|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Church of England (and therefore Anglicans) are Protestants??
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Is the following from the Coronation oath enough to settle the matter?:
quote:
Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Queen. All this I promise to do.
No. The first half of the oath is obviously referring only to the Church of Scotland, because that is the only Protestant Reformed Religion established by law in the United Kingdom. It's only the second half of the Oath that relates to the CofE. Clearly... ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
But it does surely mean that with almost 40% of the Canadian population professing some sort of allegiance to Catholicism the Catholic Church has some sort of higher (not necessarily better )profile than the Mennonites.
A lot of it is regional. The stats are boosted because virtually all French Canadians are nominally RC in terms of what they write on the census. Here in Québec, non-practicing Catholicism is the de facto state religion. Depending on where you go (say, parts of southwestern Ontario or the Prairies), "plain" Anabaptist groups have a very high profile indeed.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't disown the label 'protestant' but it's not very useful since it has to be redefined every time depending on who you are speaking to.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
[ 28. April 2015, 11:27: Message edited by: Knopwood ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
It's only on the Ship that I've come across Anglicans who deny they are Protestants. We came into existence by breaking away from Rome, at a time when there was a widespread recognition that Rome needed to be reformed. Therefore I find it hard to see how we can be anything other than Protestant.
(However, I also affirm that we are Catholic, and that we contain the best of all worlds. In my own, bigoted, mind I believe that when Rome finally catches up with the Reformation it will want to rejoin us!)
But the Henrician Church was undoubtedly Catholic - for a start, the term Protestant hadn't even been invented yet! The Henrician Church broke away from Rome in a legal sense but was totally Catholic in practice, and persecuted Reformers/those who would be called Protestant now.
Reformation of Rome before the Henrician split was by and large a Catholic Humanist proposal, and not Protestant at all.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
crunt
Shipmate
# 1321
|
Posted
Growing up in the Church in Wales, if any one mentioned anything about Catholics, you could guarantee one maiden aunt or other (who would have been baptised, and maybe confirmed, CofE before the disestablishment of the Welsh church) piping up with:
"You mean Roman Catholic".
I always thought that we were Catholic, and they were Roman Catholic. I never really valued the Protestant heritage of the Anglican church, and the Anglo-sphere in general, until I was much, much older.
A friend's dad from Presbyterian Paisley was often fond of telling me that Anglicans are half-baked Catholics. Last time I was home I hoped I would bump into him so I could come back with something like:
"No, Adam. Anglicans are half-baked PROTESTANTS!".
--------------------
QUIZ: Bible
QUIZ: world religions
LTL Discussion
languagespider.com
Posts: 269 | From: Up country in the middle of Malaysia | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
This is what Fowler- a grammarian rather than a theologian, and IIRC an agnostic although no doubt culturally an Anglican one- has to say on the subject of usage :
quote:
It is open to Roman-Catholics to use C. [Catholic] by itself in a sense that excludes all but themselves; but it is not open to a Protestant to use it instead of Roman-Catholic without implying that his own Church has no right to the name of C. Neither the desire of brevity (as in the C. countries ) nor the instinct of courtesy (as in I am not forgetting that you are a C.) should induce anyone who is not Roman-C. to omit the Roman-.
That, I think, is correct.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
That is where pedantry becomes rudeness. I might (I don't, but some people do) regret the current meaning of the word 'gay', but if someone defines their sexuality thus it would be rude for me to insist on a clinical term such as homosexual. If a member of one of the Orthodox churches described themself as thus, it would be rude (and irrelevant) for me to say, 'well, I'm orthodox too you know.' It seems to me it is an exact parallel to concede 'Catholic' as a brand name without denying its application to oneself.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
It's only on the Ship that I've come across Anglicans who deny they are Protestants.
Really? I'd come across this a lot, long before I'd even heard of the Ship. You're obviously mixing with the wrong people ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Almost certainly - but the wrong people are a lot more fun!
As for Pomona's point, please remember the CoE was established by Elizabeth. There was a mild Reformation under Henry, a drastic one under Edward, a turning back under Mary, and finally the establishment of a via media under Elizabeth. By which time the term almost certainly did exist, and we were able to get the best of both worlds.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
As for Pomona's point, please remember the CoE was established by Elizabeth.
That is, to put it mildly, a matter of some debate. Most Anglicans would date the founding of the CofE to the arrival of St. Augustine.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Isn't there a difference between 'being founded' and 'being established' (as in the sense of 'the Established Church')?
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
As for Pomona's point, please remember the CoE was established by Elizabeth.
That is, to put it mildly, a matter of some debate. Most Anglicans would date the founding of the CofE to the arrival of St. Augustine.
Depends on what you mean by the Church of England. St Augustine of Canterbury may have founded the Church in England, but the Church of England as a body with distinctive theological emphases and liturgical practices was established later.
And I'd say it was established by Edward VI (or his proxies), not Elizabeth. But that's nitpicking.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
That is where pedantry becomes rudeness. I might (I don't, but some people do) regret the current meaning of the word 'gay', but if someone defines their sexuality thus it would be rude for me to insist on a clinical term such as homosexual. If a member of one of the Orthodox churches described themself as thus, it would be rude (and irrelevant) for me to say, 'well, I'm orthodox too you know.' It seems to me it is an exact parallel to concede 'Catholic' as a brand name without denying its application to oneself.
No, not at all. Roman Catholic is not at all a derogatory term and is indeed arguably a more specific and accurate description of those who are in communion with the Pope and follow the Roman (as opposed to, say, the Greek) rite. But the point here is that AFAIK no Roman Catholic objects to it as a description.I might use the simple term Catholic in contexts where the point to be distinguished is not the Roman-ness but the Catholicity of the RCC (as against, say, the Orthodox) but not where the point is the distinctiveness of the RCC from my own church. So in fact, if in that latter case,as a member of the CofE/ CinW/CofS (if I were one) or whatever, I use the term Roman Catholic I am meeting my RC interlocutor on the common ground between us. I and s/he agree that his/her Church is both Roman and Catholic. I do not agree that tha church has an exclusive claim to the term 'Catholic' so by sticking to that point I do not allow the question that divides us to arise. I would not 'correct' her/his usage (because to do so would be to press a claim which s/he might not be able to accept) but neither would I follow it.
[ 28. April 2015, 17:35: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Actually I know a number of 'Roman' Catholics who are unhappy with the first part of that term; they will say 'I am an English Catholic' or 'a Dutch Catholic' or whatever... 'if I was Italian and lived in Rome I would be a Roman Catholic.' I know that is pedantry too. But I still don't see why we should have to be equally pedantic when the meaning is normally quite clear from the context. In a theological debate it might be different, but in ordinary conversation... After all, there are plenty of methodical non-Methodists, and most Christians practise baptism without being Baptists.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
No no. Those aren't parallels.
In fairness, it must be said that the RCC's understanding of other 'ecclesial communities', and ceratinly the terms in which they are prepared to talk to/ about them, have come quite a long way since Fowler wrote that piece in 1926. But (when referring to those in communion with Rome) they say 'Catholic'; we say 'Roman Catholic'; and we all know where we stand.
[ 28. April 2015, 18:14: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
It's only on the Ship that I've come across Anglicans who deny they are Protestants.
Really? I'd come across this a lot, long before I'd even heard of the Ship. You're obviously mixing with the wrong people
Almost certainly - but the wrong people are a lot more fun!
As for Pomona's point, please remember the CoE was established by Elizabeth. There was a mild Reformation under Henry, a drastic one under Edward, a turning back under Mary, and finally the establishment of a via media under Elizabeth. By which time the term almost certainly did exist, and we were able to get the best of both worlds.
Well, the breaking away happened under Henry which is what you mentioned. I'm aware of the various Tudor reforms but Henry started the legal break. That was exactly my point, that the process was a long and uneven one that allowed for confusion to set in.
Funnily enough that reminds me of the Anglicans I've encountered that thought Elizabeth compromised too much and that Edward was the hero there! You won't be at all surprised to hear that these were Oak Hill graduates in East Sussex when +Benn was bishop of Lewes...
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Plus the RCC itself uses the term Roman Catholic, even in prominent places like diocesan websites. There can't really be any dispute that it is the appropriate term.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
As for Pomona's point, please remember the CoE was established by Elizabeth.
That is, to put it mildly, a matter of some debate. Most Anglicans would date the founding of the CofE to the arrival of St. Augustine.
Actually, it's earlier than that. Western Britain has been officially Christian since the Edict of Theodosius in 380. This includes a substantial slice of the west side of England which the Anglo-Saxons did not acquire until after they were converted.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Ah, but can Britain be said to be "England" before the arrival of the Angles? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I know, I know, pedantry abounds. Sorry.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40
|
Posted
Well of course it was all Christian before those Anglo-Saxons came over and messed up entire works.......
I think we should annex England and call it 'Lloegr'
--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen
'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10
Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Actually, it's earlier than that. Western Britain has been officially Christian since the Edict of Theodosius in 380. This includes a substantial slice of the west side of England which the Anglo-Saxons did not acquire until after they were converted.
Probably, but I think Augustine gives a date from which institutional continuity can be established.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
That the term 'catholic' is used as a short hand sometimes by the Roman Catholics will sometimes require an additional question to clarify, but only when the person's meant meaning is not clear. So we don't end up like Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
In Belfast, people know perfectly well what these two words mean.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Well yes. And in fairness, if I were to go and visit Angloid in Liverpool and he said 'I'll meet you outside the Catholic cathedral', I'd have to be a bloody fool (which I may be) or an extreme pedant (and I hope I'm not that kind of bloody fool) to pretend not to know which end of Hope St he'd be waiting for me at. But still, those of us who are not RC shouldn't do anything to give the impression that we think that the RCC has any exclusive claim to the name 'Catholic'. It does grieve me to hear the BBC radio news almost uniformly using the unadorned word to refer specifically to Roman Catholics.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
In Belfast, people know perfectly well what these two words mean.
And you can't get away with it by telling them you're an Anglican either
'Are you a Protestant Anglican or a Catholic Anglican?'
( Well actually I'm a bit of both....)
By the way where is Gamaliel? I'd have thought he'd have dived into this particular thread.....
--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen
'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10
Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
In Belfast, people know perfectly well what these two words mean.
And you can't get away with it by telling them you're an Anglican either
'Are you a Protestant Anglican or a Catholic Anglican?'
I'm reminded of the old joke about the Englishman on holiday in Glasgow, who decides to go to an Old Firm derby (Rangers v Celtic, for those not in the know).
After 10 minutes, Celtic score. The Englishman jumps up and applauds loudly. 5 minutes later, Rangers equalise. Again, the Englishman jumps up and applauds. At this point, the man sitting next to him turns and says "What are you? A f***ing athiest?"
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wm Dewy
Shipmate
# 16712
|
Posted
There seems to be some misunderstanding that “Protestant” and “Catholic “are polar opposites. I am an Anglican and therefore protestant by definition.
A priest very dear to me said, “Catholic is as Catholic does.” If a sinner is baptized, confirmed by a Bishop in Apostolic Succession, attends Mass on Sundays and other days of obligation, avails himself of the sacraments including confession and unction, attends public and private adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament, abstains from meat on Fridays, and regularly prays the Rosary, it seems uncharitable to declare that he’s not Catholic.
Father, we pray for your holy Catholic Church;
That we all may be one.
- page 387 in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer
--------------------
"And harmoniums and barrel - organs be miserable--what shall I call 'em ? - miserable machines for such a divine thing as music!"
Posts: 216 | From: Indiana USA | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Ah, but can Britain be said to be "England" before the arrival of the Angles?
I know, I know, pedantry abounds. Sorry.
Non Angli, sed Angeli - not angels, but Anglicans.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
So the CofE traces its origins (in the view of some people )to St Augustine,an Italian emissary of the pope.What about the ecclesial community in England,which has a separate hierarchy,separate cathedrals and parishes and still has in the Papal Nuncio to the Court of St James an Italian emissary of the pope resident in England ? Can it trace its foundation also to the time of St Augustine of Canterbury ?
Do Anglicans describe themselves also as Orthodox ? Surely they are orthodox in belief ?
It's easiest to say that Anglicans are Anglicans and leave it as that,though I am quite happy for Christians to call themselves whatever they wish.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
So the CofE traces its origins (in the view of some people )to St Augustine,an Italian emissary of the pope.What about the ecclesial community in England,which has a separate hierarchy,separate cathedrals and parishes and still has in the Papal Nuncio to the Court of St James an Italian emissary of the pope resident in England ? Can it trace its foundation also to the time of St Augustine of Canterbury ?
I would have thought so, since that ecclesial community never quite died out before it was reinvigorated in the C19. But the lines have diverged and thickened and thinned at different times.
I suppose that one would trace the CinW in one sense back to Roman times; in another to the Tudor reformation; and in yet another to its becoming an independent province in 1920. Just goes to show that when you're talking about origins, the context of what you're defining yourself as is important.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Forthview:
quote:
So the CofE traces its origins (in the view of some people )to St Augustine,an Italian emissary of the pope
I'd like to think it would trace a line of origin to Christ, who I'm sure could be said to be in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.
It seems to me that the concept of 'catholic' in relation to Anglicans and Episcopalians comes from the confused history of the time - a mixture of politics, power and reform; not divorced from the European reformation, but stemming from it while at the same time wishing to retain apostolic succession, rejecting the idea of one sole head of the church, retaining the sacraments and much of the apostolic faith etc, etc. In this sense then, the term 'Protestant' fits, but not necessarily comfortably so. 'Catholic, but reformed' was the understanding imparted to me; 'catholic' in the sense of being universal, so yes, that covers Orthodoxy too. I guess it's about trying to put something into a box in which it almost fits, but not quite.
[ 29. April 2015, 11:14: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I should know the answer to this, but it has gone from me. When did the name "Roman Catholic Church" come into existence? I'd have thought well after 1600 AD, and that until then, it was simply "the church", usually with some such adjective as "Our Holy Mother" as a prefix.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Forthview:
quote:
So the CofE traces its origins (in the view of some people )to St Augustine,an Italian emissary of the pope
I'd like to think it would trace a line of origin to Christ, who I'm sure could be said to be in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.
It seems to me that the concept of 'catholic' in relation to Anglicans and Episcopalians comes from the confused history of the time - a mixture of politics, power and reform; not divorced from the European reformation, but stemming from it while at the same time wishing to retain apostolic succession, rejecting the idea of one sole head of the church, retaining the sacraments and much of the apostolic faith etc, etc. In this sense then, the term 'Protestant' fits, but not necessarily comfortably so. 'Catholic, but reformed' was the understanding imparted to me; 'catholic' in the sense of being universal, so yes, that covers Orthodoxy too. I guess it's about trying to put something into a box in which it almost fits, but not quite.
History makes this a very complex situation and far from straightforward.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I should know the answer to this, but it has gone from me. When did the name "Roman Catholic Church" come into existence? I'd have thought well after 1600 AD, and that until then, it was simply "the church", usually with some such adjective as "Our Holy Mother" as a prefix.
"One, Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church", is the ful title, mentioning all the "marks" of the Church. Catholic or Roman Catholic would seem to be a kind of abbreviation for the full title.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
As in so many areas the use of words can vary in meaning.
As far as the 'Roman' in Roman Catholic is concerned
it can mean Catholics who use the Roman rite as opposed to Catholics who use an other rite such as the Byzantine rite or the Maronite rite.
It can also mean Catholics who are united in full communion with the successor of Peter,the bishop of Rome.
Thirdly it can mean Catholics who reside or were born in the Eternal City.
I liked what fletcher christian had to say that the best link is of course the link with Christ.
He spoiled his words just a little by saying that Christ would have been in communion with the bishop of Rome.True,of course,but better to say that the bishop of Rome is in communion with Christ.After all according to (Roman) Catholic teaching the pope is the Vicar of Christ,not Christ the Vicar of Peter.
We can all be linked with Christ by our reading of his Word and by our baptism into the family of Christ,the Church.Even the unbaptized members of the Salvation army are members by baptism of desire.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
As far as the 'Roman' in Roman Catholic is concerned
it can mean Catholics who use the Roman rite as opposed to Catholics who use an other rite such as the Byzantine rite or the Maronite rite.
I think that that is an incorrect use of "Roman," however. It is properly called the "Latin rite," not the "Roman rite." Those belong to that rite are Latin rite Catholics.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
It's not incorrect. The Latin rite today is dominated by the Roman rite, which Trent (I think) made the norm for Western Catholicism.
Other Latin rites still exist, but are usually confined to small locales (e.g. the Mozarabic in Toledo and the Ambrosian in Milan); and then there are the rites proper to certain religious orders as well.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It's not incorrect. The Latin rite today is dominated by the Roman rite, which Trent (I think) made the norm for Western Catholicism.
And that was a great, great shame. Many venerable rites of much more than 300 hundred years old (Trent abbrogated all rites under that age) were killed off because of that. A good example of that would be the Sarum Rite and other local rites. When Roman Catholics were once again allowed to worship freely in England they chose to show their allegence to Rome by using the Roman Rite instead of their local rites.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
With regard to monikers--I find "protestant" unsatisfactory because the only thing it communicates is that my church community's origins lie with the reformation that began in the 16th century. The word covers such a vast range of polities and theologies--from free-church congregational to formal episcopal--that it's nearly useless except to signify that the person isn't Roman Catholic. And used in this way, it covers communities like the Jehovah's Witnesses and LDS, which aren't (in the technical sense of the term) protestant at all.
The use of the term by Catholics is illustrative. I have a friend in a sister jurisdiction who's a priest, and when he was attending our seminary he invited his future wife (a Vietnamese Catholic) to Evensong. She was surprised to find that we used the Lord's Prayer! The vast majority of RCs seem to think that all Protestantism is a vaguely evangelical kind of Anabaptism (Catholic shipmates are much better informed).
So although it's technically true that I'm protestant, the word is really inadequate to communicate anything useful--unless all you want to know is that I'm going to Hell because I've separated myself from one of the Two True Churches.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Indeed with the importance of Rome and the centralisation of the liturgy after the invention of printing and the period of the Counter Reformation the Roman rite became the rite par excellence for Latin rite Catholics.
The virtual disappearance of the Sarum rite was because of its use in areas which in general abandoned Catholicism.The Ambrosian rite is another Latin rite used in the territory of the archdiocese of Milan.The Dominican rite was used in churches of the Dominican order.It may still be used though most Dominican churches though most Dominicans will now use the modern Roman rite.
Throughout Europe ,however, principally in France and Spain , certain dioceses clung to certain minor deviations from the standard Roman rite.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It's not incorrect. The Latin rite today is dominated by the Roman rite, which Trent (I think) made the norm for Western Catholicism.
Other Latin rites still exist, but are usually confined to small locales (e.g. the Mozarabic in Toledo and the Ambrosian in Milan); and then there are the rites proper to certain religious orders as well.
Understood, and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. My understanding has been that despite the post-Tridentine dominance of the Latin rite by the Roman rite, Rome/the Holy See uses the term "Latin rite," not "Roman rite" to refer to Western Catholicism. As I understand it, when Roman Catholics say "Roman Catholic," "Roman" always means Catholics in communion with the bishop of Rome and never refers to the Latin rite. So, while non-Roman Catholics might use "Roman Catholic" to mean "Catholics who follow the Roman rite," Roman Catholics would not—or at least the hierarchy would not.
Again, happy to be corrected if that understanding is wrong.
[ 29. April 2015, 17:46: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Yes,the Roman rite,the Dominican rite,the Mozarabic rite,the Ambrosian rite are all western Catholic rites.
All these rites ,including former local uses Aquileian,Gallican,Nidaros,Celtic,Sarum,Herford etc.were all Latin rite.
If I am right the Latin and the Eastern Catholic churches have separate codes of canon law.All Latin rite churches come under a code of canon law published in 1983 whilst Eastern Catholic churches come under the Code of Canons of the Eastern churches published in 1990,covern all the churches in union with Rome but using various Eastern rites.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And that was a great, great shame. Many venerable rites of much more than 300 hundred years old (Trent abbrogated all rites under that age) were killed off because of that. A good example of that would be the Sarum Rite and other local rites. When Roman Catholics were once again allowed to worship freely in England they chose to show their allegence to Rome by using the Roman Rite instead of their local rites.
I think that statement as it stands might be misleading.
English recusants are proud of the fact that they continued celebrating Mass illegally during the penal years. When Roman Catholicism became permitted, briefly during the reign of James II and then more gradually tacitly during the later C18, they did not then choose to "chose to show their allegence to Rome by using the Roman Rite instead of their local rites". They carried on using publicly the form of Mass that they had been using surreptitiously. That would have been the one their priests had been trained to use on the Continent, not the one that had been in use in the reigns of Henry VIII and Mary. ,
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda in the South Bay
Apprentice
# 18185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
It's only on the Ship that I've come across Anglicans who deny they are Protestants.
Really? I'd come across this a lot, long before I'd even heard of the Ship. You're obviously mixing with the wrong people
Almost certainly - but the wrong people are a lot more fun!
As for Pomona's point, please remember the CoE was established by Elizabeth. There was a mild Reformation under Henry, a drastic one under Edward, a turning back under Mary, and finally the establishment of a via media under Elizabeth. By which time the term almost certainly did exist, and we were able to get the best of both worlds.
The Via Media was pretty much just retaining an episcopal government, with a very stripped down reformed liturgy and lots of iconoclasm. Not so much halfway between some sort of Protestantism and Catholicism, but an amped up Protestantism with bishops.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And that was a great, great shame. Many venerable rites of much more than 300 hundred years old (Trent abbrogated all rites under that age) were killed off because of that. A good example of that would be the Sarum Rite and other local rites. When Roman Catholics were once again allowed to worship freely in England they chose to show their allegence to Rome by using the Roman Rite instead of their local rites.
I think that statement as it stands might be misleading.
English recusants are proud of the fact that they continued celebrating Mass illegally during the penal years. When Roman Catholicism became permitted, briefly during the reign of James II and then more gradually tacitly during the later C18, they did not then choose to "chose to show their allegence to Rome by using the Roman Rite instead of their local rites". They carried on using publicly the form of Mass that they had been using surreptitiously. That would have been the one their priests had been trained to use on the Continent, not the one that had been in use in the reigns of Henry VIII and Mary. ,
You might very well be right. Never thought about it that way before.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Yes,the Roman rite,the Dominican rite,the Mozarabic rite,the Ambrosian rite are all western Catholic rites.
All these rites ,including former local uses Aquileian,Gallican,Nidaros,Celtic,Sarum,Herford etc.were all Latin rite.
If I am right the Latin and the Eastern Catholic churches have separate codes of canon law.All Latin rite churches come under a code of canon law published in 1983 whilst Eastern Catholic churches come under the Code of Canons of the Eastern churches published in 1990,covern all the churches in union with Rome but using various Eastern rites.
There are two codes and, for the canon law geek, some church-specific sets of legislation (most of which is not available in English). Many of our local Eastern Catholics refer to the Latins in casual discourse. I have always leaned toward Minions of the Scarlet Lady but have too often found myself misunderstood.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
I make the distinction that Lutherans are part of the evangelical catholic tradition. Note the small c in catholic, meaning universal.
For the longest time Lutherans have resisted being called Protestant. Protestants are usually of the radical side of the faith, meaning more of the Reformed and anabaptist traditions.
Good rule of thumb: if a church body generally follows the tradition of the mass they are catholic. If they claim their service is informal (whixh is funny because I see them as more rigid) then they are most likely Protestant.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
Now that I think of it, in the province of Ontario "Roman Catholic elector" is still a legally defined category of ratepayers for school board purposes. (My parents were among them). I remember pamphlets explain that this included "Roman and Ukrainian Catholics" - presumably a reflection of the latter's relative size to other Eastern churches in Canada, rather than of any disenfranchisement of, say, Melkites.
[ 30. April 2015, 04:53: Message edited by: Knopwood ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I make the distinction that Lutherans are part of the evangelical catholic tradition. Note the small c in catholic, meaning universal.
For the longest time Lutherans have resisted being called Protestant. Protestants are usually of the radical side of the faith, meaning more of the Reformed and anabaptist traditions.
Good rule of thumb: if a church body generally follows the tradition of the mass they are catholic. If they claim their service is informal (whixh is funny because I see them as more rigid) then they are most likely Protestant.
I'm getting lost in the small and upper case letters. Are you saying that "if a church body generally follows the tradition of the mass" then they are "small c catholic, meaning universal" and otherwise, if their service is 'informal' then they are, instead of being "small c catholic, meaning universal", Protestant?
Or are you saying something else?
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Whatever the ecclesiantically pernickety may say, it doesn't avoid the simple and obvious fact that in the ordinary speech in the UK particularly among non-churchgoers, Catholic = Roman Catholic (Papist in the old days but that word isn't much used these days away from Northern Ireland) and Protestant = CofE, CinW, CofI, CofS and the rest.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
<snip>For the longest time Lutherans have resisted being called Protestant.<snip>
Which is a bit odd since the term appears to have originated with Lutherans.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
