|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why the CofE isn't Protestant
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
And that is a slippery and self-serving notion of Protestantism
Not sure how it is slippery. And self-serving? How am I served regardless?
quote:
and a denial of the strong witness of the Church of England within Protestantism.
You'd need to unpack this one. In my view, the CofE is a witness to the blending of Catholic and Protestant.
quote:
And I repeat my point that at what time did Methodism cease to be "anglican" and become protestant, because the foundation of Methodism was well after the Reformation?
No sure count them as Protestant.
ISTM, the term Protestant is used to describe Christians who are not Catholic or Orthodox. I think this too simplistic.
Though I do think protestant is applicable for sects that have gone on to adopt mainly Protestant principles.
I think the CofE is borderline on this criterion.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
And I repeat my point that at what time did Methodism cease to be "anglican" and become protestant, because the foundation of Methodism was well after the Reformation?
Well, I suppose one could pick the point when Methodists started to ordain people by other means than by a Bishop in the apostolic succession.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Steve Langton, of course you believe the Trinitarian Anabaptists to be 'right' - otherwise you wouldn't be a Trinitarian Anabaptist ...
The issue here, of course, isn't whether the Anabaptists - Trinitarian or otherwise - are right or wrong - and the tendency among them to veer into Arianism went on much longer than the initial chaos of the Reformation - but the extent to which the Anglicans can be considered Protestant.
I think Fletcher Christian has raised an important point. The 39 Articles are a manifesto against Presbyterianism (and nascent Puritanism) as much as one against Rome and the other Churches the Anglicans believed to have 'erred' - Jerusalem, Antioch ...
So the Anglicans in the 16th century were setting their stall out against 'extreme' Catholicism (ie Rome) and also against Orthodoxy (Jerusalem and Antioch etc) as well as against 'extreme' Protestantism represented by the Presbyterians, Puritans and the Anabaptists ...
They were effectively setting themselves up as a 'third way' as it were ...
And yes, that is problematic on various scores as well as being very much 'of its time'.
The Anglicans were being awkward.
They still are. Perhaps that's the point.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by LilBuddha:
quote:
You'd need to unpack this one. In my view, the CofE is a witness to the blending of Catholic and Protestant.
I can't unpack that for you but I do want to reiterate your point. Anglicanism and Episcopalianism's greatest strength (and weakness) has always existed in this fact of 'blending' as you call it. Pretty much every major religion around the world today is seeing a surge in fundamentalism, often combined with nationalism. Anglican and Episcopalian churches are not 'confessing' churches in the same way that others are but it still faces a very real challenge from a growing fundamentalism and nationalism. You can see it in terms of how the communion understands itself on a world scale. There is a growing desire for a centrality of power under the guise of 'discipline' which actually translates as 'I want everyone else to do as I do' even if the context and geography and culture is radically different. The whole concept of a world wide communion is eroding fast and there seems to be little impetus and desire to see the world wide communion as a positive thing. This represents an insular nationalism that has captured church politics in its net and for its own design. Not only that, but you can also see a growing fundamentalism in approaches to doctrine. GAFCON is an easy example; but setting that hot potato aside, for our purposes here, the issue of the doctrine of atonement is pertinent. There is a growing desire to assert penal substitutionary atonement as 'the' 'Protestant' defining doctrine. There are many reasons for this, but I do think a large part of it is about insecurities regarding identity, the desire to be of a certain camp and fix security of belief and practice, and sadly, to present a united front against the big and bad Roman Catholics who seem to be holding it together. The possible (and really quite incredible and truly relevant) witness of the Anglican communion world wide is being lost in the face of a growing fundamentalist and nationalist onslaught. There seems to be no desire to see the Anglican Communion as having a peculiar and particular witness of 'different yet in communion' as being of any relevance. If I was to reflect on it for too long I would get despairing.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why is it so important to identify as Protestant? IMO, to not be those nasty RCC.
If so, it's a prejudice shared by Roman Catholics. I've never (knowingly) come across a Roman Catholic who thought the C of E didn't count as Protestant.
Incidentally, if the Church of England isn't Protestant then it can't be a blend of Protestantism and Catholicism.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why is it so important to identify as Protestant? IMO, to not be those nasty RCC.
If so, it's a prejudice shared by Roman Catholics. I've never (knowingly) come across a Roman Catholic who thought the C of E didn't count as Protestant.
Incidentally, if the Church of England isn't Protestant then it can't be a blend of Protestantism and Catholicism.
Well, I don't believe that Anglicanism is sine qua Protestantism. Individuals and tendencies within it are, but not as a whole. But then again I've been eyeing the Thames for a very long time.
--------------------
Older, bearded (but no wiser)
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
and a denial of the strong witness of the Church of England within Protestantism.
You'd need to unpack this one. In my view, the CofE is a witness to the blending of Catholic and Protestant.
Quite happy to agree with this. There is no doubt that the CoE is odd. In my eyes gloriously, wonderfully, divinely odd - but definitely odd. However, surely it has to be both Catholic AND Protestant if it blends them?
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
However, surely it has to be both Catholic AND Protestant if it blends them?
nope. The CofE were never Protestant. They do have protestant interleaving, so I would say Catholic and protestant is closer.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Come now. How can you say "never Protestant" after all the evidence that has been presented here? I don't understand your reading of history at all.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Come now. How can you say "never Protestant" after all the evidence that has been presented here? I don't understand your reading of history at all.
Protestant are sects that began with doctrinal protest. The CofE did not begin this way.
protestant is a sect that has grown to adhere more to the doctrines of Protestantism than Catholicism. The CofE does meet this clearly and cleanly.
Yeah, that definition is perfect, but I do think it solid.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Anybody who "broke" from Rome before then, whatever you want to say about them, weren't Protestants.
I'd suggest it might not be quite that cut and dry. The Waldensians predate the Reformation, but once the Reformation occurred they aligned themselves with it and self-identified as Protestant, and have ever since.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Considering that mainline Presbyterians have, in modern times, downplayed some of the extremes of Calvinism (double predestination), one could argue that even Reformed denominations are not Reformed enough from a purely Calvinist perspective.
I'm not sure I'd say "downplayed." I might say re-examined, reconsidered, re-thought—which, it seems to me, is quintessentially Reformed. Semper reformanda and all that.
(And that leaves aside questions of the extent to which these extremes of Calvinism are central or peripheral to Calvin's overall theology.)
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Protestant are sects that began with doctrinal protest. The CofE did not begin this way.
protestant is a sect that has grown to adhere more to the doctrines of Protestantism than Catholicism. The CofE does meet this clearly and cleanly.
Yeah, that definition is perfect, but I do think it solid.
Is there any dictionary that makes this distinction between Protestant and protestant? I'm not sure how solid a definition it is if no one uses or recognizes it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, yes ... But that also raises the tangential question as to the extent to which subsequent generations of Calvinists remained congruent with Calvin's theology as set out in the Institutes - but then, that might be covered by the 'semper reformanda' thing.
I'm ploughing my way through the Institutes at the moment following a challenge from Jengie Jon. I may start a thread on what all the fuss is about once I have finished it. But don't hold your breath ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, yes ... But that also raises the tangential question as to the extent to which subsequent generations of Calvinists remained congruent with Calvin's theology as set out in the Institutes - but then, that might be covered by the 'semper reformanda' thing.
But in the context of the comment to which I was responding, which mentioned the possibility of not being "Reformed enough" from a Calvinist perspective, it has to be remembered that while Calvin does indeed loom large in the Reformed tradition, Reformed =/= Calvinist; Reformed includes Calvinist (in its various permutations), but is broader and not static. And Calvin is not to the Reformed tradition as Luther is to Lutheranism.
Good luck with the Institutes.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I'm ploughing my way through the Institutes at the moment following a challenge from Jengie Jon. I may start a thread on what all the fuss is about once I have finished it. But don't hold your breath ...
Considering how long it takes a hyperlexic like me to get through the Institutes, I indeed won't be holding my breath! But I do submit that actually you'll find a surprising (to you) amount of it to be that 'Mere Christianity' stuff including a lot that even the RCC could agree with!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, that wouldn't be at all surprising to me, Steve Langton. It was exactly what I was expecting. I'm finding I'm nodding in agreement with Monsieur Calvin at many points whilst smiling indulgently at him on others.
The only thing I wish he'd do is hurry things along a bit - he can be tedious in some places but succinct in others.
Same as some of the Patristic and medieval writers too, of course.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The only thing I wish he'd do is hurry things along a bit - he can be tedious in some places but succinct in others.
Well, he was a lawyer, after all. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I think Calvin would have liked to be succinct - but the opposition rather forced him into extensive 'having-to-nail-down-every-point'responses. There are moments when he clearly realises he is a bit 'prolix' to use his own word.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm sure that's the case, but let's not forget that, on one level, he was also 'the last of the medieval Scholastics.'
Which rather reinforces my point that none of us approach any of these issues outwith the influences and traditions that have gone before.
So, for instance, it's hardly surprising to find that Calvin believed the world to be about 6,000 years old and so on. Everyone else would have done the same - or more or less the same - around that time.
Some Shippies seem to think I have some kind of 'downer' on Calvin. I don't. I don't find him a barrel of laughs, but then I wasn't expecting to - nor was I expecting the Institutes to be a scintillating read. Most of the time I'm thinking to myself, 'So what's all the fuss about?'
Which also reinforces the point I keep making about the influence of Big T or small t traditions ... much of what Calvin wrote has simply become part of the 'wall-paper' of Protestantism so other than the contentious bits it's easy to think, 'Well, so what? We all know that ...' when we're reading him ...
The same applies to some Patristic material until you come across an eye-brow raising passage.
The same applies with anything else written within the broad mainstream of received small t tradition.
But this is a digression ...
Of course there are going to be 'Catholic' elements in Calvin - and that's one of the reasons why the Orthodox tend to look askance at him - they think he's way too Scholastic in a legalistic, Western sense ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
catnip
Apprentice
# 18638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Protestant are sects that began with doctrinal protest. The CofE did not begin this way.
It seems that it didn't. It seems on the surface to have been an effort for a sovereign to get a divorce--and yet there had been efforts for quite some time, for example to introduce the Bible to the people in the vernacular. People were impressed with Luther's ideas; what was happening on the Continent wasn't being ignored. I don't know why Luther has been mentioned so rarely in the thread. In other words, Henry had maintained the status quo as a Catholic nation until he became frustrated in his selfish ambitions, but others were pushing change.
I think you are basing your opinion on outward appearances, especially in the Liturgy. Early on, they stripped the churches of all the Catholic excess, whitewashed the walls, took the cross off the altar and embraced the Protestant ideal. I do not see that the earliest protestant churches did immediately reinvent worship--that evolved. We modified it. The Lutherans certainly didn't.
I know I can't accept Catholic doctrine or belief and I am a cradle Piskie. I think we kept (or reintroduced) the best and lost the rest. We reason and reason is our greatest asset--we allow ambiguity, we consider everyone's doctrines and some of us, like Liberal Episcopalians have embraced and led change--ach! Reform!
The definition of what is or is not a protestant church doesn't change or morph over time. It remains the same. What made it protestant then is still profound now. Even when I was a little girl, Catholics heard the Mass in Latin. We haven't for four-hundred years.
Posts: 17 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Aug 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think Luther hasn't been mentioned much in relation to the OP as the CofE hasn't been influenced very much by Luther himself - other than in the initial ideas he popularised in 1517 as part of what became a wider revolt ...
It is certainly the case, as chris stiles has reminded us, that things could have been different and the CofE gone down a more Lutheran route than a moderately Calvinist one ... which is what happened by the 1550s.
Ok, so there was an Arminian backlash/response to that under the Carolingian Divines ... but essentially James 1st was a kind of High Church Calvinist ('High Church' not having the kind of ritualistic connotations then as it does now).
Lots of early Anglicans were 'High and Dry' insofar as they had a 'high' view of ecclesiastical authority, but that didn't necessarily equate to a high view of ritual and ceremony.
Archbishop Laud was Arminian, certainly, but his rather cack-handed and clumsy attempts to restore what he saw as 'the beauty of holiness' certainly wasn't remotely 'Papist' in the way his opponents thought. Of course, it didn't help that Charles I was married to an RC, that simply confirmed Puritan fears that there was going to be some kind of Popish coup ...
I can see the distinction that lilBuddha is trying to make between Big P Protestant and small p protestant - as it's similar to distinctions that might be made over Big R Reformed as opposed to small r reformed ...
So the Calvinists might be seen as Big R Reformed whereas the Arminians could be categorised as small r reformed - because, as Jengie Jon has often reminded us, Arminianism is itself a subset of Reformed theology.
If lilBuddha is right and the CofE (and the Anglican communion more widely?) is small p protestant then it must surely follow that it is also small c catholic ...
So we may as well start a thread entitled, 'Why the CofE isn't Catholic ...'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I attended a Lutheran church in Japan. And (apart from the language, being Japanese rather than English) the worship was very similar to Anglican services I've attended. Certainly, the Anglican services were much closer to Lutheran services than Church of Scotland services. Which seems to suggest the "more influenced by Reformed than Lutheran" idea isn't as simple as it sounds. Though I know historically that was the case.
I suspect that what I'm seeing is that both Anglican and Lutheran practices derived from Catholic practice with minimal changes. Whereas Reformed practice shifted the emphasis in worship quite considerably.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If lilBuddha is right and the CofE (and the Anglican communion more widely?) is small p protestant then it must surely follow that it is also small c catholic ...
So we may as well start a thread entitled, 'Why the CofE isn't Catholic ...'
Well, Robert Armin began by calling the CofE Protestant on the Mother Theresa thread. Though, to be honest, if he'd called them Catholic, I'd probably not have started this thread because in part:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I suspect that what I'm seeing is that both Anglican and Lutheran practices derived from Catholic practice with minimal changes. Whereas Reformed practice shifted the emphasis in worship quite considerably.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
catnip
Apprentice
# 18638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[QUOTEIf lilBuddha is right and the CofE (and the Anglican communion more widely?) is small p protestant then it must surely follow that it is also small c catholic ...
So we may as well start a thread entitled, 'Why the CofE isn't Catholic ...'
Well said! We seem to be in the middle and rejected by both.
I am Episcopalian and so my views are probably influenced more by my background and I read history through that lens.
I apologize for my delay in responding here--I haven't been well.
Posts: 17 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Aug 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by catnip:
I apologize for my delay in responding here--I haven't been well.
Hope the fact that you're posting now means you're feeling better.
--------------------
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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Seems to me that Protestantism was originally a set of ideas - associated with the names of Hus, Luther, etc
And that these reformers did genuinely want to reform the church rather than break from it.
But for political reasons, reform was resisted and breakaways happened.
So that Protestantism now also has the meaning of a system of church organisation, a system with its roots in a particular time and place.
In the first sense, there are degrees. A believer or group of believers can be mildly protestant or extremely protestant, depending on how much of that package of related ideas they've adopted.
In that sense, seems to me that the C of R might be called moderately protestant.
But in the second sense, the C of E started out as an independent-of-Rome English Catholic church and organizationally retains some ? Or much ? of that character.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Can anyone point me to any Roman Catholic document that says that to be Catholic you must ordain priest in apostolic succession?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Not sure what this means,Jengie.
I would claim to be Catholic,although I have never ordained anyone in apostolic succession.
Perhaps you are asking if all bishops have to be able to indicate that they are bishops in apostolic succession ? If so I would say,yes.
Obviously it cannot always be traced back to apostolic times in every single case,but it can be in many cases.
Each bishop has to have been ordained by three others representing the wider church and with a papal mandate.
Without the papal mandate,of course, I believe that it is much the same for Presbyterian ministers of the Church of Scotland who are ordained by representatives of the wider church
for service within a particular area of the wider church.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Should have indicated that you,Jengie, mentioned the ordaining of priests.
A Catholic priest has to be ordained by a validly ordained bishop (in apostolic succession).
The bishop (in apostolic succession) is the 'fount of sacraments' within his diocese and would determine who should be ordained a priest.
All of the faithful share in a way with the fruits of the apostolic succession.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Jengie, this might be helpful.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Tangent alert
I've always been Protestant, but since the 23rd of June and for the first time in my life, I been beginning to wonder if the Reformation was such a good thing after all.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've always been Protestant, but since the 23rd of June and for the first time in my life, I been beginning to wonder if the Reformation was such a good thing after all.
Enoch, I think some of us, myself included, are in danger of becoming Brexit obsessed! I've always been an English Catholic. Not Roman, though I went there once when it seemed the two could meet (The Ordinariate). But I'm so happy to be back in my original home. English, Catholic and somewhat reformed.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
My reading of the above document is "We have apostolic succession because we are Catholic" not "We are Catholic because we have apostolic succession".
In other words, if the CofE can persuade the Roman Catholic Church of its Catholicity it will have no problem with recognising their bishops. The succession of itself does not apply Catholicity.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Ah, but can the Roman Catholic church convince everybody else of its Catholicity? Are we really expected to believe that around the world and throughout the entire history of the church there has never been any form of interruption? I can think of a recent one in China that profoundly calls into question the central importance of apostolic succession to the Roman Catholic church, yet nobody seems that bothered.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Not sure what you are referring to here,F.C.
If you are referring to the Patriotic Catholic church and its bishops,they will have all been ordained validly with consecrators who are able to pass on 'apostolic succession'. They will have been ordained validly,but illicitly without a papal mandate.
Conversely the bishops in the 'underground' church will also have been ordained validly and licitly (with papal mandate)but will not bee recognised by the state authorities, much as Catholic bishops in England during penal times would not have been recognised by state authorities.
Now,of course, you may be thinking about something quite different........
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
