Posted on 12/28/2004 8:39:24 AM PST by sionnsar
Nothing obligates a Catholic to be uncharitable, which is the only way that your initial comment can be described, your feigned remorse notwithstanding.
I am sincerely sorry you have interpreted it that way.
I guess Leo XIII's encyclical and Catholic teaching is "uncharitable" as well, right?
But then again, the "lamb without spot," of which the Virgin Mary and Immaculate Conception, Mother of the Church, without wrinkle or stain, is the Mother, cannot be uncharitable by definition, can it?
I'm not familiar with the Anglicans' church structure. What's to prevent this body from proclaiming an official position and offering to extend communion to any parish which accepts it?
I wasn't commenting on the encycilcal. I was commenting on the uncharitableness of your remark and the transparency of your "regret."
But then again, the "lamb without spot," of which the Virgin Mary and Immaculate Conception, Mother of the Church, without wrinkle or stain, is the Mother, cannot be uncharitable by definition, can it?
If you are referring to the Church in this question, my answer is yes, it is quite possible for the Church (militant) to be uncharitable.
You believe in the Church militant? How about the Church suffering? How about the pilgrim Church? How about the people of God?
By the way, the Church is not divided. It is one. The Church suffering and Church triumphant are all part of one Church, "the bride of the lamb without spot."
Have a blessed Feast of the Holy Innocents!
You believe in the Church militant? How about the Church suffering? How about the pilgrim Church? How about the people of God?
By the way, the Church is not divided. It is one. The Church suffering and Church triumphant are all part of one Church, "the bride of the lamb without spot."
Have a blessed Feast of the Holy Innocents!
There's always one... If you don't want to talk about the subject of the article, go taunt someone else.
"When it is all over, Griswold could be faced with a single reality - that he will no longer be recognized as the leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church, that that role will be given to Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan leader of the Anglican Communion Network of some dozen or more orthodox Episcopal bishops."
In effect, and in objective reality, it doesn't really matter, because as Pope Leo XIII reiterates what the Church of Christ has always taught, "They aren't really ordained bishops anyway." Null and void, get it?
There, I commented directly on part of the article, in the spirit of true ecumenism.
Nor has it ever claimed to be. Your beef is with another worldwide communion that makes that statement. And some days I think they do a better job of it!
Very interesting article. I've been following this for awhile now, particularly the legal and theological aspects.
I pray that the Primates will make the right decision, but I am also hoping that the traditionalist will break away formally. If only an informal split occurs, I fear that the mass exodus of the faithful will continue. Leave the revisionists to their sins and cast them out from among you.
While I am not Anglican, my grandfather's family was for generations upon generations and I have a traditional affection for the Anglican communion and long to see it repent from the current heresies plaguing it.
Think of it: Elizabeth Windsor may soon end up with the dubious honor of having reigned over not only the dissolution of the British Empire but also the collapse of the Anglican Communion.
Scripturally speaking, the Anglican bishops are the only valid bishops in the world- 1st Timothy 3:1-7. As St Paul the Apostle writes, having a well managed household is a prerequisite and a qualification for the episcopacy. The Apostle reasons: "if a man cannot manage his own household, then how can he manage God's?" Because the Catholic and Orthodox bishops are monastics, they do not posses the necessary qualifications to oversee God's house, according to St Paul.
Orthodox and Catholic theology, both around for about 1500 years prior to King Henry VIII, believe the Church interprets Scripture in light of Tradition and the Fathers of the Church. They do not rely upon any particular individual's private interpretation of Scripture for doctrinal or disciplinary purposes.
So in other words, your proof-texting an established doctrine that you already hold to "prove" Anglican bishops are the only valid ones is ahistorical, against the Fathers of the Church and Tradition and Sacred Scripture, as it is not for private interpretation.
Anglicanism had been around long before Henry VIII- it goes back to the martyrdom of St Alban in 303 and includes St Patrick, St Bede the Venerable, St Edward the Confessor and St Anselm.
St Paul the Apostle wrote what he wrote. No interpretation is necessary. Roman Catholic theology is to interpret Scripture in light of what contemporary Roman Catholic theologians agree on- not historic theologians. This is why the Curia is able to teach things today that would not have found favor with Aquinas, Dominic, Anselm, etc.
bookmark
"Anglicanism had been around long before Henry VIII- it goes back to the martyrdom of St Alban in 303 and includes St Patrick, St Bede the Venerable, St Edward the Confessor and St Anselm."
If you have some historical sources you can cite as evidence, I would be very interested. Do St. Alban, St. Patrick and St. Bede talk about their "Anglicanism"? I'm pretty sure Church Fathers refer to the Catholic Church as early as 105 A.D.,from what I have found by my research. Anglicans prior to Henry VIII??? Now that is a new one I have never heard before.
Please don't tell any Irish Catholics that St. Patrick was an Anglican, OK?
He was born in England, kidnapped by the Irish, escaped, and returned there to preach the Gospel. His followers evangelized europe, in spite of Gregory's attempts to stop them. You are the one who mistakenly believes that Rome has authority to alter scripture.
All of the stuff you said regarding his life, of course, is true. But that does not make him an Anglican from a religious perspective.
Neither I nor Rome ever believes nor claims to have the authority to change Scripture. The Church is the custodian and servant of Scripture and Tradition, not its master. But we do have a living Church.
Please cite a reputable historical source that shows that St. Patrick was a member of the Church of England, outside the authority of the one, true, catholic and apostolic Church.
This should be interesting.
Well, one of the major historical sources of early Anglicanism comes from St Bede himself. Many features of Anglican Christianity come from the pre-Tudor years. One of the most obvious examples is the Celtic Cross. Another is the liturgy itself. Cranmer's 1549 BCP liturgy is essentially an English translation of the Sarum (Latin for Salisbury) Rites.
The concept of the "Roman Catholic Church" really only dates back to the Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation. Prior to that, the institutional church in western Europe was simply known as the "Western Church". As you may know, "catholic" means "universal". When the Nicene Fathers wrote "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" in the Creed, I seriously doubt they were referring specifically to the see of the Bishop of Rome.
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.