Posted on 12/28/2004 8:39:24 AM PST by sionnsar
Please cite a reputable historical source that shows that Clementine understood himself to be bishop of the world. Noone is claiming that Patrick would have used the term "Anglican" to describe himself. What is being claimed is that Rome, not England, broke communion with the Church Eternal.
Ah yes, revisionist history. I get it. This is strange. I never thought that any serious Anglicans/Episcopalians would do apologetics like the fundies I encounter in the Bible Belt.
I know. Rome has broken with everyone else. It wasn't Henry VIII's sexual perversions, nor Martin Luthers. It was Rome. All Rome. Not Zwingli's or Calvin's political career ambitions. It is always Rome's fault. The Pope is the cause of 20,000 different "Christian" churches.
By the way, "catholic" also means "in keeping with the whole" of the Faith. Thanks for the lesson though.
Thanks also for affirming that St. Patrick, just because he was of British descent (although some claim he was Italian), would have never have claimed to have been from the Church of England.
I am not interested in discussing things with people who are historical revisionists so they can be their own Pope in matters of faith and morals. Let me guess... You think Rome's teaching on artificial contraception is wrong? So predictable...
Ah yes, revisionist history. I get it. This is strange. I never thought that any serious Anglicans/Episcopalians would do apologetics like the fundies I encounter in the Bible Belt.
I know. Rome has broken with everyone else. It wasn't Henry VIII's sexual perversions, nor Martin Luthers. It was Rome. All Rome. Not Zwingli's or Calvin's political career ambitions. It is always Rome's fault. The Pope is the cause of 20,000 different "Christian" churches.
By the way, "catholic" also means "in keeping with the whole" of the Faith. Thanks for the lesson though.
Thanks also for affirming that St. Patrick, just because he was of British descent (although some claim he was Italian), would have never have claimed to have been from the Church of England.
I am not interested in discussing things with people who are historical revisionists so they can be their own Pope in matters of faith and morals. Let me guess... You think Rome's teaching on artificial contraception is wrong? So predictable...
I'm not an Anglican and I agree with Rome's teaching on artificial contraception, though I don't know why you brought it up.
Almost forgot: What about Clementine?
How does this thread relate to what "rome" teaches?? We aren't Catholic, so it doesn't matter one whit what Rome comes up with.
Subjectively, it doesn't matter, but objectively, it most certainly does... in the most everlasting way imaginable. This is the irony of our converstation. Trying to hold together a denomination invented by a King with 9 wives. Or a king who couldn't control his sexual urges, so he changes the entire history of "his" church to match those urges.
Then wonder why 500 years later, it all about to split apart...
What kind of "church" claims all of England lost its' salvation because Henry was an idiot?
We are just a bit late to the party. The Anglican church will remain strong in the end as "truth" shall prevail. Just like your church and all your horrendous, public problems that have finally begun to get addressed after eons of secrecy. I have faith BOTH churches will stand strong as we are ALL Christians and hate to see eachother falter.
The problem with A.C. is that, if you accept it's arguments, then EVERY Roman Catholic ordination since Vatican II is equally invalid. Indeed schismatics have made precisely this point (see HERE) So you can accept Roman and Anglican orders as both equally valid or equally invalid, take your pick.
For a neutral third party look at the matter I give you the Oecumenical Patriarch's Encyclical on Anglican Orders:
from the Oecumenical Patriarch to the Presidents of the Particular Eastern Orthodox Churches, 1922
[The Holy Synod has studied the report of the Committee and notes:]
1. That the ordination of Matthew Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury by four bishops is a fact established by history.
2. That in this and subsequent ordinations there are found in their fullness those orthodox and indispensable, visible and sensible elements of valid episcopal ordination - viz. the laying on of hands, the Epiclesis of the All-Holy Spirit and also the purpose to transmit the charisma of the Episcopal ministry.
3. That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders.
4. That the practice in the Church affords no indication that the Orthodox Church has ever officially treated the validity of Anglican Orders as in doubt, in such a way as would point to the re-ordination of the Anglican clergy as required in the case of the union of the two Churches
The problem with A.C. is that, if you accept it's arguments, then EVERY Roman Catholic ordination since Vatican II is equally invalid. Indeed schismatics have made precisely this point (see HERE) So you can accept Roman and Anglican orders as both equally valid or equally invalid, take your pick.
For a neutral third party look at the matter I give you the Oecumenical Patriarch's Encyclical on Anglican Orders:
from the Oecumenical Patriarch to the Presidents of the Particular Eastern Orthodox Churches, 1922
[The Holy Synod has studied the report of the Committee and notes:]
1. That the ordination of Matthew Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury by four bishops is a fact established by history.
2. That in this and subsequent ordinations there are found in their fullness those orthodox and indispensable, visible and sensible elements of valid episcopal ordination - viz. the laying on of hands, the Epiclesis of the All-Holy Spirit and also the purpose to transmit the charisma of the Episcopal ministry.
3. That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders.
4. That the practice in the Church affords no indication that the Orthodox Church has ever officially treated the validity of Anglican Orders as in doubt, in such a way as would point to the re-ordination of the Anglican clergy as required in the case of the union of the two Churches
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.