-----------------------------------------------------
 
HomeGalleryFAQRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Anglican Provision

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
graybeardheadbanger



Number of posts : 167
Age : 51
Registration date : 2009-07-26
Points : 3518

PostSubject: Re: Anglican Provision   Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:43 am

Kamerad Ash wrote:
The founders of teh Anglican Church would role over in their graves to hear about this.

It was originally founded so that the King of England could marry who ever he wanted.. and not whom the Pope demanded.

The Pope never demanded he marry anyone. It had to do with the fact that the Pope would not grant an annulment to the king and bless a remarriage, which the king sought because his current wife could not bear children. This is not grounds for annulment (annulment is a judgment that there was an impediment prior to marriage that kept the marriage from being proper, but which was not revealed until after the ceremony. This is a complex issue, but infertility is not grounds for one).

In fact, a Catholic government official was martyred (St. Thomas More) was martyred
because he refuse to acquiesce to the king's split from Rome on these gorunds. Read or see the movie Man For All Seasons for such info.

graybeardheadbanger
Back to top Go down
graybeardheadbanger



Number of posts : 167
Age : 51
Registration date : 2009-07-26
Points : 3518

PostSubject: Re: Anglican Provision   Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:49 am

eternalmystery wrote:
Last Rites wrote:
eternalmystery wrote:

And Rome has also failed to understand that you cannot force Christianity and/or Christian principles on anyone. Not a monarch, not a peasant, not a layperson, NO ONE. Period. And due to them not realizing this, and for leaning towards being more political than spiritual, a load of chaos has smeared the history of the Roman church system.

There have been some really dark times in the Church's history as if it were attacked by the devil. However....it is still here. The Catholic Church has not EVER forced anyone to convert.

Oh but it has. Any glance into Medieval history shows that it did happen. I don't believe it was all the time directly ordered by the papacy (it was a few times, though a lot of it was the laypeople), but at the same time, they were silent on it, and did not lift a single word or finger against it.

Last Rites wrote:
eternalmystery wrote:
I am in no way condoning Henry VIII's adultery and immorality. If he was going to disobey the teachings of Christ anyway, then he should have been excommunicated, not on the basis of not following a pope, but on the basis of not believing Christ, because a person who claims to believe in something and yet lives in contradiction of what they claim to believe in has openly shown that they do not believe in it.


The Catholic church is obviously not without stain, as any group that has been a round a long time and is that large has had down moments. However, balance requires looking at all sides. There were times when supporting the Pope mmeant going against the Emperior in certain regions, etc. (in fact, St. Thomas More is a good example in the case of English Catholicism). It would also be good to read up on all the time the bishop of Rome intervened to speak out against
heresies with serious implications (monophysitism, Nesotrianism, etc.) all of which had ardent defenders in the leadership at times from foreign emperors and bishops.

A good read on such subject sare the famous Anglcian convert's Cardinary Henry Newman's Development of Doctrine (section on the history of papacy) and the Orthodox Catholic sympathizer
Vladimior Solovive'vs Russian Church and the papacy. The simple fact is, while Popes mishbehaved at times, there are other times when important doctrinal teachings would have fallen in to fundamental error without his guidance. This fact is often overlooked in such discussions, unfrotunately.

graybeardheadbanger

You are right again. When someone is excommunicated, it is through their persistence in error against Church’s teaching (which is from Christ). It has nothing to do with what the pope "feels" is right...if that makes sense.

This was not really the case then. I see what you are saying, and I agree to an extent. However, back in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance period, rejecting papal authority was pretty much to make yourself an enemy of the state, because in Medieval and Renaissance Europe, you had to be loyal to both monarch and top religious leader, which was the papacy back then, because the church and state were joined as one. This is why when America was founded that they made a law separating the church and the state, not to ban religion, but to insure freedom to the people so that they can practice whatever religion they wanted without fear of being executed or punished by the state. The founding fathers of the USA did not want to see inquisitions and the like being held on their soil, as many of them were immigrants who came from areas in Europe where this was prevalent.

Henry VIII was a political leader, and politics meant opportunity for the papacy to gain power and control. The Catholic church during that period was pretty much 100% political, and since all countries in that period, including the monarchs, were expected to be loyal to the pope, like I have previously said, opposing the papacy in that period meant you were rebelling against the state, and usually you were punished, usually either with death or with being tortured and beaten so badly that if you did live, you didn't live long afterwards.

As for the RCC's teachings being directly "handed down by the Apostles" and being "from Christ" - any research into the history of the early Christians, and comparing it to the RCC of today, will show that this claim is not true at all. Marian doctrines that are taught today took well over a millenia to develop, and were completely unknown to the early church. Another example is the forbidding of marriage of the priesthood. This was not even made dogma until roughly 1074, a good 20 years after the Great Schism took place separating the east from the west, and is blatantly unapostolic in nature. The apostle Paul even went so far as to condemn the forbidding of marriage among anyone, calling it a "doctrine of devils". Why? Well, look at the sexual immorality in the priesthood at the moment, and look at how many are easily tempted to fall in love with someone. There was a priest just recently who left the RCC and went to the Anglican church, because he fell in love, and really loved this woman, but just didn't understand why he couldn't marry this woman. The forbidding of marriage and forced celibacy has caused these men to commit immorality a lot. Paul said that if someone burns with lust that it is better for them to marry than to commit sins of immorality.
There is a reason why the Eastern Orthodox do not forbid marriage. It's because they didn't claim to gather some "new revelation" years and even centuries later.

Last Rites wrote:
eternalmystery wrote:
I love how Catholics pick and choose verses of Scripture and ultra-emphasize them out of context in order to make themselves appear to be the actual church that Christ founded. There is zero historical evidence whatsoever that there was even a papal ecclesiastical hierarchy until the late 4th century, some decades after Constantine legalized Christianity, which was simply a way for him to unite the Roman empire under one single religion rather than the 5 billion forms of paganism in that period.

It turns out that my bible still has the Apocrypha and the Epistle of St. James Smile I don't think you can claim that the Catholic Church has been "picking and choosing" scripture.

*facepalm*

The Apocrypha was not canonized in the Catholic bible until the Council of Trent. Sure, there were people in the RCC beforehand that believed it was inspired Scripture, but there were also those who did not, one of the main ones being St. Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate. He still put it in the Latin Vulgate, but he wrote a preface explaining that he certainly did not believe it was Scripture.

And have you even picked up a protestant Bible? The KJV? NKJV? NIV? NASB? ALL of them have James in it.

Quote :
It turns out that we have the whole lineage of popes all the way back to Peter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

Do you honestly believe that their lineage of popes is 100% legit? Really?

The church was under fierce persecution until Constantine signed the Edict of Milan in about 317 AD. An ecclesiastical hierarchy did not appear in history for quite some time. Most protestants are willing to say that there wasn't such a thing until a few decades after Constantine. However, the Eastern Orthodox claim is a little different. They say that until the Great Schism that every bishop addressed each other as a brother, not as holy father, vicar of Christ, etc. They say that the Bishop of Rome was claiming authority over all the other churches, and that was what resulted ultimately in the Great Schism, separating Eastern Orthodoxy from the RCC.

There were also several years that passed in between some of them where there was no bishop in Rome at all. Anywhere between 2 to 4 years where the seat was pretty much vacant. It wasn't even really implemented until after Constantine married Christianity with the Roman government.
Back to top Go down
graybeardheadbanger



Number of posts : 167
Age : 51
Registration date : 2009-07-26
Points : 3518

PostSubject: Re: Anglican Provision   Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:57 am

eternalmystery wrote:
True Christians are already united as one, because they are joined to Jesus Christ, not the Roman Catholic church, not the Eastern Orthodox church, and not any protestant church.

This is what I see from Rome, and other groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc. (NOTE: I am in no way saying that the RCC is a cult, but I am pointing out that I do see some similarities, not cultlike similarities, but rather similarities in practice. Let me explain.)

I see them saying to people, sometimes it's me, and they say:

Them: "Your church isn't one in unity."
Broc: "Oh? How so? What makes you think this?"
Them: "Because you quarrel and bicker and fight." *Note that this is a strawman argument on their part, and is a blatant misrepresentation of what born again believers affirm.*
Broc: "Then how do I achieve this unity?"
Them: "Join our church."

Do you see how they do this? They state that the only way to achieve true unity is to forsake whatever it is you believe in, and join their religious side of the playing field. And yet, when all the smoke clears and the circus acts slows down, it all is shown to be an illusion and nothing more. Every group that has been exclusivist in regards to Christians affiliated with other groups (yes, the RCC has said for several centuries that anyone outside of it is cursed and damned, until just recently when all this ecumenical junk got a big start, and they saw opportunity to try to join hands with every religion under the sun from protestantism to buddhism to islam) has claimed that they are one in unity, yet when you take a really good look and observe, the unity they claim to hold is shown to be an illusion.

It might look like this on the surfacer, but deep[er reflection shows the issue to be more complex. The Catholic church did indeed once teach that there was no salvation "outside the Church." And yet, it was never formally pronounced as to what exactly what this meant. Individual popes issued statements, but not in an ex cathedra fashion. (BOniface's are among the best known in this regard). It also must be noted that the Catholic church,c since ther Donatist controversy, has recognzied the baptism of heretics as "valid." As baptism is considered the entrance into Christian faith and salvationm by Catholics, this shows that the idea of "outside the church" is nuanced.
How could the RC recognize non-Catholic baptisms and then say anyone not in uniopn with Rome is automatically damned?

While this meaning is open to furthjer development. I have cvome to think of it as "apart from the church, there is no salvation." though this not popular either, I would be willing to hold that if there were no Catholic church, there would be no salvation for anyone (for reasons too complex to get into just now). However, this is not the same as saying one must be formally Catholic to be saved. What it suggests is that somehow the church's existence provides grace for salgvation that can be accessed even by those who may not formally recognize her authority, etc.

Catholkic teaching requires much patience and appreciation for nuance in thinking--we may like the answers to be black and white, but the hisotry of the church does not lend itself to such an approach, even in interpreting fundamentals of Scripture, etc.

More later as needed (and as time allows which is not muych for the next few days), graybeardheadbanger

PS typically, unity is primarily understand as unity in sacraments, which suggests unity in faith and doctrine. This is certainly Biblical--Paul himself speaks of unity in terms of the oneness of te bread and cup of communion, and this teaching is solidified in the Nicene Creed as the fundamental statement of belief (including re: baptism), which predates even the earleist councils convened for the sake of discenring which books should be counted as Scripture. The fact is, theological matters were bieng decided, of criticval importanc e, before there were even formal understandings/agreements about the constitution of the Bible.
Back to top Go down
graybeardheadbanger



Number of posts : 167
Age : 51
Registration date : 2009-07-26
Points : 3518

PostSubject: Re: Anglican Provision   Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:51 pm

eternalmystery wrote:
Last Rites wrote:
eternalmystery wrote:

And Rome has also failed to understand that you cannot force Christianity and/or Christian principles on anyone. Not a monarch, not a peasant, not a layperson, NO ONE. Period. And due to them not realizing this, and for leaning towards being more political than spiritual, a load of chaos has smeared the history of the Roman church system.

There have been some really dark times in the Church's history as if it were attacked by the devil. However....it is still here. The Catholic Church has not EVER forced anyone to convert.

Oh but it has. Any glance into Medieval history shows that it did happen. I don't believe it was all the time directly ordered by the papacy (it was a few times, though a lot of it was the laypeople), but at the same time, they were silent on it, and did not lift a single word or finger against it.

Last Rites wrote:
eternalmystery wrote:
I am in no way condoning Henry VIII's adultery and immorality. If he was going to disobey the teachings of Christ anyway, then he should have been excommunicated, not on the basis of not following a pope, but on the basis of not believing Christ, because a person who claims to believe in something and yet lives in contradiction of what they claim to believe in has openly shown that they do not believe in it.

You are right again. When someone is excommunicated, it is through their persistence in error against Church’s teaching (which is from Christ). It has nothing to do with what the pope "feels" is right...if that makes sense.

This was not really the case then. I see what you are saying, and I agree to an extent. However, back in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance period, rejecting papal authority was pretty much to make yourself an enemy of the state, because in Medieval and Renaissance Europe, you had to be loyal to both monarch and top religious leader, which was the papacy back then, because the church and state were joined as one. This is why when America was founded that they made a law separating the church and the state, not to ban religion, but to insure freedom to the people so that they can practice whatever religion they wanted without fear of being executed or punished by the state. The founding fathers of the USA did not want to see inquisitions and the like being held on their soil, as many of them were immigrants who came from areas in Europe where this was prevalent.

Henry VIII was a political leader, and politics meant opportunity for the papacy to gain power and control. The Catholic church during that period was pretty much 100% political, and since all countries in that period, including the monarchs, were expected to be loyal to the pope, like I have previously said, opposing the papacy in that period meant you were rebelling against the state, and usually you were punished, usually either with death or with being tortured and beaten so badly that if you did live, you didn't live long afterwards.

As for the RCC's teachings being directly "handed down by the Apostles" and being "from Christ" - any research into the history of the early Christians, and comparing it to the RCC of today, will show that this claim is not true at all. Marian doctrines that are taught today took well over a millenia to develop, and were completely unknown to the early church.


By the same reasoning, the following teachings were also "completely unknown" to hte early church: the two natures, one personhood, two wills of Christ, the Trinity, the divinity of the Spirit, etc. etc. You wil say these things are 'clear" in Scripture, but the fact is, councils were convened--by people who knew Scripture thoroughly!--to discuss precisely these points, for which there were many points of view. These dcotrines only seem obvious now because we have been taught the faith in a way that presupposes them as true from the onset. In a similar fashion, Marian doctrines came to be declared as the Church had greater tme to reflect on (and questions pushed the necessity of) thinking through these points. Indeed, the first Marian doctrine was directlyu about the divinity and humanity of Christ--the Council ofd Ephesuis where it was declared that Mary was Theotokos, and mot merely Christokos. In addition, keep in mind that docrines are typoically not formally declared until what has been believed falls under question--for example, one cannot find ANY declaration n hte early church that Mary was not "ever virign," but these came to be understood as important in later centuries (shared by even the Reformers).






Quote :
Another example is the forbidding of marriage of the priesthood. This was not even made dogma until roughly 1074, a good 20 years after the Great Schism took place separating the east from the west, and is blatantly unapostolic in nature.

Clarification is needed here. There is NO "dogma" calling for priestly celibacy. This is a matter of canon law and discipline. Doctrine refers to permanent theological teachings--discipline can be changed. The Catholic church could, in theory, permit preistly marriage again with a simple decision. This is in NO WAY a domga.



Quote :
The apostle Paul even went so far as to condemn the forbidding of marriage among anyone, calling it a "doctrine of devils".

Doesn't Paul talk about widows taking vows of celibacy, and saying tyhat woman should be careful not to take these too young, lest they go back on their vows? (I agree nuns take vowas at a young age, but the point is, he does not say in principle that no one can be called to celibacy).

If you look at the context in which Paul is speaking, he is referring to the idea that sex and marriage in general are sinful, or the body and therefore "sin," etc. He is saying that, as a matter of policy for all believers, marriage should not be forbidden. But he also clearly indicates that there are advantages of celibacy, and seems to even allow that this might be a calling for some. You are misapplying the Scripture here.

Quote :
Why? Well, look at the sexual immorality in the priesthood at the moment, and look at how many are easily tempted to fall in love with someone. There was a priest just recently who left the RCC and went to the Anglican church, because he fell in love, and really loved this woman, but just didn't understand why he couldn't marry this woman. The forbidding of marriage and forced celibacy has caused these men to commit immorality a lot.

I find it odd logic which suggests that when something is not allowed, this is akin to "forcing" somone to do the thing in question. I think if you reflect on this for awhile, you'll agree.



Quote :
Paul said that if someone burns with lust that it is better for them to marry than to commit sins of immorality.
There is a reason why the Eastern Orthodox do not forbid marriage. It's because they didn't claim to gather some "new revelation" years and even centuries later.


The RC never claimed this was a "new revelation.' It has always recognized the right of other traditions to have a differnet practice. This was a change in discuipline, not doctrine/dogma (only the latter being rooted in revelation per se). Moreover, the idea of "not lusting" could apply to those who have discerned that celibacy is not for them. I am not saying it has been carried out perfectly, but in fact, priests require sveral years (far more than Protestant pastors) to take final vows after they beginm preistly preparationb. Much of the discernment during this time to is to determine whether or not they are called for the celibatelife. The assumption is that within the 7 or so years that it takes (longer in some orders), they will have had an opportunity to have discerned this. If peopole start when they are 18, it seems that this is not a fundamentally unreasonable amount of time to discern this.

[quote="Last Rites"]
eternalmystery wrote:
I love how Catholics pick and choose verses of Scripture and ultra-emphasize them out of context in order to make themselves appear to be the actual church that Christ founded. There is zero historical evidence whatsoever that there was even a papal ecclesiastical hierarchy until the late 4th century, some decades after Constantine legalized Christianity, which was simply a way for him to unite the Roman empire under one single religion rather than the 5 billion forms of paganism in that period.

Broc, I caution you against such tendencies to overstate your case. We do know that monoepiscopances likely existed in some churches quite early on, inclyuding Jerusalem in Scripture (under James). Ignatius of Antioch also speaks of the importance of being under the bishop 9singular). Now, the case in Rome is not necessarily clear (as people wrote to the Church of Rome), BUT one certainly cannot definitively rule out a monoepiscopacy of some kind, even if not precise in all of its details. Clement, for example, writes in the name of the Church, and this could reasonable show some authoruty (AND this is believed to be the same clement mentioned in Phillippians 4 by Paul). Paul also alludes at the end of Romans to haviong waited to come to Romne because he did not want to build on "another's foundation." If you explore Scripture, you'll see that "foundation' is typically language used to refer to the Aposlktes. And, Peter writes in 1 or 2 peter that he is writing "from Babylon," which many take to be code for "Rome." Now, as for the 4th century, Eusebius provides a least of Popes, and he speaks as though these are
established accept histories. Irenaeus also (170 AD or so) ALSO lists the Popes in his list of Apostolic successors, satying he could "easily" do it for other churches, but he'll sdave time by doing it only for Rome since this is the Church witgh which "all must agree." There are other possible explanations for some of these statements, BUT it does show that it is faLSE TO say that there is "absolutely no" historical evidence for a papal hierarchy. Other cases can be named as well---Irenaeus writes to a particular bishop of Rome pleading with him not to excommunicate those who keep a different date for Easter, etc. This seems to suggest a particular leadership in Rome--also, it is worht noting that Irenaeus does not challange his right to excommunicate--in fact, his pleading actually suggests that what the bishop odes DOES matter, and that is why Irenaues is pleading with him not to do it. Also, keep in mind that Ignatius 9early 100s0 speaks in terms of singular bishops, and then refers to the church of Rome as that which "presides in love."
I am not taking these for definitive cases--I cite them merely to show that thge claim of "zero evidence" shows an unfair presentation of certain facts.






Quote :


Do you honestly believe that their lineage of popes is 100% legit? Really?

The church was under fierce persecution until Constantine signed the Edict of Milan in about 317 AD. An ecclesiastical hierarchy did not appear in history for quite some time.

So, yo uhave evidence that these lists are fabricated? We havelists which do not always perfectly match up, BUT multiple authros provides lists of "bishops of Rome." It seems a polemical trick has taken place wherebty one takes "lack of definitive evidence" for soenthing to count as evidence against something. This, of course, is a fallacy.

Peace, graybeardheadbanger
Back to top Go down
Last Rites

avatar

Number of posts : 90
Age : 97
Registration date : 2009-02-26
Points : 3624

PostSubject: Re: Anglican Provision   Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:16 pm

WOW graybeard! Well stated!

God bless!
Back to top Go down
http://www.myspace.com/lastritesmetal
Necromanicide

avatar

Number of posts : 262
Age : 40
Location : Australia
Registration date : 2008-12-03
Points : 4035

PostSubject: Re: Anglican Provision   Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:29 pm

Ummm... Does anyone other than myself have anything to say about how this relates to Anglicans? Or am I the only Anglican here to care, and should just watch you lot debate Catholic doctrine?

- Necromanicide
Back to top Go down
http://myspace.com/necromanicide
graybeardheadbanger



Number of posts : 167
Age : 51
Registration date : 2009-07-26
Points : 3518

PostSubject: Re: Anglican Provision   Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:03 pm

Necromanicide wrote:
Ummm... Does anyone other than myself have anything to say about how this relates to Anglicans? Or am I the only Anglican here to care, and should just watch you lot debate Catholic doctrine?

- Necromanicide

I do consider these developments important; it is also worth noting that certain Anglican leaders held dialogues with Orthodox Church of America officials as well in the past year or so.

graybeardheadbanger
Back to top Go down
Necromanicide

avatar

Number of posts : 262
Age : 40
Location : Australia
Registration date : 2008-12-03
Points : 4035

PostSubject: Re: Anglican Provision   Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:14 pm

graybeardheadbanger wrote:
it is also worth noting that certain Anglican leaders held dialogues with Orthodox Church of America officials as well in the past year or so.

graybeardheadbanger

In refernece to my previous post... Was that leaders from "The Anglican Church in America" or "The Episcopal Church"?

Noting that "The Anglican Church in America" is NOT in communion with The Anglican Communion.

As far as I know, nothing at all has gone through General Synod or any Diocesan Synod in Australia about any of this. I haven't even heard it mentioned as a topic for Lambeth.

- Necromanicide
Back to top Go down
http://myspace.com/necromanicide
graybeardheadbanger



Number of posts : 167
Age : 51
Registration date : 2009-07-26
Points : 3518

PostSubject: Re: Anglican Provision   Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:07 am

Necromanicide wrote:
graybeardheadbanger wrote:
it is also worth noting that certain Anglican leaders held dialogues with Orthodox Church of America officials as well in the past year or so.

graybeardheadbanger

In refernece to my previous post... Was that leaders from "The Anglican Church in America" or "The Episcopal Church"?

Noting that "The Anglican Church in America" is NOT in communion with The Anglican Communion.

As far as I know, nothing at all has gone through General Synod or any Diocesan Synod in Australia about any of this. I haven't even heard it mentioned as a topic for Lambeth.

- Necromanicide

Sorry, I should have been more specific--it was members of the conservative Anglcian group in America. To be honest, I have never been clear on their status relative to Anglcians elsewhere, apart from knowing that some of them have apparently placed themselves under the guide of certain conservative Anglican bishops.

In all seriousness, could you provide a sketch of the various Anglican/Episcopal
groups? I've never been clear on a number of the details.

graybeardheadbanger
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Anglican Provision   

Back to top Go down
 

Anglican Provision

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
BlabberBoard - Archives :: General Discussion :: Christian Discussion-
Create a forum | © phpBB | Free forum support | Contact | Report an abuse | Forumotion.com