Posted on 12/25/2005 10:09:32 AM PST by churchillbuff
Welcome back, TAC!!!
I think Henry's rebellion was more political than religious. He considered himself Catholic right till the end and he didn't like the Protestant teachings. His daughter Queen Bess (Elizabeth I) was pro-Protestant, but she reconciled the two teachings in the Anglican Church (High Anglicans being akin to Catholic doctrine, while Low Anglicans being the fore-runners of the Puritans, the Wesleyans, the Methodists, the Unitarians, Baptists etc.)
Not at all. The English people were solidly Catholic. I suggest you pick up a copy of Eamon Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400-1580. The English Reformation was entirely a creation imposed from above, and Queen Mary's success in restoring the Catholic Church in England almost immediately is a sufficient demonstration of that.
I think Henry's rebellion was more political than religious. He considered himself Catholic right till his death and he didn't like the Protestant teachings. His daughter Queen Bess (Elizabeth I) was pro-Protestant, but she reconciled the two teachings in the Anglican Church (High Anglicans being akin to Catholic doctrine, while Low Anglicans being the fore-runners of the Puritans, the Wesleyans, the Methodists, the Unitarians, Baptists etc.)
I think the Orthodox and Catholic Churchs have ALREADY moved closer -- they've removed the mutual ex-communications and now acknowledge each other as parts of the body of Christ. They no longer call each other schismatics, but say they are not in communion with each other. Small steps, may be, but steps in the right direction. There are many political and dogmatic differences that still remain. I believe that we should address the political ones first (papal supremacy) and this has been done to a large extent by Pope John Paul. He acknowledged the Papacy as being the first among equals (which is what the Orthodox have been stating for centuries -- namely that the Bishop of Rome is the first among the equally important Bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria etc. ) and this was demonstrated during Pope JPII's funeral where the heads of the Eastern Churchs were given equal importance.
LOL
Riiiiiiight.
I disagree with that. The Celtic Church as practised by the Britons (the Welsh), the Irish etc. was different from the Latin Church, but this disappeared from England after the Saxon invasion. England was Pagan from the 5th century to the 7th. St. Augustine converted the Kentish kingdom to the Latin Church. The Celtics refused to have anything to do with the heathen Saxons. Later on the kings of Wessex got to meet with emissaries from both the Celtic and Latin churchs and he chose the Latin church because Rome was the Center. And he chose wisely. England was a key member of the Catholic Church right from the 9th century through the Norman invasion (when it became closer to Rome), through to the schism by Henry VIII. However, Queen Elizabeth's Protestant leanings broke all chances of reconciliation.
True -- some Anglo-Catholics are more Catholic than us RCCs!
The discipline of celibacy only applies to the Latin Church, which happenes to be the largest particular church in the Catholic Church.
With the wording they use, "Anglican Rite Church," it sounds like they want to come in as a particular church, with their own episcopacy, much like the Eastern Catholic Churches. Thus, the celibacy rule need not apply to their priesthood. The issue of married bishops, though, could be a problem. I do not think there are any married bishops in the Catholic Church, East or West. Or, for that matter, in Eastern Orthodoxy.
The Marian issues may be stickier, as you note. Although, I think that's more a terminology issue, IMO. Nevertheless, it is probably a significant doctrinal obstacle, which the Anglicans will need to find a way to resolve. If they're going to be in full communion, they will have to accept the Marian dogmas, at minimum.
No, it's confusing, I realize, but Anglican Use Parishes are fully part of the Latin Rite Roman Catholic Church. It is "Anglican Rite" that is a schismatic/breakaway from the Anglican church. There is a Roman Catholic Anglican Use church here in Houston, to which I went one time. I liked it, but the differences in the Mass are so subtle anyway, especially in the High churches, that you wouldn't really be able to tell the difference if you didn't know. One thing that was cool, during the Eucharist they would play three rounds (peals) of the church carillon and genuflect three times, for a total of nine times. I liked it, but when I get out of RCIA, I think I might join our local RCC parish that uses the Tridentine ritual. It's the best Ive seen.
I remember hearing (don't know if this is true or not) that there are some other, obscure (*very* small) Catholic sects that allow clergy to marry (e.g. Ukranian), but are still part of the Catholic Church. Does anyone know if there is any truth to this? I was brought up in the RCC, but I was told that it was only the Roman sect that demanded celibacy of clergy (though it is by far the vast majority).
You omit some important details. The relatively few number of married protestant ministers who have converted to the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church and received the Sacrament of Holy Orders were ordained only after a lengthy, comprehensive screening process and period of study and instruction conducted by their Bishop to discern that said individual was in full communion with the teachings of the Catholic Church. They then received a dispensation from the norm of celibacy for the clerical state granted under Pope John Paul IIs 1980 Pastoral Provision. Ordination is not automatic for those who seek it and said individual must agree that should his spouse preceed him in death that he will then adopt the discipline of celibacy for the remainder of his life. No agreement, no ordination.
This strange idea that everyone ought be celibate could only last any people for a generation;after that they're extinct!Priestly clibacy(sic) is required only by men not by God;or do you deny the Levites ?
You exhibit a glaringly deficient knowledge of Scripture, history and the Priesthood. There are 22 churches sui juris in six separate Rites which comprise the Catholic Church. Married men can be ordained, without dispensation, in 21 of the 22 Churches. The Latin Rite, as a norm, ordains single men who pledge to adopt the discipline of celibacy/chastity for the remainder of their lives. Said discipline is based upon the teachings in Scripture of Christ, St. Paul and the Apostles. Christ and St. Paul highly praised the discipline and as St. Peter told Christ, he and his fellow Apostles gave up everything, including a wife if they were married, to follow Christ. The question you should be asking yourself is why so few "ministers", particularly those who wear the moniker "bible believing", embrace the teachings of Christ and St. Paul on the topic. Furthermore, the ministerial Priesthood in the Catholic Church finds its genesis in the Old Testament with the Levitical priesthood of Melchisedech. Someone in Scripture you should thoroughly research.
Despite your ill-informed statement, the Church does not teach that everyone should be celibate. Quite the contrary. The Church considers marriage to be a Sacrament and is a big proponent of procreation within marriage.
As a cradle Episcopalian, and an RCIA Candidate, I can agree wholeheartedly. It's the liberal crp we're trying to escape. I'll hear people spout off with something they think is oh, so modern, and I want to shake them and say, don't you realize that's what destroyed the mainline protestants?
Henry wanted political freedom and the ability to marry and divorce when he wanted to. He also wanted the church's wealth -- that's why he destroyed the monastic communities and confiscated their land and wealth. Would I condemn him to hell? No. It's not my place to judge. He did commit atrocities, but you are right in saying that dogmatically he was pretty much Catholic.
Pay attention to who you direct your responses to.
I was brought up RCC but my mother is Greek Orthodox (technically I am as well as I was baptized in a Greek Orthodox church). Of all my Greek relatives, I don't think I've ever met one who wasn't desperately interested in getting the Eastern and Western churches back into communion. Something like that would be met with jubilation.
As a side note of married clergy, something interesting I learned from my mother is that, while the Greek church allows priests to be married, it's a little deeper than that. According to her, while unmarried men can become priests, it is strongly desired that they already be married or at the very least engaged to be married (excluding those who go on the track to become bishops, which I'm given to understand is a separate path). The feeling seems to be that, unlike a bishop, the priest spends his time out among the people and needs a wife to keep him out of trouble :^) Word is that it's *very* hard for a single man to gain approval to start the path towards ordination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.