Anglicans and Catholic Church [article]

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

philologos

Although the Anglican Church does bear many similarities to the Catholic Church in structure and in practice, there would be quite a difficulty in encouraging Anglican Evangelicals, or those who hold to Reformed theology to join Catholicism.

philstar

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Rowan Williams is just your typical anglican leader...a spineless fuddy duddy

call ian paisley a bigot, but at least he's got some backbone he would have told the RC church to back off

Stephentlig

well, I was just on my way to post that article, it is exciting news for unity indeed. Praise be the Lord, ''May they be one'' not a denomination of 30,000

God bless
Stephen.

philstar

Stephentlig wrote: »

Praise be the Lord, ''May they be one''

.

oh ya, and what one should that be???:cool:

kelly1

They must see something good in the Church! Good news.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

homer911

On another thread recently there has been mention of "High church" and "Low church" in the anglican tradition

This seems to be very much a bunch of "high church" anglican churches which would always have had a certain affinity with the RC church. If there was a sliding scale of Christian Denominations with Protestants on one side and Catholics on the other, the TAC would probably be right in the middle

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

I note also that this group only formed in 1991 - they seem to be still making their mind up what they are

prinz

philstar wrote: »

Rowan Williams is just your typical anglican leader...a spineless fuddy duddy

Any time I have seen him in the media he seems to be a fine man.

philstar wrote: »

...call ian paisley a bigot, but at least he's got some backbone

Don't mind if I do, the Reverend Doctor was very much a bigot, and an ignorant bigot at that. How he squared that with Jesus only they know.

philstar wrote: »

he would have told the RC church to back off

This isn't the Premiership with teams 'poaching' players :rolleyes: It's called free will. Let people choose what they choose.

fryup

philstar wrote: »

Rowan Williams is just your typical anglican leader...a spineless fuddy duddy

Robert Runcie was another spineless windbag, those anglican leaders have got the charisma of a plank.

Its no wonder there in the state there in. (esp in england)

PDN

To be honest I think this is inevitable. The concept of an established 'national' church is getting harder and harder to sustain in an age where migration and inter-connectivity on the web have exploded.

Churches and denominations that can survive and flourish in this environment need some kind of 'glue' to hold them together. In Roman Catholicism this is provided by the Papacy. In most other churches the 'glue' is a common belief system, or a shared vision of how church should be.

The problem is that Anglicanism is a bit like Noah's ark - it contains two of every kind. Various types of Anglicanism have very different beliefs and visions of what church should be like, and (unlike Catholicism) they don't claim to be the one true Church that Christ established. So where is the 'glue'?

At present much of the numerical growth in Anglicanism is overseas where it functions pretty much as an Evangelical or Pentecostal denomination with the Anglican trimmings of clerical dress and infant baptism. This wing of the Church is already hanging in the denomination by a thread (due to theologically liberal American Episcopalians ordaining practising homosexuals) and it won't take much for it to depart.

Similarly, many Anglo-Catholics are much nearer to Rome than Canterbury at heart - and it won't take much for them to go. I feel sorry for Rowan Williams, because I think he has an absolutely impossible task in trying to hold it all together.

One other aspect of this is that, since the RC Church seems to be pretty blatantly fishing for converts in the Anglican pool, then they can have little grounds for complaint that evangelicals are similarly targetting Catholics in Latin America for conversion. You reap what you sow etc.

Clemens

An interesting question is how other "high church" protestants are going to do when they see these anglican groups can become members of the catholic church. This decision can turn out to be a very important one in catholic-protestant relations.

PDN

Clemens wrote: »

An interesting question is how other "high church" protestants are going to do when they see these anglican groups can become members of the catholic church. This decision can turn out to be a very important one in catholic-protestant relations.

You thinking of Lutherans? I can't think of many other high-church Protestants.

prinz

PDN wrote: »

One other aspect of this is that, since the RC Church seems to be pretty blatantly fishing for converts in the Anglican pool, then they can have little grounds for complaint that evangelicals are similarly targetting Catholics in Latin America for conversion. You reap what you sow etc.

How is this blatant "fishing for converts"?

PDN

prinz wrote: »

How is this blatant "fishing for converts"?

It's announcing a change in the rules to specifically promote the transfer of groups of Anglicans into the RC Church. As such it is clearly hoping to

I would see it as similar to Arsenal saying, "We're going to change our wage structure and disciplinary policy to facilitate any Chelsea players that want to join us next season." You can dress such an announcement up however you like - but in the end its essentially a poaching exercise.

Not that I've any problems with that, I believe in the survival of the fittest when it comes to religion, and I'm happy for all churches to do what they can (obviously nothing immoral or dishonest) to attract members.

Clemens

PDN wrote: »

You thinking of Lutherans? I can't think of many other high-church Protestants.

Yes, I was thinking of Lutherans. I think the case of some Lutheran national churches is quite similar to that of the Church of England.

prinz

PDN wrote: »

It's announcing a change in the rules to specifically promote the transfer of groups of Anglicans into the RC Church. As such it is clearly hoping to...

But it is Anglicans approaching the RCC looking for this and not the other way round.

PDN wrote: »

I would see it as similar to Arsenal saying, "We're going to change our wage structure and disciplinary policy to facilitate any Chelsea players that want to join us next season."...

Except it's not "any players who want to join next season", it's more a case of the queue of players already looking to join this season. These people are obviously deeply unhappy with the Anglican church as it is now.

Slav

One thing I don't understand (putting the RCC position aside) is why breaking with other Anglicans would necessarily mean entering into communion with the RCC? How these two are related? Why not just stay as an independent Church?

After all the groups in question are well established already with their own episcopate, organisational structures, etc.

prinz

Slav wrote: »

One thing I don't understand (putting the RCC position aside) is why breaking with other Anglicans would necessarily mean entering into communion with the RCC? How these two are related? Why not just stay as an independent Church?

+1, that's what I was getting at too. I don't see the issue of the RCC "poaching" people away... there's free will for that. These people are voluntarily approaching the RCC when they could just as easily set up their own outside of both the Anglican and RCC.

Stephentlig

prinz wrote: »

+1, that's what I was getting at too. I don't see the issue of the RCC "poaching" people away... there's free will for that. These people are voluntarily approaching the RCC when they could just as easily set up their own outside of both the Anglican and RCC.

and the protestants/evangelicals were approaching catholics in gutamala in a immoral and dishonest way, promising them houses and money if they joined their church, and when most of them saw that this was a farce, they quickly left the evangelical church and went straight back to the Catholic church. at least thats what I read in the papers a while back, so its open for correction.

PDN

Stephentlig wrote: »

and the protestants/evangelicals were approaching catholics in gutamala in a immoral and dishonest way, promising them houses and money if they joined their church, and when most of them saw that this was a farce, they quickly left the evangelical church and went straight back to the Catholic church. at least thats what I read in the papers a while back, so its open for correction.

And of course we believe what we read in the papers .....

As a mod here I spend an inordinate amount of my time deleting posts, infracting posters, banning posters, then having lengthy inquests on Feedback with them, all because they make inaccurate attacks on Catholicism. Comments such as yours really make me wonder why I bother.

Stephentlig

PDN wrote: »

And of course we believe what we read in the papers .....

As a mod here I spend an inordinate amount of my time deleting posts, infracting posters, banning posters, then having lengthy inquests on Feedback with them, all because they make inaccurate attacks on Catholicism. Comments such as yours really make me wonder why I bother.

but I claimed that my post was possibly inaccurate and open for correction. The Papers I read it in was a good source, not just your normal tabloid paper. I trust what I read in the Irish Catholic.

you made an inaccurate claim that the Catholic church was poaching, so maybe you should ban yourself from the forum.

fryup

Well it is poaching, they've been cunningly doing it for years esp in the UK amongst the establishment.

The ultimate goal is to regain the british throne.

PDN

Stephentlig wrote: »

you made an inaccurate claim that the Catholic church was poaching, so maybe you should ban yourself from the forum.

No, I made a comment about how the Vatican's switching of their rules to accommodate Anglicans looks to me. It was certainly not intended as an attack and I'm sorry that it seems to have made anyone defensive enough to feel they have to retaliate. I've already stated that I believe in a free exchange of ideas and think every church has the right to seek converts among other groups (and that includes the wee lady with her miraculous medals who stands outside our church and keeps trying to convert our church members as they leave our services on a Sunday).

If you're really interested in what's going on in places like Guatemala, then it might be useful to listen to a more balanced view (including those of some Catholic voices): http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week836/cover.html What's happening in Latin America could make for an interesting discussion if we all tried to listen to one another.

Generally the biggest problems in communication on this forum occur when Catholics gather their 'information' on Protestants from solely Catholic sources, and Protestants gather their 'information' on Catholics from solely Protestant sources. I would have thought that discussing things among ourselves could produce a more balanced conversation - but maybe not.

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

Generally the biggest problems in communication on this forum occur when Catholics gather their 'information' on Protestants from solely Catholic sources, and Protestants gather their 'information' on Catholics from solely Protestant sources. I would have thought that discussing things among ourselves could produce a more balanced conversation - but maybe not.

Amen to that brother!

prinz

PDN wrote: »

As a mod here I spend an inordinate amount of my time deleting posts, infracting posters, banning posters, then having lengthy inquests on Feedback with them, all because they make inaccurate attacks on Catholicism. Comments such as yours really make me wonder why I bother.

In fairness you did bring it up yourself. The last thing the thread needs is a tit for tat who's poaching who. Like I said in an earlier post this isn't the premiership or a schoolground kids gang.

Stephentlig wrote: »

I trust what I read in the Irish Catholic..

If it's anything like Alive magazine then I wouldn't if I were you. Not so long ago they were spreading all sorts of nonsense about the Lisbon Treaty. Utter lies.

fryup wrote: »

The ultimate goal is to regain the british throne.

:rolleyes: Whatever you say. CT forum perhaps? At this stage they couldn't give the throne away.

PDN wrote: »

I would have thought that discussing things among ourselves could produce a more balanced conversation - but maybe not.

+1.

philologos

The simple way I see it is that the Pope is no longer trying to discuss with the heirarchy of the Anglican Church, but rather he has gone about it through dissatisfiactory means. However, there is really a very small amount of people that the Popes decision will influence in Britain. We are basically talking about conservative Anglo-Catholics.

Slav wrote:

One thing I don't understand (putting the RCC position aside) is why breaking with other Anglicans would necessarily mean entering into communion with the RCC? How these two are related? Why not just stay as an independent Church?

It doesn't. On the other side you have GAFCON, and the Anglican Church of North America (Episcopal Church) trying to regain influence on the side of reformed conservatism or Anglican Evangelicalism.

I think that this approach is also wrong. Promoting views within the church is better than breaking away.

Stephentlig

No, I made a comment about how the Vatican's switching of their rules to accommodate Anglicans looks to me.

well that comment has been corrected, and it was still an inaccurate judgement of yours. Below is what the Vatican actually wrote, taken from the Vaticans website. there is no changing of the rules, the Eastern byzantine Catholics were given the same thing, they can get married and do their liturgy which differs from the Western Liturgy as can the anglicans.

also we see in the below that it was the anglicans who came to the Catholics and not the other way around. Neither I nor the wee lady outside your sunday services can convert you by the way, only God can, through his Catholic church.

NOTE ON ANGLICANS WISHING TO ENTER THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

VATICAN CITY, 20 OCT 2009 (VIS) - In a meeting with journalists held this morning in the Holy See Press Office Cardinal William Joseph Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Archbishop Joseph Augustine Di Noia O.P., secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, presented a note on a new measure concerning "Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering the Catholic Church".

Commenting on the English-language note, which has been published by his dicastery, Cardinal Levada explained how, "with the preparation of an Apostolic Constitution, the Catholic Church is responding to the many requests that have been submitted to the Holy See from groups of Anglican clergy and faithful in different parts of the world who wish to enter into full visible communion.

"In this Apostolic Constitution the Holy Father has introduced a canonical structure that provides for such corporate reunion by establishing Personal Ordinariates, which will allow former Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony. Under the terms of the Apostolic Constitution, pastoral oversight and guidance will be provided for groups of former Anglicans through a Personal Ordinariate, whose Ordinary will usually be appointed from among former Anglican clergy.

"The forthcoming Apostolic Constitution provides a reasonable and even necessary response to a worldwide phenomenon, by offering a single canonical model for the universal Church which is adaptable to various local situations and equitable to former Anglicans in its universal application. It provides for the ordination as Catholic priests of married former Anglican clergy. Historical and ecumenical reasons preclude the ordination of married men as bishops in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Constitution therefore stipulates that the Ordinary can be either a priest or an unmarried bishop. The seminarians in the Ordinariate are to be prepared alongside other Catholic seminarians, though the Ordinariate may establish a house of formation to address the particular needs of formation in the Anglican patrimony".

"The provision of this new structure is consistent with the commitment to ecumenical dialogue, which continues to be a priority for the Catholic Church, particularly through the efforts of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. The initiative has come from a number of different groups of Anglicans" who, said Cardinal Levada, "have declared that they share the common Catholic faith as it is expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and accept the Petrine ministry as something Christ willed for the Church. For them, the time has come to express this implicit unity in the visible form of full communion".

The cardinal further indicated that "it is the hope of the Holy Father Benedict XVI that the Anglican clergy and faithful who desire union with the Catholic Church will find in this canonical structure the opportunity to preserve those Anglican traditions precious to them and consistent with the Catholic faith. Insofar as these traditions express in a distinctive way the faith that is held in common, they are a gift to be shared in the wider Church. The unity of the Church does not require a uniformity that ignores cultural diversity, as the history of Christianity shows. Moreover, the many diverse traditions present in the Catholic Church today are all rooted in the principle articulated by St. Paul in his letter to the Ephesians: 'There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism'.

"Our communion", the cardinal added in conclusion, "is therefore strengthened by such legitimate diversity, and so we are happy that these men and women bring with them their particular contributions to our common life of faith".

In a joint declaration on the same subject, Catholic Archbishop Vincent Gerard Nichols of Westminster and Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury affirm that the announcement of the Apostolic Constitution "brings to an end a period of uncertainty for such groups who have nurtured hopes of new ways of embracing unity with the Catholic Church. It will now be up to those who have made requests to the Holy See to respond to the Apostolic Constitution", which is a "consequence of ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion.

"The on-going official dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion provides the basis for our continuing co-operation", the declaration adds. "The Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) and International Anglican Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission (IARCCUM) agreements make clear the path we will follow together.

"With God's grace and prayer we are determined that our on-going mutual commitment and consultation on these and other matters should continue to be strengthened. Locally, in the spirit of IARCCUM, we look forward to building on the pattern of shared meetings between the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales and the Church of England's House of Bishops with a focus on our common mission".

philologos

Stephen, whether we like it or not, the Catholic Church are making an unwelcome intervention in Anglican affairs. If this happened the other way around I can only imagine the uproar.

wolfsbane

Slav wrote: »

One thing I don't understand (putting the RCC position aside) is why breaking with other Anglicans would necessarily mean entering into communion with the RCC? How these two are related? Why not just stay as an independent Church?

After all the groups in question are well established already with their own episcopate, organisational structures, etc.

Because they are Roman Catholics in heart. They are not Independents in heart. Nor even Anglicans.

All they have ever looked for was a return of the CoE to Rome, but continued in it in the meantime. Now that it is so openly corrupt, both conscience and opportunity provide the ideal motivation for jumping ship.

Stephentlig

Jakkass wrote: »

Stephen, whether we like it or not, the Catholic Church are making an unwelcome intervention in Anglican affairs. If this happened the other way around I can only imagine the uproar.

Not at all Jakkass, as the statement clearly says:"the Catholic Church is responding to the many requests that have been submitted to the Holy See from groups of Anglican clergy and faithful in different parts of the world who wish to enter into full visible communion."

I trust our Holy Fathers response is a great move towards unity, and its called Holy obedience, I'm over the moon. If it happened the other way around Jakkass, No Catholic would bother, as it would mean they'd be leaving Mother Church who is the ark of salvation.

I'm so happy, that I feel like gathering up all the anglicans I can and throwing a party, getting out my guitar and singing "Give thanks to the Lord always and again I say give thanks, give thanks to the Lord always and again I say give thanks, give thanks, give thanks and again I say give thanks."

philologos

Stephentlig wrote: »

Not at all Jakkass, as the statement clearly says:"the Catholic Church is responding to the many requests that have been submitted to the Holy See from groups of Anglican clergy and faithful in different parts of the world who wish to enter into full visible communion."

I have no issue with Catholicism, what I do have issue with is with policy changes made in order to grasp members who are traditionally from other churches. As for groups like the Traditional Anglican Communion, I understand that, however I do not understand why there is a need to create a separate Anglican rite in order to undermine the teachings of the Church of England or any other national church.

Ironically it also undermines the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on celibacy. It produces a relativism in the church where one set of standards are applied to one, and another to others.

Stephentlig wrote: »

I trust our Holy Fathers response is a great move towards unity, and its called Holy obedience, I'm over the moon. If it happened the other way around Jakkass, No Catholic would bother, as it would mean they'd be leaving Mother Church who is the ark of salvation.

There were other churches before Roman Catholicism even existed.

Stephentlig wrote: »

I'm so happy, that I feel like gathering up all the anglicans I can and throwing a party, getting out my guitar and singing "Give thanks to the Lord always and again I say give thanks, give thanks to the Lord always and again I say give thanks, give thanks, give thanks and again I say give thanks."

I think we need to do better than this. This is unification done in the wrong interest. I don't believe sucking congregants of differing denominations into the Roman Catholic Church is going to solve any of our issues.

Stephentlig

I have no issue with Catholicism, what I do have issue with is with policy changes made in order to grasp members who are traditionally from other churches. As for groups like the Traditional Anglican Communion, I understand that, however I do not understand why there is a need to create a separate Anglican rite in order to undermine the teachings of the Church of England or any other national church.

Ironically it also undermines the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on celibacy. It produces a relativism in the church where one set of standards are applied to one, and another to others.

they havnt changed anything, they are just doing what they did with the eastern Catholics as I've mentioned. celibacy is church practice not dogma.

There were other churches before Roman Catholicism even existed.

then the burden on you is to show me which early church father before the reformation agreed with you on that one Jakkass. because both ignatius and St.Polycarp ( who was ordained bishop by the apostle St.John ) disagree with you Jakkass.


"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

however the above response is a debate for another day.

I think we need to do better than this. This is unification done in the wrong interest. I don't believe sucking congregants of differing denominations into the Roman Catholic Church is going to solve any of our issues.

the Catholic church is only responding to their request.

philologos

Stephentlig wrote: »

then the burden on you is to show me which early church father before the reformation agreed with you on that one Jakkass. because both ignatius and St.Polycarp ( who was ordained bishop by the apostle St.John ) disagree with you Jakkass.

The Hebrew Church of James, the Gentile Church of Paul, the Mar Thomas Church in India, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Nazarenes amongst other Christian groups were not Roman Catholic. Roman Catholicism didn't come onto the scene before the Romans legalised Christianity in the Roman Empire, and they wanted to formalise it as the legal church of the State.

Stephentlig wrote: »

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

Catholic meaning "universal" in that context. In the Nicene Creed at Anglican Churches we say that we are a part of the catholic and Apostolic church. I.E We are a part of the universal church of the Apostles which is Christianity. It's impossible to hold any other consensus as James was a part of the Hebrew church, Paul the church of the Gentiles, Thomas the church in India, and Barnabas and Jude the Armenian church. How could that all have been the Roman Catholic church when the Roman Catholic church didn't come into fruition until Roman toleration of Christianity?

Stephentlig wrote: »

"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

Likewise.

Stephentlig

The Hebrew Church of James, the Gentile Church of Paul, the Mar Thomas Church in India, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Nazarenes amongst other Christian groups were not Roman Catholic. Roman Catholicism didn't come onto the scene before the Romans legalised Christianity in the Roman Empire, and they wanted to formalise it as the legal church of the State.

I dont see that in scripture, but I do see ( matt 16) where Christ first established his Catholic church upon St.Peter.

really, then I suppose these texts of church fathers quite cleary stating that peter has been given the authority are wrong then?



“Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven...'” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).


“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail...” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).

“By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established.” Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 (ante A.D. 235).

“'...thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church' ... It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness...If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251).
“...folly of (Pope) Stephen, that he who boasts of the place of the episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church were laid...” Firmilian, Epistle To Cyprian, Epistle 75(74):17(A.D. 256).

philologos

Stephentlig wrote: »

I dont see that in scripture, but I do see ( matt 16) where Christ first established his Catholic church upon St.Peter.

I see this reference bandied around the whole time. Nowhere does this refer to the Roman Catholic Church, considering the Roman Catholic Church postdates Christianity by so long it is very difficult for me to piece the two together. Infact I would say it is an anachronism. Jesus was concerned with Christianity, not with the petty denominational disputes of our day.

In Mark chapter 9 he deals with people who weren't formally in Apostolic circles preaching Jesus' name:

Mark 9:38-41 wrote:

John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.

Even if the Roman Catholic Church was the mother church, which I don't regard to be the case, people outside it which practice the faith are practising legitimate Christianity.

As for the Church Fathers, I regard them as fallible men, and I consider their writings as being inferior to Holy Scripture. They are indeed useful, but they are not the final say on any matter of doctrine or of belief in Christianity.

Stephentlig wrote: »

really, then I suppose these texts of church fathers quite cleary stating that peter has been given the authority are wrong then?

This makes the assumption that I regard Peter as the leader of the Roman Catholic Church. I regard Peter as the Apostle assigned to take care of the Christian Church in its first generation. I don't regard him as Pope.

Stephentlig wrote: »

“Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven...'” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

I don't dispute this. This doesn't lead me closer to regarding the Catholic Church as the one true church.

Stephentlig wrote: »

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail...” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).

“By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established.” Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 (ante A.D. 235).

“'...thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church' ... It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness...If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251).
“...folly of (Pope) Stephen, that he who boasts of the place of the episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church were laid...” Firmilian, Epistle To Cyprian, Epistle 75(74):17(A.D. 256).

See above. I have no issue with any of these quotations. They do not explicitly refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The Bible doesn't either. Rather we are dealing with the Christian church in general. I.E universal church = catholic.

universal church does not equal Roman Catholicism exclusively.

BrianCalgary

Matthew 16
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

I would argue that the rock on which the church is built is the fact that "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

And it is not Peter. And yes I think the RC church Fathers are wrong.

Jesus is talking about the answer that Peter gave. It has bee revealed by my Father, and you are Peter and upon this rock (me being the Christ) is what the church will be built on.

Stephentlig

Jakass its absolutle madness to reject the fathers teachings who were closest to the apostles, even when such a request to follow this oral tradition is within Scripture: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." Here paul is teaching us to obey oral tradition and Scripture.
Because 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is so troubling to the sola Scriptura position, Protestants often argue that the oral tradition Paul is referring to had to come from the mouths of the apostles. Their argument further goes that, since all the apostles are deceased, we no longer have to follow oral tradition. This argument, however, cannot be proven from Scripture (which should be possible if sola Scriptura were true) and, in fact, is contrary to Scripture. See for example, 2 Timothy 2:2 where Paul (1st generation) instructs Timothy (2nd generation) to teach others the faith (3rd generation) who will be able to teach others also (4th generation). Such an argument is also inconsistent with the very meaning of tradition (in Greek, "paradosis") which means "to hand on" from one generation to the next.

to qoute Mark 9 goes to show that if we do it in the name of Jesus, we do it in the name of his Catholic church which he built upon Peter, its universal, whether the title be roman/eastern catholic, all answer to Peter, and he is the head of the church on earth.



Peter built the church in Rome.
"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him." Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).

'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth." Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out." Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)
"It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: 'But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.'" Gaius, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).

Stephentlig

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Matthew 16
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

I would argue that the rock on which the church is built is the fact that "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

And it is not Peter. And yes I think the RC church Fathers are wrong.

Jesus is talking about the answer that Peter gave. It has bee revealed by my Father, and you are Peter and upon this rock (me being the Christ) is what the church will be built on.

Brian, nobody argues that Christ isnt the rock, he is, but he builds his church upon peter also and confers this rock authority upon him, the greek word for for this is tautee, meaning ''This same'' Rock.

philologos

Stephentlig wrote: »

Jakass its absolutle madness to reject the fathers teachings who were closest to the apostles, even when such a request to follow this oral tradition is within Scripture: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." Here paul is teaching us to obey oral tradition and Scripture.

I don't reject them entirely, I consider them subordinate to the Bible which contains all things necessary for salvation. It seems a bit troublesome allowing the breakaway Anglicans to use the Book of Common Prayer when the 39 Articles are included:

6. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be
proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be
thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those
canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Stephentlig wrote: »

Because 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is so troubling to the sola Scriptura position, Protestants often argue that the oral tradition Paul is referring to had to come from the mouths of the apostles. Their argument further goes that, since all the apostles are deceased, we no longer have to follow oral tradition. This argument, however, cannot be proven from Scripture (which should be possible if sola Scriptura were true) and, in fact, is contrary to Scripture. See for example, 2 Timothy 2:2 where Paul (1st generation) instructs Timothy (2nd generation) to teach others the faith (3rd generation) who will be able to teach others also (4th generation). Such an argument is also inconsistent with the very meaning of tradition (in Greek, "paradosis") which means "to hand on" from one generation to the next.

I believe that tradition is useful, I do not believe it to be 100% infallible though. I base my faith on the Scriptures, traditions may accompany this but it is by no means more important.

Stephentlig wrote: »

to qoute Mark 9 goes to show that if we do it in the name of Jesus, we do it in the name of his Catholic church which he built upon Peter, its universal, whether the title be roman/eastern catholic, all answer to Peter, and he is the head of the church on earth.

Nowhere in the Biblical text does it mention the Roman Catholic Church. It would be a gratuitous assumption to do so.

Stephentlig wrote: »

Peter built the church in Rome.
"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him." Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).

'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth." Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out." Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)
"It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: 'But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.'" Gaius, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).

These quotes do not prove your point. I personally have a copy of Eusebius' Church History, and I find it to be an interesting read, but nowhere do the texts you have quoted suggest that there were no other churches that predate Roman Catholicism. The truth is that there were other churches, and the truth is that it is far more accurate to render the term "catholic" by it's original meaning which is universal. Funny how the user of the term has been turned into something divisive over time.

Stephentlig

I don't reject them entirely, I consider them subordinate to the Bible which contains all things necessary for salvation. It seems a bit troublesome allowing the breakaway Anglicans to use the Book of Common Prayer when the 39 Articles are included:

The burden is on you then Jakkass, to just give me ( as tempted as you and many other will be to qoute a lot ) your best qoute out of the bible that says it contains all things necessary for salvation.

Nowhere in the Biblical text does it mention the Roman Catholic Church. It would be a gratuitous assumption to do so.

you say you accept the term Catholic and yet nowhere in the Bible is the word ''catholic'' used at all. the catholic church was established with Peter, then Peter built the church in rome, doesnt matter whether its called roman catholic or eastern Catholic we are all in obedience to Peter at rome and we are all Catholic since Christ founded his church when he built it upon Peter in Scripture.

These quotes do not prove your point. I personally have a copy of Eusebius' Church History, and I find it to be an interesting read, but nowhere do the texts you have quoted suggest that there were no other churches that predate Roman Catholicism. The truth is that there were other churches, and the truth is that it is far more accurate to render the term "catholic" by it's original meaning which is universal. Funny how the user of the term has been turned into something divisive over time

I'm showing that Peter built the church in rome, Catholism always existed, since christ founded the church upon St.Peter, does not matter whether its called roman or eastern, its catholic and we all are under his authority on earth.

philologos

Stephentlig wrote: »

The burden is on you then Jakkass, to just give me ( as tempted as you and many other will be to qoute a lot ) your best qoute out of the bible that says it contains all things necessary for salvation.

I'll use a couple. I'm not limited.

The first being that the Scriptures contain all things that are profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and teaching in righteousness:

2 Timothy 3:16 wrote:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness

What does righteousness come from?

Romans 4:3 wrote:

For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

How are we saved? -

Romans 3:23-25 wrote:

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus

Through the grace of Jesus Christ! We aren't saved by any works of our own, we aren't saved by tradition, we aren't saved by any of these things. However, by accepting and understanding the Gospel, we gain life itself.

Stephentlig wrote: »

you say you accept the term Catholic and yet nowhere in the Bible is the word ''catholic'' used at all. the catholic church was established with Peter, then Peter built the church in rome, doesnt matter whether its called roman catholic or eastern Catholic we are all in obedience to Peter at rome and we are all Catholic since Christ founded his church when he built it upon Peter in Scripture.

I accept the word catholic in it's original context meaning universal. I do not accept the word "Catholic" as a means of distinguishing one set of Christians as being profoundly more orthodox than the other. It reminds me of Paul's assessment of the church at Corinth:

1 Corinthians 1:12-13 wrote:

What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Personally I am fed up of the denominational tit for tats that go on in the church. We should be far more interested in encouraging belief in Jesus Christ than meaningless point-scoring between denominational groups.

Stephentlig wrote: »

I'm showing that Peter built the church in rome, Catholism always existed, since christ founded the church upon St.Peter, does not matter whether its called roman or eastern, its catholic and we all are under his authority on earth.

Your point makes no sense.

All your point amounts to is that universalism always existed. Yes, the Christian Church existed from the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and the roots were there beforehand. However, we have no evidence that the Roman Catholic Church always existed. That is the issue, not the issue that Christianity existed as a concept.

I believe Jesus has authority over me, not any Pope.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

prinz

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally I am fed up of the denominational tit for tats that go on in the church. We should be far more interested in encouraging belief in Jesus Christ than meaningless point-scoring between denominational groups..

Then you probably shouldn't engage in it...

Jakkass wrote: »

Stephen, whether we like it or not, the Catholic Church are making an unwelcome intervention in Anglican affairs. If this happened the other way around I can only imagine the uproar.

A bit like PDN earlier. First response is some kind of score keeping/them versus us. It seems to me that for the people involved it will be very welcome seeing as how they are pursuing the RCC.

Jakkass wrote: »

Ironically it also undermines the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on celibacy. It produces a relativism in the church where one set of standards are applied to one, and another to others..

I wondered about this. It could prove a poisoned chalice to the RCC in the long run.

Stephentlig wrote: »

I dont see that in scripture, but I do see ( matt 16) where Christ first established his Catholic church upon St.Peter.

IMO that quote is often taken out of context. I think reading over and over that what Jesus meant is that His church would be established upon men such as Peter, not exclusively upon Peter himself. Peter showed himself to be a man of incredible faith, loyalty, willingness to follow Jesus etc, but also to be a man in the imperfect sense. IMO it was more a case of 'my church will be built upon men like you Peter'.

Stephentlig wrote: »

If it happened the other way around Jakkass, No Catholic would bother, as it would mean they'd be leaving Mother Church who is the ark of salvation.

I think you'd be in for a suprise. I think many Catholics would bother if the RCC moved the goalposts in the morning.

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe Jesus has authority over me, not any Pope.

Amen on that, but many Catholics would also agree I suspect. The Pope is a servant, not the master.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

philologos

prinz wrote: »

Then you probably shouldn't engage in it...

I'm not engaging in it. The Pope is engaging in a tit for tat through trying to convert Anglicans to Catholicism. Surely Christianity is just that, Christianity...

prinz wrote: »

A bit like PDN earlier. First response is some kind of score keeping/them versus us. It seems to me that for the people involved it will be very welcome seeing as how they are pursuing the RCC.

I'm quite happy for Catholics to worship in the Catholic Church. I have no interest to convert Catholics to Protestantism.

prinz wrote: »

Amen on that, but many Catholics would also agree I suspect. The Pope is a servant, not the master.

I actually agree with the Pope on many issues, but not this one unfortunately.

prinz

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not engaging in it. The Pope is engaging in a tit for tat through trying to convert Anglicans to Catholicism....

The article doesn't say anything about the Pope trying to convert people

It does mention the RCC facilitating those Anglicans who have willingly approached the RCC first. If this announcement was made out of the blue then yes it would be a bit like trying to tempt people to convert, but it seems to be a response to those who were already willing to convert. If the RCC didn't make these concessions would the same people stay in the Anglican church? I doubt it.

Clemens

I understand the point of view that the protestants are not part of the Catholic Church, even though I don't necessarily agree. It is understandable to me because of the fact that protestants left the Roman Catholic Church.

But what I don't understand is how for example the Greek Orthodox Church could be outside the Catholic Church? What is such a view based on?

When the Catholic Church split in 1054 it was indeed a split. It doesn't mean the Roman Catholic church would be "more catholic" than the Eastern church, or if it does, how do you explain it?

PDN

prinz wrote: »

The article doesn't say anything about the Pope trying to convert people

It does mention the RCC facilitating those Anglicans who have willingly approached the RCC first. If this announcement was made out of the blue then yes it would be a bit like trying to tempt people to convert, but it seems to be a response to those who were already willing to convert. If the RCC didn't make these concessions would the same people stay in the Anglican church? I doubt it.

Actually I saw a report today that says the archbishop of Canterbury has signed off on these new arrangements: http://www.zenit.org/article-27269?l=english

That seems to me a bit like a turkey helping to set the dinner table for Christmas - but each to their own.

prinz

PDN wrote: »

Actually I saw a report today that says the archbishop of Canterbury has signed off on these new arrangements: http://www.zenit.org/article-27269?l=english

That seems to me a bit like a turkey helping to set the dinner table for Christmas - but each to their own.

Is there anything else he could do? Would it serve any useful purpose if he didn't sign off? It's courtesy I suppose, but I mean it's not like they need his permission to do this, or do they? I think it would be great for the RCC to have some new thinking and input. Might shake them up a bit.

Slav

Clemens wrote: »

I understand the point of view that the protestants are not part of the Catholic Church, even though I don't necessarily agree. It is understandable to me because of the fact that protestants left the Roman Catholic Church.

But what I don't understand is how for example the Greek Orthodox Church could be outside the Catholic Church? What is such a view based on?

When the Catholic Church split in 1054 it was indeed a split. It doesn't mean the Roman Catholic church would be "more catholic" than the Eastern church, or if it does, how do you explain it?

Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches see Orthodox as a number of schismatic Churches and therefore outside of the Catholic Church.

Orthodox Churches see Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches as schismatic and/or heretical Churches and therefore outside of the Catholic Church.

So their views on the boundaries of the Catholic Church are different and don't intersect.