Replies

I thought this was a discusion of Catholic doctrine, but I would be glad to discuss the reformation as well.

The nineteenth ecumenical council opened at Trent on 13 December, 1545, and closed there on 4 December, 1563. Its main object was the definitive determination of the doctrines of the Church in answer to the heresies of the Protestants; a further object was the execution of a thorough reform of the inner life of the Church by removing the numerous abuses that had developed in it. The specific inclusion of the phrase "Communion of Saints" was a direct repsonse to the Anglican creed. The Roman church was not going to permit the ownership of Saints by the Anglican church to go unchallenged.

There was a lot of tit-for-tat going on between the Anglican and Roman Churches. If you recall the Anglican liturgy originally excluded the Eucharist but later incorporated it because they were losing a PR battle. Popular belief was that if a Roman priest could bring forth the body and blood of Christ and an Anglican priest couldn't it was a sign from God that the Anglican's were not the true church.

This brings us full circle in the discussion; what part of doctrine and dogma is Devine in origin and what part is not?

I thought this was a discusion of Catholic doctrine, but I would be glad to discuss the reformation as well.
The nineteenth ecumenical council opened at Trent on 13 December, 1545, and closed there on 4 December, 1563. Its main object was the definitive determination of the doctrines of the Church in answer to the heresies of the Protestants; a further object was the execution of a thorough reform of the inner life of the Church by removing the numerous abuses that had developed in it. The specific inclusion of the phrase "Communion of Saints" was a direct repsonse to the Anglican creed. The Roman church was not going to permit the ownership of Saints by the Anglican church to go unchallenged.

I'm somewhat bemused by your post. You stated that the Council of Trent added the phrase 'the communion of Saints' to the Apostles Creed. I gave as evidence that this is not the case that an edition of the Book of Common Prayer which pre-dated Trent contained it. Now you are claiming that the Church of England (b.t.w. it would be wrong to refer to the Anglican Church pre-Queen Elizabeth I) had it, and the Romans wanted in on the act (so to speak).

The reason the B.C.P. contained the line was that it had been part of the Apostles Creed for centuries by the time that the B.C.P. was complied. Archbishop Cranmer (for many faults which one can lay at his feet) was not into adding or subtracting from the three creeds.

There was a lot of tit-for-tat going on between the Anglican and Roman Churches. If you recall the Anglican liturgy originally excluded the Eucharist but later incorporated it because they were losing a PR battle. Popular belief was that if a Roman priest could bring forth the body and blood of Christ and an Anglican priest couldn't it was a sign from God that the Anglican's were not the true church.

The Eucharist (actually called the Mass in the very first Book of Common Prayer) was central and essential to the C.ofE. For the first few years of its independent existence it continued with the Latin services books (principally the Sarum Use - a Roman Catholic set of books), then starting with the Litany in 1544, the Order for the Distribution of Holy Communion in 1548 (to be used within the Latin Mass), and the Book of Common Prayer 1549, and 1552 it moved into its own style using Liturgical English.

The question of the confection of the Sacrament by Anglican vs. Roman Catholic Priests is at the heart of the difference between these two Communions. However, at the time it simply was not considered, all of the C.ofE. Priests at its outset were ex-Roman Catholics, and the very same men continued to minister to the same congregations simply changing from Latin to English.

Your final sentence in this paragraph is extraordinary. I have no idea what you mean. The whole point of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is that we perceive bread and wine, yet it is in reality the Body and Blood of Christ (that's what transubstantiation means). I could stand at an Altar in Church, say the relevant prayers, and a laymen in the pews would not be able to tell that this was not the Body and Blood (which it would not be, as I am not a Priest).