (can anyone confirm or contradict this?), more that they were resurrecting aspects of the Laudian and pre-Reformation English church.
You might call this viewpoint High-Church Anglicanism, but since you can be high church without smells and bells I don't think it's sufficient.
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
Yes - I do consider myself as a charismatic anglo-catholic - If you ever get the chance to go on the Walsingham Youth Pilgramage you will be able experience the amazing beauty of Charismatic Catholicism within the Anglican Church, maybe one day (but not now) I will tell you about something that happened in that tent to me that I will never forget.
As with transubstatiation - I studied that for a long time at a point in my life where I found myself questioning all religion, and I was planning on leaving the church completly, I decided rather than leaving the church, to try to understand it a little more - and that actually made my beliefs stronger.
Whilst having Charismatic tendancies and I like a good alt.mass - I view myself as quiet conservative in my morals and practises. I don't believe that Women can be validly ordained as priests, my Parish Priest says that if the pope allowed Women priests, then he would accept them - but I don't think I would even see them as valid if the Pope saw them as valid (please don't hit me), I have all kinds of Marian Stuff (eg. Rosary, Virtual Rosary (PC Version), Virtual Rosary (Palm OS Version), Multi Colored Rosary, Glow-in-the-dark Rosary, Our Lady of Walsingham Statue, Our Lady of Lourdes Statue, Our Lady of Lourdes glow-in-the-dark Statue)
And I have taken part in an Anglican Tridentrine Mass a few times.
Mass is central to my worship which I attend at least once a week, sometimes 2 or 3 times (I have gone to mass every Sunday without exception for about 3 years and before that one sunday where I went to a BBQ I had a good record of about 6/7 years!)
Homosexuals - I think it's rather cruel to exclude them from priesthood, as long as a priest is a man - I don't have a problem with it.
Marrage of Homosexuals - not possible! - Marrage is only for the procreation of life! Prehaps a "ceremony of partnership" within the church would be more suitable - although I am very unsure about how the issue of sex could be sorted, as I have always been taught, and I believe that sex should only be preformed for the procreation of life! (i'm also anti-abortion and I am hoping to take part in a pro-life march in the summer)
Female Servers - again, not a problem for me (I actually quite like to serve next to a girl at church ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
OK - that's my rather odd version of Anglo Catholicism put into one post - you might agree that it's pretty much like Roman Catholicism but I am an Anglo Catholic!
Good innit?
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
I'm even more confused over what jurisiction you see the Pope as having now, 103. You say change is good, and that the Pope has the authority to change things, but that doesn't extend to the ordination of women. What is his jurisdiction in your view, and on what grounds is it limited?
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
Right - there is this thing called "Apostolic Succession" that I believe in - it's a rather silly little thing that allows validly ordained priests and bishops to be able to trace their way back to Peter and then to Jesus. Now, none of those priests and bishops in that really long line have ever been women, Jesus didn't have discipless' and I don't think he ever would in modern times!
The Pope can change certain things, but surely if one pope says "ah, women priests are ok now" and then he finds that he has made a mistake, you get women bishops, those women bishops ordain both men and women who are not valid. The result: True Christianity dies out - then we're basically f*cked.
The pope can change other things because they can always be changed back! But women priests cannot be reversed once apostolic sucession has messed up.
If Novus Ordo masses were found to be wrong, they could always revert back to Tridentrine masses.
Also women priests is too much of a talking point, it would do exactly what it has done to the anglican church - it would split it completly.
Now this topic is starting to sound a little like a dead horses topic - sorry about that.
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by The 103rd:
quote:
The Pope can change certain things, but surely if one pope says "ah, women priests are ok now" and then he finds that he has made a mistake, you get women bishops, those women bishops ordain both men and women who are not valid. The result: True Christianity dies out - then we're basically f*cked.
Make your mind up. Either the Pope is the Vicar of God and can pronounce infallibly on these matters, in which case he could, in theory, pronounce that the ordination of women was a good thing. Alternatively he isn't in which case your Anglo-Papalism is, to coin a phrase, basically f*cked.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by The 103rd:
quote:
The Pope can change certain things, but surely if one pope says "ah, women priests are ok now" and then he finds that he has made a mistake, you get women bishops, those women bishops ordain both men and women who are not valid. The result: True Christianity dies out - then we're basically f*cked.
Make your mind up. Either the Pope is the Vicar of God and can pronounce infallibly on these matters, in which case he could, in theory, pronounce that the ordination of women was a good thing. Alternatively he isn't in which case your Anglo-Papalism is, to coin a phrase, basically f*cked.
This is my story
This is my song
And I'm sticking to it!
I seriously doubt that the Roman Catholic Church would be foolish enough to allow women priests anyway!
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
Geneva Gown ON
Ordination of women is a Dead Horse. No more of it on this thread, or any other MW thread.
Geneva Gown OFF
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
Let's just get our notions of Papal Infallibility a bit better worked out shall we?
The Pope, through his position as Vicar of Christ, is not infallable about everything. If the Pope said it was raining and it wasn't then it wouldn't mean it was raining. Where the Pope can be regarded as infallible is on major points of doctrine and dogma where he speaks on behalf of the Church that he has been called to lead. That Church is regarded as the Body of Christ and, as such, is guided and led by the Holy Spirit which, being divine, cannot be mistaken. Therefore the Pope, on certain major issues of dogma such as the Assumption of Our Lady is speaking the mind of the Church of God and thus the will of the Holy Spirit.
I agree that the major objection to this is that, as weak and sinful men, we may misread or misinterpret the will of the Paraclete. However, it can be argued that God would not want, on such weighty issues, His Church to teach errors which might lead his chosen people away from the truth. Thus the Pope, as Vicar of Christ, is infallible as he pronounces the will of God through His Church.
You can disagree with this (as many RC's do of course) but it has a certain logic.
In this way a Pope cannot simply say 'women can be ordained priests' and then a later one say 'no they can't'. A Pope, in such a matter as this, has to speak on behalf of the Church for ever not simply his own mind or wish at that particular time.
(by the way, this is not a post about the ordination of women; merely one about the Holy Father)
Cosmo
[ 06. July 2004, 21:55: Message edited by: Cosmo ]
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Geneva Gown ON
Ordination of women is a Dead Horse. No more of it on this thread, or any other MW thread.
Geneva Gown OFF
I said that further up actually, but people ignored me.
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
Let's just get our notions of Papal Infallibility a bit better worked out shall we?
The Pope, through his position as Vicar of Christ, is not infallable about everything. If the Pope said it was raining and it wasn't then it wouldn't mean it was raining. Where the Pope can be regarded as infallible is on major points of doctrine and dogma where he speaks on behalf of the Church that he has been called to lead. That Church is regarded as the Body of Christ and, as such, is guided and led by the Holy Spirit which, being divine, cannot be mistaken. Therefore the Pope, on certain major issues of dogma such as the Assumption of Our Lady is speaking the mind of the Church of God and thus the will of the Holy Spirit.
I agree that the major objection to this is that, as weak and sinful men, we may misread or misinterpret the will of the Paraclete. However, it can be argued that God would not want, on such weighty issues, His Church to teach errors which might lead his chosen people away from the truth. Thus the Pope, as Vicar of Christ, is infallible as he pronounces the will of God through His Church.
You can disagree with this (as many RC's do of course) but it has a certain logic.
In this way a Pope cannot simply say 'women can be ordained priests' and then a later one say 'no they can't'. A Pope, in such a matter as this, has to speak on behalf of the Church for ever not simply his own mind or wish at that particular time.
(by the way, this is not a post about the ordination of women; merely one about the Holy Father)
Cosmo
My poor head, I don't suppose many people have the chance to have this conversation to this degree of complexity at the ripe old age of 16.
Right, let's see if I can understand what you have just said.
What the pope says is pretty much right, he's a well educated man, who is serving God.
I can't do anything that is against my consiounce - if the pope told me to do something, or to accept something that I thought was wrong, I wouldn't do it and I wouldn't agree with it.
If I felt he was going to ruin Christianity, I would do something to stop it.
Take the Society of St Pius X, they are Catholic, they call themselves catholic - although the church in Rome doesn't see them as catholics anymore - but they have decided that they think that Novus Ordo Masses are wrong and that the only true mass is the Tridentrine Mass. I respect them for that - and I think it's good that they are standing up for their beliefs because they feel that anything other than the Latin Mass is invalid and that the pope made a rather big decision.
As of yet - the pope hasn't made a wrong decision in my humblest of opinions, I do think that the Anglican Church did.
I don't think that the pope will make a decision about allowing women into priesthood - as he is right.
I hope I understood what you were trying to get at and I hope you understand what I'm trying to say
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
quote:
The 103rd said:
Our Lady of Lourdes glow-in-the-dark Statue
The badge of a true Anglo-Catholic! I bow down before you my friend
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
quote:
The 103rd said:
Our Lady of Lourdes glow-in-the-dark Statue
The badge of a true Anglo-Catholic! I bow down before you my friend
Oh comeon - my momma used to put it by my bedside when I was young and scared of the dark!
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saviour Tortoise
Shipmate
# 4660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Chad:
That statement doesn't contradict Article XXV, it explains it.
Ah yes, so it does. Just gone back and re-read article 25. It doesn't quite say what I'd always thought it said! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
(I'm pleased to find, however, that I'm more in agreement with it than I thought I was!)
(Sorry for the delayed response - only just got a web connection back...)
--------------------
Baptised not Lobotomised
Posts: 745 | From: Bath, UK | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I'm pretty sure papal infallibility is also a dead horse, so I won't ask about the Crusades, etc....
How interesting that of the four main "parties" within the C of E (ACs, charismatics, evangelicals, liberals) only evangelicals and liberals seem to be mutually exclusive. And even then, it's complicated, because there are lots of ways in which people can be evangelical or liberal.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
I'm pretty sure papal infallibility is also a dead horse, so I won't ask about the Crusades, etc....
I'm not sure whether papal infallibility is a dead horse, but the question you are not asking reveals a large misunderstanding of the doctrine. The doctrine (which is a modern innovation only being promulgated in the 19th Century c. 1870 I believe) is very narrow in scope and only applies to certain things, mainly doctrinal. I've certainly never heard it applied to the crusades, indeed did not the Pope offer an apology for them a couple of years back?
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
As of yet - the pope hasn't made a wrong decision in my humblest of opinions
What about his views on the validity of AngloCatholic sacraments, then?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
As of yet - the pope hasn't made a wrong decision in my humblest of opinions
What about his views on the validity of AngloCatholic sacraments, then?
I don't think he even knows of Anglo Catholics - we need to force him to go to an AC Mass - At the moment he thinks we're a load of prots!
Oh, and I don't think it was THIS pope who made the decision, I think the sacraments would said to be invalid a very long time ago.
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crotalus
Shipmate
# 4959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CIII:
At the moment he thinks we're a load of prots!
And that Rowan Williams is a doubtfully baptized layman!
Posts: 713 | From: near the knacker's yard | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wayward Crucifer
Shipmate
# 152
|
Posted
And he seems to be careful to avoid saying anything that could be taken as recognizing Anglican orders. I gather, that when he visited Canturbury in 1982, despite being given several opportunities to by comments made by Abp. Runcie, he did not say anything that could have understood as accepting Runcie's episcopal nature.
And what's a century to the Roman Church?
Wayward
--------------------
"it is folly -- it is madness -- to suppose that you can worship Jesus in the Sacraments and Jesus on the Throne of glory, when you are sweating him in the souls and bodies of his children. It cannot be done."
Frank Weston, Bishop of Zanzibar
Posts: 314 | From: Over here! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
Jesus didn't have discipless' and I don't think he ever would in modern times!
-103
He certainly wouldn't have had in his own time -- look at the scandal Mary Magdalene caused -- but I'm not so sure about modern times.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
I actually can understand why the pope wouldn't see Anglican Orders as valid - i mean, there are churches in the Church of England who are distinctivly protestant. They pride themselves by saying that "Communion is a SYMBOL of the body and blood of christ" and they have women "ministers" and the strangest thing is that we are in communion with them - yet we are completly different. If the holy church in Rome was to see our orders as valid, then the RC Church would have to change docterines etc. to be able to hold the Protestant Churches (if the protestant churches didn't storm out in protest)
And the RC Church can't exactly say "Well Anglo-Catholic churches are allowed into our communion, but all the rest of the church of england, you aren't invited"
I'm not entirely comfortable with having the more protestant bodies of the church of england in communion with myself - so Rome definatly won't like it!
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Did Rome rescind Cranmer's bishophood? If not, they really ought to recognise all of the C of E folk.
On the whole papal infallibility thing, I understand it only refers to proclamations made ex cathedra, but I vaguely remembered there was such a proclamation at the time of the Crusades that anyone killing an infidel gained a place in heaven or something.
The issue would be that if the Pope had made two contradictory infallible proclamations, then the system doesn't seem to work.
[ 07. July 2004, 12:44: Message edited by: Custard123 ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
Did Rome rescind Cranmer's bishophood? If not, they really ought to recognise all of the C of E folk.
On the whole papal infallibility thing, I understand it only refers to proclamations made ex cathedra, but I vaguely remembered there was such a proclamation at the time of the Crusades that anyone killing an infidel gained a place in heaven or something.
The issue would be that if the Pope had made two contradictory infallible proclamations, then the system doesn't seem to work.
Yeah - I think the Roman Catholic Church say that the first archbishop of canterbury was ordained in the nag's head in LDN.
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
Did Rome rescind Cranmer's bishophood?
Yes, sort-of, in a kind of way. And then they burned him.
You need to catch up on some Reformation History. Where's my copy of Acts and Monuments when I need it?
Ah... Google is my friend...
Read some of the sorry story of Cranmer's condemnation, recantation, re-condemnation, de-recantation and eventual martyrdom at
justus.org
Also of course of Latimer and Ridley, who were more consistent, though also martyred.
[quote]Be of good cheer, Master Ridley, and play the man, for we shall this day light such a candle in England as I trust by God' grace shall never be put out. [quote]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I knew Mary had Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley et al executed. I was wondering whether Rome had decided that Cranmer was never a bishop...
Oh, while I'm on here,
How would you define Anglo-Catholicism?
What are the distinctive beliefs / practices which help you tell whether someone is AC or not?
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elephenor
Shipmate
# 4026
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
I was wondering whether Rome had decided that Cranmer was never a bishop...
So far as I am aware there has never been any suggestion that Cramner was not a bishop (a secret and illegal marriage does not invalidate consecration), and indeed a Papal Legate (a title - and powers - he continued to employ for some time after the split from Rome).
The rot supposedly set in with Archbishop Parker, I understand.
[ 07. July 2004, 14:35: Message edited by: Elephenor ]
--------------------
"Man is...a `eucharistic' animal." (Kallistos Ware)
Posts: 214 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
How would you define Anglo-Catholicism?
What are the distinctive beliefs / practices which help you tell whether someone is AC or not?
As discussed further up in the discussion - beliefs vary between Anglo Catholics - there are ACs like me who are more like Roman Catholics but in the Anglican Communion, and then there are Anglo Catholics which are more like Anglicans who have a Medieval style of service that is more like the pre reformation style services and then there are Anglo Catholics who worship in a style like the Oxford Movement with some Catholic things, but no marian stuff and it is still distictavly Anglican.
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mountain Man
Shipmate
# 5115
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
Marrage is only for the procreation of life!
Really? So where does that leave people like my fiancé and myself who don't want to have children then? I think you'll find marriage is bigger than just procreation.
--------------------
Life is a mountain not a beach!
Me, My Blog, My Work
Posts: 320 | From: Coventry, United Kingdom | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mountain Man:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
Marrage is only for the procreation of life!
Really? So where does that leave people like my fiancé and myself who don't want to have children then? I think you'll find marriage is bigger than just procreation.
You get married to be able to have intercourse don't you? Intercourse is meant for procreation of life innit! Pretty Simple! If you aren't planning on having kids then there is no point in doing it is there? That's my opinions and you might not like it, but that's it!
You can love somebody without needing to be married, but if you want to do 'it' then you should be married first.
-103
[ 07. July 2004, 14:53: Message edited by: The103rd ]
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
I was wondering whether Rome had decided that Cranmer was never a bishop...
Hardly. They couldn't do that because they appointed him in the first place - or at least approved his appointment.
I don't think the Roman church thinks that you can stop being a priest or bishop - but you can be removed from any office you hold and the duties and rights and privileges that go with it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saviour Tortoise
Shipmate
# 4660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
quote:
Originally posted by Mountain Man:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
Marrage is only for the procreation of life!
Really? So where does that leave people like my fiancé and myself who don't want to have children then? I think you'll find marriage is bigger than just procreation.
You get married to be able to have intercourse don't you? Intercourse is meant for procreation of life innit! Pretty Simple! If you aren't planning on having kids then there is no point in doing it is there? That's my opinions and you might not like it, but that's it!
You can love somebody without needing to be married, but if you want to do 'it' then you should be married first.
-103
Henry. That may qualify as the most offensive thing you've ever said on the ship.
--------------------
Baptised not Lobotomised
Posts: 745 | From: Bath, UK | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saviour Tortoise:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
quote:
Originally posted by Mountain Man:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
Marrage is only for the procreation of life!
Really? So where does that leave people like my fiancé and myself who don't want to have children then? I think you'll find marriage is bigger than just procreation.
You get married to be able to have intercourse don't you? Intercourse is meant for procreation of life innit! Pretty Simple! If you aren't planning on having kids then there is no point in doing it is there? That's my opinions and you might not like it, but that's it!
You can love somebody without needing to be married, but if you want to do 'it' then you should be married first.
-103
Henry. That may qualify as the most offensive thing you've ever said on the ship.
OK - prehaps I should withdraw that last comment - I was trying to explain it without causing offense but obviously I have caused offense. Sorry.
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mountain Man
Shipmate
# 5115
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
You get married to be able to have intercourse don't you?
Actually we are getting married because we love each other.
I like the way the BCP puts it :-
It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
Anyone who gets married just for sex might like to look at the bit of the service that says;
nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding
quote:
Intercourse is meant for procreation of life innit! Pretty Simple! If you aren't planning on having kids then there is no point in doing it is there?
No. Plenty of other reasons.
--------------------
Life is a mountain not a beach!
Me, My Blog, My Work
Posts: 320 | From: Coventry, United Kingdom | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
Geneva Gown ON
I don't know where to begin. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Papal Infallibility is not a Dead Horse to the best of my knowledge, but discussions of that are beyond the scope of MW. Take that to Purgatory.
Discussions of the purpose of intercourse are not by any stretch of the imagination a subject for MW. Take them to Purgatory as well, but do watch how you word things, to avoid being called to Hell.
"My worship pracitice is better than your worship practice" isn't a discussion. It's just bickering and generally rude. Knock it off.
This thread had better justify it's existence as more than just a nastier version of the AC for Beginners thread referred to earlier, else it will be closed.
Geneva Gown OFF
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fooferan
Shipmate
# 6830
|
Posted
Oh dear, can I comment while staying in the purview of the MW?
According to BCP 1662, quote:
duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
AFAIK inability to procreate has not kept people from marrying in the CofE. No fertility tests or such to qualify....
--------------------
"Who is most true and pleasing to thee then
When she is embraced and open to most men." John Donne
Posts: 186 | From: Guadalajara, Mexico | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fooferan
Shipmate
# 6830
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fooferan:
Oh dear, can I comment while staying in the purview of the MW?
According to BCP 1662, quote:
duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
AFAIK inability to procreate has not kept people from marrying in the CofE. No fertility tests or such to qualify....
[ETA--Sorry Mountainman, somehow missed your post before posting]
--------------------
"Who is most true and pleasing to thee then
When she is embraced and open to most men." John Donne
Posts: 186 | From: Guadalajara, Mexico | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
Geneva Gown ON
No, you didn't stay in bounds.
I mean it. No more discussions of the purpose of sex.
Geneva Gown OFF
[ 08. July 2004, 04:09: Message edited by: Siegfried ]
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
I'll put this thread into a different gear shall I?
Are there any dioceses where you are more likely to find an Anglo Catholic Church?
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
Are there any dioceses where you are more likely to find an Anglo Catholic Church?
London. Chichester.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
Truro and bits of Exeter. If by Anglo-Catholic you include Aff-Caff shacks then Southwark is crawling with them. Wakefield has quite a few. Some dioceses are more traditional than others (Peterborough for example or Sodor and Man) but not neccessarily A/C. Otherwise you're left with the city centres and the slums up and down the country.
Overseas you have the Dioceses of Fort Worth, Quincy and most of the Church in South Africa. Depending on which missionary society missioned them, the dioceses in Africa vary. The Church in Nigeria is almost exclusively evangelical whereas Ghana is very A/C (especially Kofidura - sp?) The most Anglo-Catholic diocese in the world is probably Ballarat (mind you, it's pretty small).
Cosmo
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
Parts of Oxford, certainly the city itself. I understood that the church in the West Indies was pretty A/C - is that actually true?
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
I understood that the church in the West Indies was pretty A/C - is that actually true?
Many of our West Indian parishioners have what they would call a "High Church" background. They point out that back in Jamaica or Barbados if you wanted to be an evangelical you probably were a Baptist, so the Anglicans tended to get the ritual-lovers.
Some of them have even been seen to cross themselves ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) - a rarity in our evangelical church.
Whether their home churches would have come up to the rarified standards needed to qualify as "Anglo Catholic" for the discerning ritualists on the Ship is something I'm not qualified to comment on.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
If by Anglo-Catholic you include Aff-Caff shacks then Southwark is crawling with them.
I can certainly confirm this about our bit of Southwark. Of the 7 parishes in our deanery 3 are "open evangelical" and the others more or less Aff-Cath (though if you don't count places like St. Paul's, Deptford or All Saint's, Hatcham as "Anglo Catholic" your candle must be very High indeed) There are 22 parishes in neighbouring Lewisham deaneries, and almost all are some sort of AC. (Including IIRC at least 2 FiF)
Things are even further up the candle in Brighton, (my home town) where Anglicanism was more or less a sea of mostly poorly attended Anglo-Catholic parishes with 2 or 3 islands of Evangelicalism - with much larger congregations. There is now a plan afoot to transfer St. Peter's Brighton (the new parish church for the town - the old one is St. Nicholas on Dyke Road) to one of the evangelical congregations in the hope that they will be large enough to raise enough money to look after the building. I suspect the plan will come to nothing.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
