Reflections on Worship [what Anglicans can bring (back) to Rome]

TexAnglican ^ | 6/30/2005 | Randall Foster

[FatherofFive]

“Please read "The Theology of the English Reformers" by Philip E. Hughes”

I’ve read Hughes, the three volume “History of the Church” and his “A Popular History of The Reformation” where much of the theological differences are discussed. I will get the one you recommended.

But here is my main point - Jesus wanted us to be one.

“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?” 1 Cor 1:10-13 We cannot be one if everyone brings his own version of the Truth. Substitute Luther for Appollos, or Calvin for Paul, or King Henry for Cephas, and you see that the “new” religions that sprang from the reformation are anti-scriptural.

Christ was not stupid, and He knew He had to establish a visible Church with authority to keep men from twisting His words. He did just that.

The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, for a reason. “Jesus said to him in reply, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’” (Matt. 16:17-19)

Here Christ himself:
1. shows the divine origin of his visible Church;
2. promised that Peter’s decisions as leader of the Church would be binding in heaven;
3. tells us that His Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from Him.

No church established in the Reformation can claim to be the Church Jesus established.

This is what Newman discovered – that despite the fallibility and corruption of men, the gates of Hades will not prevail against His Church. This is why Newman came home to the Catholic Church.

[BelegStrongbow]

I see what you're saying but I don't think it addresses my concern, which was less of a concern before Vatican I. I agree that God's Word is not democratically determined. This is why our Province is monarchical. However, we do not grant our Primate the authority to proclaim ex cathedra and despite being the Chief Pastor for 1.1 billion Catholics I can't see how the Pope is any more qualified in se to set doctrinal policy than is the Archbishop of the APCK.

I suppose the ideal circumstance was at Chalcedon when Leo's Tome was ratified by the Council. There's the Papal and Consiliar mechanisms working together seamlessly and showing the agreement of the many with the insight of the one. Neither was democratic, it bears recalling. I'm with Xenophon in regarding democracy as usually mob rule and rarely the considered polity of an educated populace, engaged and unselfishly pursuing the greater good. And I think this debility rises in theological concerns even more often than in political.

In Christ,
Deacon Paul+

[BnBlFlag]

Re: "Newman went home...." As the old saying goes, to each his own. In the spirit of FRiendship, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I do believe that all of us who believe in Christ as their Saviour who died on the Cross for our sins and on the third day rose and ascended into Heaven, etc. (Nicene Creed) and who are Baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are members of the Invisible Body of Christ regardless of Denomination or Church organiztion, so in that sense, we're already united.

[nanetteclaret]

You have Freepmail.